User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March to August 2004

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.[edit]

I saw your comment about Nationmaster on Talk:José Martí. They are known to copy our pages, and are listed on copies of Wikipedia content.

Here's some tips:

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 02:52, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Please check your edit to Recent deaths - something of your system mutilates certain characters. I suggest you correct that. --Wik 22:19, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine on my end, can you be more specific? Gamaliel 22:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See the two changes here? You added a death, and you also changed "Tausky´" to "Tausky´". This is probably a problem with your browser, I've seen this with other people before. --Wik 22:40, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how I changed the Tausky. Any ideas? I'm using explorer 5.1 for mac Gamaliel 22:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No idea. Maybe you could test it with another browser. Then again, maybe the mac itself is the problem. --Wik 23:37, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question, which will perhaps be nonsensical to you :) I notice you made the "Hroswitha" redirect the other day - are you by any chance a quiz bowl player? Adam Bishop 01:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good (but geeky) catch. I came here after I read that argument on yahoo. I play for USF. You? Gamaliel 07:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
UWO for me. Adam Bishop 01:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see the double play trio of Tinker, Evers and Chance finally finished. Consider yourself wikipaid (if I can call it that, at one wikidollar a biography... at any rate, thanks). -- Matty j 07:30, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)


GO bulls! Nice to meet you!Dominick 02:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Van Vechten[edit]

Thanks for adding all those Van Vechten photographs! --Larrybob 22:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WikiMoney bounty[edit]

I saw that Lst27 claimed your bounty for creating a "substantive" article on the Kinshasa Highway, transferring wikimoney from your account to his/hers. Needless to say, the article is not in the least bit "substantive", and I have transferred the money back, as only the person offering the bounty should be the one awarding it. - snoyes 14:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Modesto Cartagena[edit]

You insist in erasing my link : For more on Famous Puerto Ricans Click here: List Of Puerto Ricans, from my articule. Do you have something against people having access to that link? Do you have something against Puerto Ricans? It seems that you have a problem with me, what's up? Stop vandalizing my page and lets get along O.K? User: Marine 69-71

I have no problem with you, I have no idea who you are nor do I recall reading any of your contributions. I have no problem with Puerto Ricans, as I am Latino myself. I resent the ugly implication that I am racist and I'll thank you not to make that again. It is not "your page", it is an article on wikipedia and I edited it with no ulterior or personal motives. I feel that links that say things like "to learn more about topic x see y" sound juvenile, more like an afterschool special than a professional encylopedia. And I don't see the need to link to "list of puerto ricans" from every article about a Puerto Rican, if people want to learn about them they'll look it up themselves. I also deleted several links to "list of movie directors" from some movie articles. Am I biased against movie directors too? Gamaliel 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I respect your opinion but, remember it's your opinion. I wrote the articule for the enjoyment of everyone and I do believe that everybody has a right to learn about what other people of my nationality have done, with my link. This not a school thing, but an opertunity for others to link into another site for educational purposes. Like you said, this is a professional encyclopedia, but one that is a computor encyclopedia where links, internal and external are permitted. So, come on let it go and let's be cool about it, O.K?

User: Marine 69-71

I was being cool about it until you accused me of being a racist and I will be cool about it again when you apologize. Gamaliel 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let's understand each other, I did not say you were racist. I know your interest in Modesto Cartagena so, the racist part goes out the window. I just did't understand your editing the link to other Famous Puerto Ricans. According to a Wikipedian Administrator 90% of the their have ==See Also== links. So, do you want to call it a truce? [User:Marine 69-71]]
I have no personal interest the article or you, one way or the other. If you had a question about my changes or did not understand why I made them, all you had to do was ask. But you said "do you have something against Puerto Ricans?" on both my talk page and the edit history, insinuating in a very public way that I was racist or I had racist motivations in making those changes, something I consider an offensive personal attack. I have no interest in prolonging any sort of unpleasantness, but unless you apologize on the talk page of that article for your public insinuation, I do not consider this matter closed. Gamaliel 05:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize about never have, never will. If you don't want to put an end to the matter well then, that's your problem. I tried.

