User talk:RPJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After seeing this edit it's pretty clear that you're not aware of Wikipedia:NPOV, which is a fundamental rule here. Gamaliel 05:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Kennedy assassination theories 2 From a suspected user who has a tendency to revert things with cryptic comments 3 Your recent talk page comments 4 Your reverts to Lee Harvey Oswald 5 Personal attacks 6 Your point is not well taken 7 Blocked 8 Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination 9 Answer to Mavrick623 10 User:Gamaliel's userpage 11 deceptive edit summaries 12 Answer 13 My talk page 14 What is Wikipedia? 15 Stick to the point: Illegal deletions, are they happening or not? 16 PROVE IT!!! 17 Blocking 18 Rifle Section... 19 Ramsquire never seems to give sources 20 User talk:Gamaliel 21 Block warning for harassment 22 It's A good thing 23 Block message 24 Assassination Records Review Board 25 Entrance wound or exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head 26 Support for RPJ 27 Disruption 28 Clinton Hill 29 Calm down and have a cup of tea 30 Changes to theories 31 Clay Shaw 32 33 Assignments 33 You have been blocked for 72 hours 34 WP:ANI 35 Clarification 36 Please stop with the Personal attacks 37 "Editors" must learn that it is improper to delete properly cited information because of personal beliefs 38 Personal attacks and civility issues 38.1 Okay 39 the Mauser 40 Warning that RfC Is becoming necessary 41 Notice of RfC 42 I added something 43 Mae B. Russell 44 Notice 45 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

[edit] Kennedy assassination theories

You are putting a lot of effort into making the article, which indeed does need work, unencyclopedic. Why put rhetorical questions in an article like "Cover up?" Also putting a header including "Response to the above" isn't good style, nor is the conversational tone of some of your additions "The little girl story is of little value.Did anyone ask the little girl what she was looking at? If she was asctually looking at one shooter does this preclude a second shooter?" And "More empty discussion. Where is the evidence?" does not take into account the fact there is a link to that evidence at the beginning of the section. I would suggest you slow down, as your work will simply be reverted; as on the whole is not improving the quality of the article. Put questions and requests for evidence on the articles talk page. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article probably needs to be junked completely and a whole new start. The point is that there is no reasoned discussion of the evidence; it is a collection of almost random facts that aren't tied together lead nowehere. I am pointing out two things: 1) there is a normal way to investigate the evidence systematically; and 2) There is a great hesitancy to do so by anyone and it would be better to just dump it all and start again or forget about it.Why keep a permanently bad article here.

RPJ 09:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From a suspected user who has a tendency to revert things with cryptic comments

I put in the info the way I did as a form of protest over the inability of Wiki to have a coherent NPOV article on JFK, or his assassination, or any of the affilliated persons.

I've tried suggestions in the discussion boards (you can check some of the archived discussions) and no one is willing to budge. So it seems that now the articles are a collection of various "facts" from different points of view with no central cohesiveness.

I simply copied the POV language from the article and inserted my opposing POV language to illustrate the silliness of attempting to rebut every disputed information about the assassination.

I am from the school of thought that if a subject is controversial, you should keep it short, with just the barest and blandest facts that everyone agrees on until such time the controversy is fleshed out. However, users here at Wiki take the opposite where they put in every piece of inaccurate, unverified, disputed information and then mention that the information is disputed. This leads to incoherent and scattershot articles. For another example of too much information in article, check out the article on George W. Bush and then compare it to the one on Thomas Jefferson.

Good luck in your attempt to bring sanity to this insane subject.Ramsquire 23:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent talk page comments

Article talk pages are to discuss the content of articles, not to mount personal attacks upon others. I have not blocked you or any other user I disagree with, nor have I improperly blocked (or blocked at all) any article regarding this disagreement. You are welcome to lodge a complaint at WP:AN, but don't waste time and talk page space spreading your nonsense to every related talk page. I am going to remove these comments. Gamaliel 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel has recently toned down the attacks on everything disagreed with by calling it "nonsense." which will stop the posting that this is a self proclaimed belief by Gamaliel that those in opposition espouse "nonsense."

