User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 19

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)[reply]

Thank you. :) Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you so much. Mig (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whatever the facts, they must be worded neutrally. "Defending terrorism" is not a neutral wording. Please see our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The changes you proposed (using surname only) have now been made. Gerald Ryder (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

• File:Woods At Echo Lake.jpg
• File:Returnal (Oneohtrix Point Never album - cover art).jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not a talk page, and talk page policy does not apply. WP:CIVIL applies everywhere. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article Albums considered the greatest ever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It's been marked as being uncyclopedic since 2011, and a list of what people consider to be the greatest albums ever are not notable.

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)[reply]

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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• an apartment in this buildingt in this building in [[Uptown New Orleans]] c. May–September 1963]][[File:Pizzo Exh B-Oswald leaflets FPFC-WH Vol21 139.jpg|thumb|Oswald passing[File:Pizzo Exh B-
• backyard photo (CE 133-C) showing Oswald with newspapers held away from his body in his right hand).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The revised hook is longer than the maximum allowed under DYK rules. Please stop by again when you can. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm writing the article now. When I write a new article, I look to see what's already in Wikipedia in case there is some connection I missed during my research. I usually add links while I'm doing that so I don't have to duplicate the effort later. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I figured that was the case. I'll revert my reversion of your edit on Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009). —Diiscool (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Any comments you could make in that threat I would appreciate. It's already being sandbagged by User:The Devil's Advocate, who is making some vague but serious accusations against me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up some issues at Template:Did you know nominations/Nico Pitney. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no idea why you wish to remove it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For erasing POV cruft. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this!  TheSeven (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories? It looks like there are four archives linked to at the top of the page. Look here: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories/Archive_index and see if you find the conversation you are looking for. It looks like it goes back to October 2007. If there is earlier material missing, let me know and I will try to figure out where it went. Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the most recent archive, #4, ends in September 2007. Everything between then and march of this year is unarchived or the archives are unlinked. I could probably construct the missing archives by going over the history of changes to the talk page, but I thought there might be an easier way. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw messages later than that I thought. Perhaps they were saved out of order. Ill have a closer look. Gamaliel (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look, it seems everything since 9/06 is there, but disorganized. Archive 1 has the threads from 10/07 to 3/10. Archive 2 has 4/10 to 5/12. Archive 3 has 10/2006 to 9/07 then jumps to 5/2012 and goes to 1/2013. Archive 4 has the oldest info, 9/06 to 9/07. Threads older than 9/2006 are not archived. I would be glad to try to restore the threads from 2006 and earlier as archive 1, and reorganize the newer threads in order as archives 2,3 and 4. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK these are fixed. Archive 1 is now 11/04 to 9/06 (these were not previously archived), with newer material split between archives 2, 3 and 4. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even if everything you said is correct, you still don't have that "legal document", all you have is a web catalog entry which allegedly references some unnamed legal document. Wikipedia is about verifiable information from secondary sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If the secondary sources are incorrect, that is a matter for biographers or journalists to uncover, not Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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;

Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

The secondary source I added was a newspaper publication.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

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)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that last statement. Of course I looked at the sources I added, that is how I know what birthdate they listed for her. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you have secondary sources of interest, you should mention them on Talk:Lana Del Rey. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• What do you mean when you say "you state to see the link?
• One is the stage name of the other. Please don't waste my time with this nonsense about personas.
• You should have a look at Help:Diff to learn how to properly link to individual edits.

Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I explained my reasoning at Talk:John Gibson (political commentator). I hope you will respond to what I've said there. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it was totally my fault! I was clumsy with the screen on my tablet and accidentally hit the rollback button. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger Revelle (edit | 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I've reverted the change and will keep an eye on things. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't close legitimate discussions on article talk pages. It is disruptive to do so. Contrary to what Inayity said, the discussion on the talk page did contain content on the article. 71.251.46.119 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can see for ourselves the nature of the discussion and its irrelevance to the topic of racism. At best it is a fringe discussion. And just by adding in some text about "We should do xyz" does not excuse the forum tag and POV pushing the Ip is engaging in. If your intention is developing then start a different thread to address that development.--Inayity (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good idea. I've done it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user has created a sockpuppet to continue editing. See user:Jimbob Williams. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If this user is indeed Ranleewright, as long as he refrains from legal threats and offensive behavior, perhaps we should continue to allow him to edit. What do you think? Gamaliel (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you even suggested that. You seem to be saying, as an admistrator, that it is perfectly AOK to evade a block, and lie about it, in bad faith. No, it isn't. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I am not unsympathetic. My suggestion was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:Standard offer. The point of a block is not punishment, but to prevent certain harmful behaviors, and if these behaviors do not reoccur, I see little harm in letting the new account edit unobstructed. But sockpuppeteering and block evasion is, as you said, evidence of bad faith, and should the SPI provide proof of this, I do not oppose blocking. Gamaliel (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)

No problem. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd almost forgotten about it. It's good to have some progress on this issue, as I'd been uncomfortable with leaving an article more or less permanently blocked. It looks fine to me, but I trust your judgment regardless. I'll change the protection level to semi-protection for now, or do you think we should just unlock it all the way? Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No protection is OK, I think, if there's an editing issue then we can just semi it like any other article. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Gamaliel (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you using visual editor? It might be easier to navigate things like that if you edit the plain text where you can see all the markups. Click "edit source" instead of "edit".