User: Marine 69-71

You did not try. You don't forge a truce just by announcing one. You find common ground. You made no effort to find common ground or compromise, you simply ignored your hurtful insinuations and declared an end to a disagreement you started with no effort to address why it started. Gamaliel 05:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having a link to List of Puerto Ricans under a ==See also== section near the bottom of an article about a Puerto Rican, makes perfect sense to me. If and when a category called category:Puerto Ricans gets created, then that link will get replaced. --mav 04:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems silly to me to go around putting links like that below every article when we have categories for precisely that reason. Maybe I'll go ahead and create that category and get it over with. Gamaliel 05:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Behold, the already extant Category:Puerto Rican people! Tregoweth 22:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry: 1971 meeting section[edit]

It's NOT an "irrelevancy" and you are PROVING your BIAS by saying that!==

Rex071404 17:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I am guessing that you are trying to start an EDIT WAR, so as to get the Kerry page "protected" and thereby lock in your obvious pro-Kerry censorship!

Rex071404 17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is my post (which YOU keep removing!): {deleted five paragraph section and picture which can be seen on the John Kerry page history}

Please calm down. I have no wish to have a fued over this. I do not "keep removing" this. I removed it once entirely once. Others did the same. It was repeatedly restored. Apparently the consensus is that some version of this incident belongs. This does not mean your version or the original version is holy writ. I edited it with an eye towards condensing it. Five paragraphs is not called for, so I revised it into a one paragraph version. You expanded it to four, I culled that down to two. I figured we were working towards a version we both could live with.

I believe this is an irrelevancy, as I would believe it to be an irrelevancy to the career and biography of any politican of any party. A quickly shouted down suggestion at a meeting he may or may not have attended? A suggestion which no one, pro or anti Kerry, claims he ever had any hand in formulating? Who fucking cares? It doesn't deserve one paragraph, much less five. Rant about my supposed bias all you want, this is irrelevant nonsense. And your anti-Kerry bias, with your rants on Talk:John Kerry Catholic priest abuse and the Weathermen, is plain to see.

Oh I see... in your view it's a "fucking" irrelevancy that Kerry was indeed at a meeting where illegal killings were proposed, yet HE NEVER REPORTED IT TO THE POLICE and LIED ABOUT WHEN HE QUIT THE VVAW so as to HIDE the fact that he continued to be associated with VVAW EVEN AFTER KILLING SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE.
If you are so hot on editing sections from John Kerry, why son't you prune some of the exces details concerning his crappy little 4 month tour of duty as a swift boat commander.
You are obsesseds with removing my NYT and other links because it proves that your champion john kerry is a phoney, a liar and outright dangerous. Hmmmm.... excepting that I am not as "wild" as you claim, I might otherwise really post some stuff you don't like

Rex071404 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if that section is such an "irrelevancy" to you, then you shouldn't give a rat's ass if it stays in or not. Oops! I said "ass". But I guesss that's ok since you've already started SWEARING at me!

Rex071404 20:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I wanted an edit war, I would have reverted all your edits. If you want to rant and make wild accusations, do it somewhere else. Gamaliel 17:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your snide comments prove nothing. I am NOT "ranting" and I am not making "accusations", neither at you, nor at Mr. Kerry. As for what you consider "wild", I will tell you that as a child, I loved the book "where the wild things are", but I am gussing you don;t mean that. So then, precisly what are you refrring to as "wild"?...

Rex071404 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, it is indeed you who, without valid cause (and possible pro-Kerry bias), keeps butchering this: {Five paragraphs and picture deleted again for space reasons.}

You claim you are not making accusations and then accuse me of pro-Kerry bias. I am not butchering anything, I am attempting to condense five paragraphs of blather into a readable, NPOV form which everyone can live with. Are you interested in working towards an NPOV version or would you rather just yell at me? Gamaliel 20:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerry and VVAW[edit]

Hi Gamaliel,

I know you feel strongly about the election, as do many others, but that is not an excuse for mass reversion, which is generally against policy, especially without explanation.

As to Kerry and the VVAW and that Kansas City meeting, it is quite relevant to Kerry's article, and I'm sure Kerry and most of his supporters know it. Perhaps more important than the fact of his being at the meeting, well backed up by articles in the mainstream press and tacitly acknowledged by Kerry himself, are the possible reasons why he says he doesn't remember it.