RPJ 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts to Lee Harvey Oswald

I don't know if you are deliberately vandalising the article or you are carelessly reverting and not looking at what version you are reverting to, but twice you have replaced a section of the biography with "Lee Harvey Oswald was touched by his father, who had thrice vagina monolouges. Thrice thou wast in pain when you yelled at your pet mice." Note that this is clearly vandalism and, whatever the reason for this change, please insure that it does not happen again. Thank you. Gamaliel 04:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be a little gimmick that when there is some vandalism and then some other text one who wants to get rid of because of contents he or she doesn't agree with will include it in the revert of vandalism and merely state "vandalism" and hope the the other items won't be noticed. A committed few have several of these mildly effective tricks. They wil be slowly but surely learned. The methods of handling these will be acquired.

RPJ 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

This evening you have engaged in personal attacks against both JimWae [1] and myself [2]. Not only is your constant rudeness tiresome, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. If you continue to engage in such behavior, you will be subject to blocking due to your disruption of Wikipedia and violation of its policies. Please discuss your differences with other editors in a civil and rational matter. Gamaliel 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your point is not well taken

Here is the information from the PBS news story that the self appointed censors (Gamaliel, JimWae, and Mytwocents) keep taking out of the Oswald article:

[3]

The internet doesn't need self appointed censors who find the unrelenting need to protect the CIA from exposure to bad news coverage. Move to China and get a job there. It is government policy in China to censor the internet--but not in the United States or the rest of the free world.

What are the rude words with which you find offense?

Please, Mr. anonymous censors don't keep censoring fully documented, and now, mainstream accepted facts that someone was impersonating Oswald shortly before Kennedy was murdered.

It is also now documented and established that the CIA especially has concealed this impersonator for over 42 years. If you were to read the PBS extended news coverage, or the transcripts of the Johnson/Hoover telephone discussions about the impersonators you would know this.

Thank you, in advance, for your kind attention. RPJ 22:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend you don't have any idea what I'm talking about regarding personal attacks. You should need to be told that calling people "censors" and they've "started to melt down" is clearly offensive. The fact that you disagree with other editors regarding the contents of some articles does not give you license to engage in namecalling and rude behavior. Such comments of these are a violation of Wikipedia policies, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

The conspiracy theories you are trying to insert into the article are not "mainstream accepted facts". Please provide a link to one accepted mainstream reference work which presents the Newman theory as fact, as you wish Wikipedia to do. The Newman page is part of an extensive PBS website based upon a Frontline documentary, and both the website and the documentary present a strong case for the historical fact of Oswald's guilt.

All of this is irrelevant to your conduct. You can disagree with the above and still treat other people in a civil manner and refuse to engage in juvenile behavior like namecalling. Gamaliel 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Gamaliel" never gives examples. It is all accusations but never an example, and no evidence. Here Gamaliel, let me show what an accusation is and how to provide and example.

Accusation: "Gamaliel" often engages in ridicule and disparagement that is prohibited by this web site.

Examples:

2-26-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was "pushing disproved chin nonsense AGAIN"

2-24-2006 Gamaliel said "oh lord not the mauser and the big chin nonsense again"

2-17-2006 Gamaliel said another editor was being "quite obnoxious."

2-16-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was making "an absurd claim."

1-30-2006 Gamaliel said an editor wanted "to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article."

1-24-2006 Gamaliel called an editor's information "rambling, barely coherent rants."

1-19-2006 Gamaliel refered to an editor's position as "your ridiculous objections."

1-12-2006 Gamaliel said he was going to remove "this Mauser nonsense."

1-2-2006 Gamaliel said that a contribution "is nuts."

12-31-2006 Gamaliel decided someone's edits "were a mess."

9-21-2006 Gamaliel accused an editor of "offensive amateur analysis."

RPJ 08:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. . Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination

OK bud, listen up. In addition to NPOV, here on Wikipedia we also have something called Don't be a dick and No personal attacks. You are also correct in asserting that no one or two readers "own" a page, and I for one would like to see more get involved. However, "no one" includes yourself. You cannot, nor should not belittle anyone just because they don't agree with your version of events. Your label of "censorship" does not stand when placed next to their own words: they are acting in good faith to make the article the best it can be, and it does not help by accusing them of some conspiracy.