I'm not endorsing one text over the other. And there are definitely plenty of times where you have to revert all of another editor's edit. But whenever possible you should attempt to preserve the parts of an edit which add value to the article. Adding a source that is of higher quality than any other source in a particular section is certainly that adds much value to the article and is something you should try to keep in the article. Perhaps you could see if the source supports any of your preferred text, or make additions to your preferred text based on new information you find in this source. If nothing else, you prevent yourself from being open to accusations that you are removing high quality sources for spurious reasons. Gamaliel (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It looks like the discussion has moved to WP:AN. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey my notification told me I was mentioned here! WP:Walled garden is an essay about links. It is not a policy about WP:RS. Rothbard has more than 1200 links on wikipedia. Hoppe has more than 250. Huerta de Soto has over 100. David Gordon (philosopher) has over 50. In all cases 1/2 to 2/3 are article mentions. That is not a Walled Garden. If there were only six Misean economists and they all only linked to each other that would be a walled garden. If walled garden was about sources, Bryan Caplan would be the tightest little garden in the world because the only source for 36 refs is Bryan Caplan webpages or articles, some of which make wondrous claims about Bryan Caplan. So enough already. User:Carolmooredc 11:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly no expert on economics, but I wonder if the Misean view is too prominent to qualify as WP:FRINGE. I'm sympathetic to your comments about the walled garden. I'm speaking conceptually and not in reference to Wikipedia:Walled_garden, an essay I'd never seen before today. Judging from Jesús Huerta de Soto, some non-Misean sources need to be brought to some of these articles. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insert--> I think the Hoppe link speaks for itself. Mainstream economists and indeed all non-Misesians, in the word of this prominent Misesian, regard the Misesian approach to be "unscientific dogma." To illustrate the fringe point further, consider the following from prominent Misesian/Austrian Walter Block (2):"Mainstreamers never (to my knowledge) make such overtures in their journals, and when Austrians offer to publish in neoclassical [mainstream -- steeletrape] journals, they are for the most part rebuffed." In the same piece, Block also notes that Gary Becker and James Buchanan, two of the most prominent economists in the world (Nobel Laureates) who like the Misesians are ideological libertarians, characterize the Misesian/Austrian approach to economics as a "cult."

Even if you're not sold on their being fringe, don't you think this deserves a hearing? If so, to what forum should I take these concerns and invite the community to opine. Steeletrap (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on bringing in outside sources. What you'll find, if you review talk page of Huerta de Soto (and several other BLPs of Austrians), is that such sources are challenged and deleted repeatedly by Specifico and Steeletrap and fought about on the talk page with me, Srich and other passerbys. This is the most disruptive editing I've had to deal with over so many articles since Israel-Palestine articles and at least they had an arbitration to keep them in line. Maybe what we need is a temporary 1RR on all these articles! What a concept. User:Carolmooredc 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, carolmooredc, you could state that concern without making any (disparaging, untrue) references to other editors. The issue can be described and discussed solely in terms of content and policy. Second, no resolution is possible if you do not state the diffs to which you refer. Please provide the diffs of non-Miesian sources which you state are "challenged and deleted repeatedly... and fought about" If you cannot or will not do so, I ask you to reconsider your post above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please read my comments at WP:ANEW regarding the report you filed against Niteshift. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Glad I could help! Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to on Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. Judicatus | Talk 21:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you direct me to talk page discussion where you've tried to discuss this with the other editors? If not, you should start a talk page discussion and I will participate. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted for some reason? Can editors be vandals? Here is the discussion that I placed on the talk page:

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? Sageorsun (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears that you have broken Wikipedia rules regarding the inappropriate use of more than one account. Please see Wikipedia:ILLEGIT. If you wish to contest that block, log into your account and place Template:Unblock on your user page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the article and seeing if the information that was removed should be there. I do not want to cause trouble. 141.217.173.211 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you are having is your use of multiple accounts. I suggest you log into one of your accounts and contest your block as I described above by pledging to use only a single account from now on. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You shouldn't be allowed to edit information on political articles. You're biased. That's not a "personal attack." It's the truth.