Looking at it as a journalist, if he acknowledges being at the meeting, it opens the door for questions he would probably not want to have to answer. For example: "Did you know about the discussion to assassinate US politicians?" If he says no, the press will dig to find people who were there who can testify Kerry had heard of it. In that case (or if he acknowledges he had heard it but didn't take it seriously or whatever) the next question: "You knew there were people threatening violence who might possibly have committed it, with or without the VVAW's support. Did you tell any authorities about that? Why not?" In the post 9/11 milieu, those are questions he might not want to answer. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What mass reversion? I haven't been removing that section at all, I have been attempting to condense a rambling 5 paragraph version into a compromise verison that we can all live with. Please actually look at my contributions to that article. None of my edits have been reversions, they have all been different, condensed versions of that story, all of which keep the original information intact. Gamaliel 21:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is common on contentious articles to say that one is merely condensing and "making sense." That material is brief and relevant. If you think the Kerry article is too long, there is a lot of unimportant fluff that can be taken out. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You and Rex have both said I should look at fluff elsewhere. I've chosen to start here, and I have a lot of other wiki projects on my burners too, so why should I look elsewhere? Why don't the two of you work on some other section instead of reverting this one? The material is not brief, it's almost as long as his Vietnam service, and he probably wasn't even at the meeting. It's way out of proportion to its actual relevance, and condensing it is not a "whitewash". Please tone down the bias rhetoric and let's attempt to find common ground. Gamaliel 21:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To excise factual sourced material to minimize something to the point of insignicance is bias and a lie. I have explained at some length why this is important, as is much of Kerry's VVAW experience. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I believe it is insignificant, in that he did not participate in this non-incident and probably didn't even witness it. Perhaps that is a bias, but no more so than your belief that it is relevant. Gamaliel 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For VVAW, I would be satisfied with this (see below)[edit]

Rex071404 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

{Deleted five paragraph proposed section for space reasons}

I'll discuss that on Talk:John Kerry. Gamaliel 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I await your answer...

Rex071404 04:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When did I say he does get the final say? Please stop going on about nonsense. Gamaliel 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex071404. Ambivalenthysteria 07:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Just signed. Gamaliel 07:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Top 100 Lists[edit]

Gamaliel, I notice that you have been adding to the Modern Library or mentioning it on all related articles. I wrote a rather heated post about this yesterday, here: Wikipedia:Village_pump#Modern_Library - I didn't realise you were adding most of them and I don't mean anything personal; I also hate to be suggesting that all your well-intentioned work be revamped. But essentially, the list was something of an advertisement (more detail in the main article), and I think mentioning it as a recommendation is unfair to both the work, to many other major writers who are ignored on that list, and a bit on the side of commercialism and POV; if we could work out some kind of compromise on this I would love to hear of it. -- Simonides 06:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I don't take it personally, those are valid criticisms, but this is a popular and frequently referred to list, and I don't see any more harm in referring to it than in, say, writing articles about private companies. What do you suggest as a compromise? Gamaliel 06:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I think some sort of disclaimer, in consideration of the controversy surrounding the list, should be in order. I can't think of anything right now but I am open to suggestions. -- Simonides 07:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The controversies seem to be well covered in the Modern Library article. Do you think the category pages should mention them as well? I have no objection to including a brief summary/disclaimer there. Gamaliel 07:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Possibly the category page, but certainly everywhere that the list is mentioned as some sort of achievement; I don't mind sharing in the task of making changes. I think we could use a standard sentence like "[[Modern Library]] selected [[Novel X]] among its top 100 novels." - the difference in implication being that Modern Library didn't establish the top 100 works, but selected them from its own pool. -- Simonides 08:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Another suggestion. We could remove mention of the Modern Library from each article where it's mentioned, simply retaining the category, and use a clearer disclaimer on the Category page. This should be less work too. -- Simonides 08:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something like the sentence you suggested sounds fine to me. Or we could remove the mentions altogether; I'm sure the category will suffice for books ranked, say, 78. However, there probably should be some sort of note for higher ranking (1-10 or so) works within the text of the article itself.
Do you have a specific article/s in mind that you consider particularly in need of editing? Perhaps if I saw an example I could get a better idea of the concerns you have. Gamaliel
I just looked at the What Links Here page for Modern Library - there are dozens of pages that mention it. This is the sort of stuff I'd like to remove, which appears on author pages more often than book pages: "In 2001, two of his books, The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms, would be named to the list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century by the editorial board of the American Modern Library." It appears in the introduction to Ernest Hemingway, so it's pretty prominent - if we could split the articles between us, choosing the top or bottom half, and remove such phrases, that would be great (we can retain the category on relevant book pages, without mentioning phrases like the above in the body of the article itself.) -- Simonides 07:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to the talk page for John Kerry resulted is a massive deletion of text

