User talk:Gamaliel

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia but will still occasionally edit the world's fifth biggest website just like anyone else. Any messages left here may be ignored.

Contents

Your draft article, Draft:Virginia Women's Monument

Hello, Gamaliel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Virginia Women's Monument".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Meszzy² (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cv listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cv. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Launchballer 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Gamaliel,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Help?

I'm looking for a source that would be critical for creating an article. Megalibrarygirl has been unable to locate it and thought you might be able to access it. I live in Mexico and have no access to libraries here. Is there any chance that you would have access to this? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate electronic access to this unfortunately. I would try WP:REREQ, they are usually very good about finding journal articles. (You might want to include the ISSN: 2194-5071 in your request to help editors locate the journal.) If that fails, the German Historical Institute subscribes to the journal and I can try to get it from there. I'm always willing to take a field trip to investigate specialized libraries, but they have limited hours so I'm not sure how long it will take before I can get down there. Gamaliel (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try there, but I may come back and ask. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That worked like a charm! Already received the article. Thank you for pointing me there! SusunW (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Pithey

Do you remember the case of Jack William Pithey, on whose talk page you participated in a discussion some years ago? I've found a new source (of dubious quality, but still). DS (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't recall that article. Has anyone checked if there's an obituary in The Times? Gamaliel (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

You appear to be a little active recently, thanks for that. Just saying hello, I incidentally found your bot-updated sandbox which I watchlisted (when handling conspiracy theories related linkspam). —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have a lot of stuff in my user space that I've forgotten about, not sure what you're referring to. Gamaliel (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel/sandbox, but I just noticed that the links list may have been copied there (and not updated by the bot in that sandbox, afterall). (It's similar to what's here.) —PaleoNeonate – 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

I don't have the word count to reply you at ArbCom's case request, so I'm here. There's a difference between mere dissent, versus personal attacks without evidence, and accusations of real crimes being committed. starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Fascism? Seriously? starship.paint (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request

Hi Gamaliel, I'm SQL and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed your statement referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee -SQL^{Query me!} 01:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

What was this about? And while I'm here, why are you retired? I've long appreciated your contributions. R2 (bleep) 00:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Whatever Attkinsson or her followers claim, I did not call her names. I wasn't shy about tearing into the followers that went after me first, of course. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I'd appreciate it if you remove that comment and not restore it again. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I corrected it. Sorry, I'm not terribly facile with Twitter and thought you were responding directly to Attkisson. R2 (bleep) 00:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, the whole thing was a mess, and she and her followers were pretty loose with the truth, so there were a lot of false claims flying around twitter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Go figure. You didn’t answer my question about retirement though. R2 (bleep) 01:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Despite how cool a number of individual editors are, this community as a whole is toxic and I'm tired of it. I spend most of my time on Wikidata. Gamaliel (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No question that there are some nasty, vocal contributors that make the editing experience less enjoyable. However some excellent, quieter folks have found ways to be productive while avoiding the drama. Maybe think about what brought you to Wikipedia in the first place? R2 (bleep) 17:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For withstanding the assault on Twitter and your previous reporting on Attkisson and Wikipedia. Don't let the haters drag you down! Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A question

Regarding this diff; Eric Corbett voted to oppose. Or are you voting to support specifically because Eric Corbett is opposing? Because given his rationale, I understand if so.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The latter. His rationale is absurd. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Baseless aspersions

Strike your remark suggesting I was WP:INVOLVED in the Signpost dispute. I previously read the article and liked it. But a significant number of people thought it was a problem, so better safe than sorry. We have had enough firestorms these last few weeks. Jehochman ^Talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One more thing. WP:BLPADMINS enforcement is allowed by involved admins, so please recognize that your argument is likely frivolous. Jehochman ^Talk 10:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So, your argument that you are not involved is that "a significant number of people thought it was a problem, so better safe than sorry." You may be right regarding process, but it might be useful to think a bit about what WP:INVOLVED means and why the policy exists. Just don't let that interrupt your important job of censoring things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: edit summary. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I love that movie! Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Krys Lee

Why did you move this draft to mainspace without making any effort to mitigste the serious copyright problems. As I noted when removing it from the AFC queue, most of the substantive text is taken verbatim from the sources cited? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not mention any copyright problems. Gamaliel (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I left moderately detailed comments, which wouldn't fit in an edit summary, on the creator's talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I've already dealt with the copyright issue. Gamaliel (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Kids Against Combs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kids Against Combs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids Against Combs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pixie dust

Clearly, Jorm summoned me here with his magic pixiedust. Thanks for that. I enjoyed it. I'd really like to help people find a way to live with each other, rather than having a struggle for control where various factions try to get each other's members banned. Our goal should never be to ban a long time contributor. We should find ways to help them be their best selves. A ban is really a last resort, taken with reluctance when there's no other choice. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He should have been banned in 2014.--Jorm (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You're possibly right. I remember the case and probably commented on it. I'll go look and see what I said then. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was 5-5 to ban Eric. Easily could have gone either way. Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the many other long time contributors harmed and alienated by this project enabling the toxic and juvenile behavior of a certain favored subset of contributors. Gamaliel (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a good argument to make. The benefit of a Fram-like editor is evident in the number of quality articles produced. The harm of poor interactions with other editors is diffuse and hard to measure. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A fun game to play is to read through the sum of Fram's entire contributions history on Mediawiki.org to see what kind of a person they are and imagine how they drive contributors away.--Jorm (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like he's going to suffer a desysop, which is a strong repudiation of his style. Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, he might have to pass another RFA. Hardly much of a repudiation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Many editors are capable of producing quality articles without being a gigantic asshat. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...that all Wikidrama aside (and I know that's saying something), your contributions are missed. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I don't feel any compulsion to donate my time for free to a project that encourages and enables so much toxic behavior, but I am I am heartened to see some small steps towards divesting itself of its worst elements. Gamaliel (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I miss your contributions as well but I understand your position. Many people have gotten burned over the years and not all of the damage has been acknowledged. We don't know what might have been contributed by newcomers who've been bitten and never came back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It's hard to measure the impact of what has not been contributed, but it's frustrating that so many discussions proceed as if that harm does not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)