Is this what you intended or am I misreading the log and I have made an error? This is urgent, your assistance for restoration is needed. Rex071404 06:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know you say I did it, but looking here at the log does not make it clear to me how.
Would you be willing to explain that to me?
Thank you
Rex071404 06:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As you can see, I've already restored the talk page. This is the edit where you deleted all the text. Gamaliel 06:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The poll was not determanative because others quit dialoging[edit]

By refusing to addres the issue of the truthfulness off facts, JML, Wolfman and Neutrality were dialogin in bad faith. This prevented me form making changes that would suit them. their only interest is a pro-Kerry POV. Rex071404 07:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The facts were being discussed, the issues were being addressed. You can't just declare the poll invalid and dismiss the votes of over a dozen people, and as you saw tonight, those people won't stand for it. Gamaliel 07:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


You graduated from USF? I'm going to be attending classes there. Mike H 23:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm trying to do it again. There's a couple of us lurking on Wikipedia. Nice to meet you. Gamaliel 23:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, you too. Did you see Wikipedia:Meetup recently? I want to make a Meetup in Tampa. Jimbo will be able to go. Mike H 23:44, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the heads up, I should be able to go. Gamaliel 23:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Well, I did have some primary sources from the time, so I figured I'd use them. It's really neat to have a copy of ATWT the day Kennedy was shot, because it was preempted like that. Mike H 14:36, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

John Kery Talk Page Edit[edit]

well you just vandalised yourself memoving my comment form the talk page, how rude.-- 07:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying you are User: who blanked John Kerry and replaced it with a political whine? Then you've removed yourself from all consideration by your actions. Don't act rudely and you won't be treated rudely. Gamaliel 07:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry[edit]

Please do not insult other users. I know how difficult Rex can be to deal with - I blocked him for 24 hours yesterday because of how he was behaving on John Kerry. And, if his behavior continues, I will block him again. However, I can only justify doing this if the people he's debating with are not behaving badly. That is to say, please stop belittling Rex and his contributions, as much as you disagree with them. Suggesting that he's stupid and illiterate does not further the discussion. Looking at his contributions, I think he's been trying to be better since his 24 hour block. Please m:Assume good faith and let him have the chance to reform. Thanks. Snowspinner 13:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking, even before I logged on today, that I got carried away last night. You're right in that respect. I've done my best to not directly insult or bait Rex, though there is only so much of his constant invective one can take, and I have responded (a bit too often perhaps) to his postings. However, I do not think I suggested he was "stupid" or "illiterate", or even anything close to it, and I feel that's a highly exaggerated interpretation of what was actually said. I did twice mention his (in his words) "honed language skills", but only after he accused JamesMLane of being jealous of them. I have also made a point of praising Rex when I thought it warranted. But regardless of what was actually said, your point is taken, and I can only blame fatigue (it was early in the morning in my time zone) and my carelessness. Gamaliel 17:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I never used the word "jealous" Rex071404 04:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Frankly JML, I think you are simply frusrated that I have sufficiently honed language skills that I can convey informaiton in a variety of ways."

Oh my God[edit]

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long while. (baby jesus). Thanks for the laugh, very nearly put me on the floor literally.Wolfman 03:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Ponderous discussions about meaningless "issues" need all the laughs they can get. Gamaliel 03:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps if you did not think of my ideas as being "meaningless", you would be able to appreciate them better Rex071404 04:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Baby jesus[edit]

That was hilarious. Thanks for doing that. By the way, I'm collecting evidence and I'd like it if you could help: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence.--Neutrality 18:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I added a bunch of Rex quotes, mostly attacks on me, but also Wolfman, JML, Ambi, and Lyellin. Gamaliel 19:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jiggs and Maggie[edit]

Shouldn't you mention that the strip was also known as Jiggs and Maggie, at least familiarly?

And in your Movies list, you don't have the names of some of the movies!

Cheers, Hayford Peirce 03:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Bringing Up Father? I didn't know it was known as "Jiggs and Maggie" as well, though that makes sense. Also, someone else added the film list. I assume, however, that the unnamed films were simply called 'Bringing Up Father' like the strip. Gamaliel 03:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, Bringing up Father. When I was a kid we always referred to it as Jiggs and Maggie. I think that maybe the Header eventually became: "Bringing Up Father: Featuring Jiggs and Maggie". Or some such....

About the films: I'll bet that they probably had Jiggs and Maggie in the titles somewhere.

It's sort of like the old Phil Silvers TV show. It was actually called something like : "The Phil Silvers Show: You're In the Army Now." But everyone simply called it "the Sergeant Bilko show"....

Best, Hayford Peirce 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Sgt. Bilko... I can't wait until that comes out on DVD, whatever its called. Gamaliel 04:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove my SBVT link?[edit]

I was just told by another user, that we are not to remove Wiki links, regardless. Does this same rule apply to you, or not? Rex071404 17:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about this rule. I do know that it is usually the case in wiki articles to only link the first occurrance of something, and later occurances are not linked. You had two links to the same SBVT article in the same sentence. Gamaliel 17:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A question for you[edit]

The fact that you concede that my comments are "often ignored" makes my point. What we disagree on is whether or not my inquires are nothing but gratuitous muck raking. I say that they are on point, thoughtful and germane. At the same time, I suppose you are free to characterize my efforts as posing "loaded questions" in attempt "to steer the debate".

Frankly, I am pretty sure we all try to "steer the debate". That leaves "loaded questions". Which of my recent questions are you offended by, and why? Rex071404 05:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

I've got a watchlist, Rex. I saw your comment there, and I replied there. No need to deal with it here as well. Gamaliel 06:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


No problem, Gamaliel; after all, it's good to include Mozart's reply. Cheers, Opus33 19:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Leaving for Tampa[edit]

Change of plans...we're accelerating our packing due to Bonnie. We may be too late, but we're going to leave on Thursday anyway. We should be in Tampa by Saturday. Mike H 22:37, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Bonnie too much. Hurricanes are mostly bark, at least in this area. So what part of town are you moving to? Gamaliel 23:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, since it's USF, wouldn't that be the northside? Mike H 23:03, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, northeast. But nobody really thinks of it as one homogeneous area, as there's pockets of rich (New Tampa) and poor (Suitcase City) and inbetween. Gamaliel 23:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's very different from Jacksonville, then. You have the northside, southside, westside, Mandarin, the beaches... Mike H 23:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Picture of Rockwell Kent[edit]

Cool! Nice! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having fun adding these pics. Gamaliel 06:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "duplicates" of which you speak, are TOC name duplicates only. They actually are differing sections. The second set, is the "criticism" section which keeps merging with the bio section due to edits of others who keep reverting me and removing the "line" which separates sections

Rex071404 21:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Answered the same query on Talk:John Kerry. I don't know why you feel the need to post the same question in multiple places. Gamaliel 22:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The page is now protected again. Meanwhile, the ArbCom is apparently sitting back and giving everyone a full opportunity to present evidence and comments... which is fine as far as it goes but it means we'll be condemned to the current situation for a long time. I'm extremely frustrated. If you agree with me, I urge you to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Request for immediate temporary injunction and support my request there. Thanks! JamesMLane 04:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done and done. As you can see from my latest comments on Talk:John Kerry, I'm pretty fed up with this nonsense too. Gamaliel 05:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Unilateral" Declaration[edit]

You suggestion that I am making "unilateral" declarations is patently false. Here are the facts:

  • Today's date is 08.13.04 (where I am)
  • Mbecker and I had an "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - 08.13.04 v.1 - (please comment)" version in progress and under discussion today.
  • JML has not particpated in the discussion about that version in any kind of good faith manner.

Rather, he has jumped to quickly reverting me - and now you are tag-teaming with him. Shame!

Rex071404 02:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are ignoring the previous consensus, which cannot be dismissed by an unfinished discussion by two editors. Gamaliel 02:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There was not "previous consensus". Rather, there was a limited few (JML, Neutrality, etc) who agreed among themselves and ignored those who dissented. That is not consensus.

And if you don't think that others (mostly JML and Neutrality) ingore me - especially when I prove them wrong, watcth the JK talk page and see what JML says about this rebuttal of mine:

  • The crew mates quotations contradict the narrative, which is that the enemy soldier was running.
  • The crew mates quotations contradict each other
  • The alleged life and death risk of the boat possibly being hit by RPG round is overstated - this is evidenced by text in the "Second Purple Heart" narrative (see John Kerry), which plainly states "As the Swift boats reached the Cua Lon, Kerry's boat was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade round, and a piece of hot shrapnel hit Kerry's left leg".
  • Since it is quite clear that Kerry's boat was more than able to survive an RPG round, to include the rhetorically rich quotations of the crew mates in the manner in which JML wants to, is clearly POV.
  • And of course, since the quotes contradict each other and the narrative, they must be excluded on the basis of good writing.

Rex071404 04:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all of this proves. That eyewitness testimony of firefights can differ in small details? That a swiftboat can survive an RPG attack means that there's no danger from someone firing an RPG at them?
And it seems to me you are defining consensus in such a way that it excludes consensus achieved without your consent. Gamaliel 04:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry is friend to all children[edit]

In the Rex arbitration, you wrote: "I made the mistake of attempting to inject humor into a tense and ridiculous situation by typing in the edit summary 'John Kerry is friend to all children'. This was an obvious reference to Gamera and I thought it was an obvious bit of silliness." I took it as silliness but I thought you just made it up, spoofing Rex's idea of a cabal of Kerry operatives. The "obvious reference" missed me completely. Is this a catch phrase in the Gamera oeuvre? JamesMLane 14:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any sort of authoritative reference on the web, but yeah, it's a common catchphrase in the universe of Gamera, Godzilla, et al. Gamaliel 17:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Didn't it originate from Mystery Science Theater 3000? Tregoweth 17:50, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
I can't say for sure I remember it from a movie, so it may very well be. This is more your area of expertise than mine anyway. Gamaliel 17:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I started a thread on the Straight Dope about it, and one guy says he remembers the line from the first Gamera film. Gamaliel 21:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Gamaliel[edit]

Would you mind voting to support my adminship nomination on RfA? I'd be very thankful. Neutrality 02:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, I already voted yesterday. :) Gamaliel 02:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh. :P Neutrality 02:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry "sponsorship of legislation"[edit]

The original numbers from the Kerry web site are accurate. I double-checked them prior to my originally inserting that table some time ago. The currently displayed lower numbers are not accurate.

Also, I have extended an olive branch to Neutrality and would like to do so to you also.

I am intesrested to discuss why I was so bothered by the "baby Jesus" comment. Are you interested to dialog on that and related topics towards th aim of puttingg past difficulties behind us?

Please advise

Rex071404 07:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to your message, one question comes to mind, and please understand that I don’t ask this out of hostility or a desire to prolong any animosity. But that question is: Why should I believe you? Your behavior seems to change based on the needs of the moment. You make noises about improving your behavior but you level those same insults and accusations when it suits your purposes. You say things like you have nothing against me one moment, and then next you are again accusing me of being an anti-Christian bigot. Again, I don’t say this because I wish to prolong any ill feelings, I just want you to see this from my perspective. The best way to mend fences is not to simply declare you are “moving forward”, but to establish a consistent pattern of proper behavior. End the accusations and the retaliatory attacks like this one and simply behave. The rest will take care of itself. Gamaliel 05:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you go to the link to the Kerry official web site (the link is in the article) and add up the bills sponsored as I did? Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me. If you think I am wrong, go check the Kerry web site links and add up the bills yourself - you will see that I am right. Are you afraid to be proven wrong? PS: I found the "baby Jesus" taunt to be very offensive and not at all charitable in a Christian sense. Therefore, since it was not intended to edify, it could only have been meant derisvely. To me, an intentional faith-implicating taunt is a bigoted thing. Rex071404 08:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem?

I have not restored the John Kerry chart to its original numbers simply because I have not gotten around to it. Unlike you, I don’t hover around the same 2 or 3 articles, I do a lot of varied work here on wikipedia. And I shouldn’t have to justify my actions to you, nor should you be throwing out rude and shrill accusations and taunts like “Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me” and “Are you afraid to be proven wrong?”. This is exactly the sort of negative behavior I am talking about in my comments above, and in your reply you provide a prime example of it. This is why I do not believe you are sincere when you claim that you have changed or will change your negative behavior.

Do not post here again unless you are prepared to be civil. Gamaliel 17:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a separate note; unless and until Neutrality comes down off his high horse and makes the effort to clear the air with me (as I have invited him to several times) I will remain convinced that he is to be suspected and kept on a short leash. That being the case, any "slack" that one might otherwise cut him, I feel should not be allowed. It is precisely his refusal to clear the air, which continues to make me wary of him and his motives. As such, my opposition to his name is founded in logic and reason, not "retaliation" Rex071404 08:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the original table, with the correct numbers (easily verifiable on Kerry web site):

Sponsorship of Legislation[edit]

Senator Kerry, in the last 10 years, as shown on his Senate web site [1], has sponsored these bills:



 Bills Sponsored

 Signed into law












 S.791 [2]










I'm here! It's really nice. Mike H 16:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Your Edit Summary[edit]

How does this vulgar Edit Summary of yours jibe with your previous protestations to me regarding you being a Christian?:

"22:14, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Gamaliel (fuck fuck fuck)" - from here

Rex071404 00:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess now you've just abandoned all pretense of trying to mend fences and you're on the attack again? Also, please let me know who appointed you arbiter for proper Christian behavior. Gamaliel 00:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It was a question, plain and simple. If you choose to not answer it, so be it. Rex071404 04:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Don't pretend you even care what the answer is. It was just another one of your snide attacks. Gamaliel 05:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's too bad you think that. Perhaps if you asked more questions before reaching such conclusions, we would dialog better. Rex071404 18:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We would "dialog better" if you stopped insulting me.
My religious beliefs and your questions and rude insinuations about them are of no relevance to your behavior on wikipedia. If you wish to discuss your behavior on wikipedia and are willing to do so without insults or snide remarks, I am willing as well. Gamaliel 19:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... Ok, here is a test of your sincerity: Yes or No, are you willing to concede that a person can honestly interpret your "baby Jesus" edit as an intentional taunt? Please advise. Rex071404 07:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I honestly don’t believe that my joke can be construed as an intentional taunt. I believe it is an obvious and harmless joke (one that I’ve heard often) and was obviously intended to diffuse a tense situation caused by your accusations.

Even if a person honestly takes offense at such harmless humor, what do you think is the more appropriate, reasonable response?

1) I am offended by that joke and I’d appreciate it if you don’t make jokes about Jesus as I personally view them as anti-Christian, though I am sure you did not intend it that way.

2) You are an anti-Christian bigot!!

Gamaliel 18:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This dialog makes baby Jesus cry. Mike H 18:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
rotflmao Gamaliel 18:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And you never responded to my Tampa message! I want to meet up sometime. Mike H 19:05, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Definately. Is the Tampa wikimeet still a go? Gamaliel 19:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not sure. September 11 seems a go but I think I should drop notes on talk pages for everyone in Florida. Mike H 04:24, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Re: SBVT / Talk[edit]

You said: "We should not have any interest in "balance" so it falls midway between Dem and GOP...".

Question to you: Why not?

Rex071404 15:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Our interest is in objectively looking at the situation and documenting it. If the facts support one side and not the other, we should state that regardless of what side it is.
Objectivity is not the same thing as balance. If, for example, one side says "Hitler was from Saturn", and the other says, "Hitler was Austrian", should we try to achieve "balance" by spending half the Hitler article on his supposed birth on Saturn and half on his childhood in Austria? The principle of balance does a factual encyclopedia little good. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your analogy is flawed. Correlating that to Kerry vs. SBVT, are you suggesting that one side is telling facts such as "Austrian" and the other lies, such as "Saturn"? Rex071404 03:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You asked me for clarification on one of my statements, and I further explained my reasoning. If you think my opinions of objectivity vs. balance are flawed, fine, we can discuss that, but I'm not going to debate the validity of an analogy. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A simple yes or no is all that's required - that's not a debate. Rex071404 06:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Facts should be reported as facts and lies should be reported as lies. Facts which disprove lies should not be reported as "counterclaims" but as facts. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's something akin to a vote over on Talk:SBVT. Just letting you know since you've been recently active over there. I might be digging in my heels a bit hard here, because his initial suggestion (elsewhere) was just over the top. Your thoughts would be appreciated, if you dare enter the soul-sucking, mind-numbing wasteland that is Talk SBVT. Wolfman 00:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, dear God, it makes my head hurt just reading that stuff. I'll try to keep up and contribute what I can. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)