I've just spent 2 hours both going over the article, looking at the sources, and looking at your attacks on other editors, and while you preach about being neutral and anti-censorship, your effors are misguided at best and trolling at worst. I do not know you or your motivations, but that is the range you are dealing with. I hope you can come to your senses, and instead of mindlessy accusing others of a grand conspiracy to cover up the truth, that you might practice some civility and help work to uncover the truth.

Yours in the quest for the ultimate truth, -Maverick 08:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"I've just spent 2 hours both going over the article, looking at the sources, and looking at your attacks on other editors:"

This what you left on my talk page. You didn't give any examples. The first step in persuasive writing is when you make a statement provide a reference or an example.

RPJ 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then, I invite any user who stumbles on this to take a look at Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination. Pretty much every post you made either calls someone names, accuses them of bias just because they don't see things your way, and when presented with rules that you have broken, you attack the person who made such a comment by saying they have "an agenda". I specifically refer you to this post in which you call an editor a vandal for making a legitimate, good faith edit.

If the first step in persuasive writing is to provide a reference, then the second is to be civil. Nobody likes to listen to a "meanie". Oh, and in the future please leave messages on my talk page as opposed to my user page. Thanks.

--Maverick 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why RPJ is being attacked so much. He seems to be an intelligent and concerned editor that is not given to swearing and attacking people (until that can be proven, and not just POVed). His "attacks" seem to be misconstrued. I have read through his well-written comments (NO, I am not a conspiracy theorist) and I see no problem. He only wants to present both sides, and he is constantly thwarted. I see no reason for this, and it reads like a lot of POVs. C´mon guys, let´s be nice. andreasegde 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Mavrick623

If you read the post you will see that it protests someone simply cutting out fully referenced information simply because he doesn't agree with the viewpoint. This is flatly against web site rules. The fundamental rule of this website is that all significant viewpoints be presented. In other words, Neutral Point of View means: All viewpoints are included.

The editors simply don't get to pick and chose which competing viewpoint is "true" but just include all of them.

Therefore, it is not a good faith deletion if the editor chops out a viewpoint because the editor believes the viewpoint is "nonsense." I am sure that people who hold the other viewpoints may feel the same about the editor's pet viewpoint. Therefore, all significant viewpoints must be included.

Here, I'll give you a sample of the improper chopping of articles on the page. Please spend yopur efforts on this person who calls himself Gamaliel:

Examples of "Gamaliel's" editing work:

2-26-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was "pushing disproved chin nonsense AGAIN"

2-24-2006 Gamaliel said "oh lord not the mauser and the big chin nonsense again"

2-17-2006 Gamaliel said another editor was being "quite obnoxious."

2-16-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was making "an absurd claim."

1-30-2006 Gamaliel said an editor wanted "to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article."

1-24-2006 Gamaliel called an editor's information "rambling, barely coherent rants."

1-19-2006 Gamaliel refered to an editor's position as "your ridiculous objections."

1-12-2006 Gamaliel said he was going to remove "this Mauser nonsense."

1-2-2006 Gamaliel said that a contribution "is nuts."

12-31-2006 Gamaliel decided someone's edits "were a mess."

9-21-2006 Gamaliel accused an editor of "offensive amateur analysis."

RPJ 09:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now for the post of RPJ that "AZmaveric" finds so"offensive:"

"A vandal is silently taking out evidence with which he doesn't agree"

"One of the interesting aspects of working on Wikipedia articles is confronting the occasional "true believer." This Kennedy page is a magnet for at least one or two of them.

The "true believer" starts with a fixed, "revealed truth" approach to a subject (such as the Kennedy assassination) and attempts to conform the article to that belief by deleting evidence he or she doesn't agree with.

This started slowly but now is picking up speed. For example, the person took out the sworn testimony by an eyewitness (secret service agent Clint Hill) who saw first hand the large gaping hole in the back right hand side of President's head. The true believer doesn’t agree with the location of the wound and so he deleted it.

Now he is just slashing out big parts of evidence out that he doesn't agree with. Why? Because he "believes" in the Warren Report and that is enough for him. Several months ago another "true believer" invented a bogus reference to experiments of a famous scientist and placed that in the scientist's biography and then referenced the biography in this article to support the Warren Commission. The person or persons who engage in such conduct are worse than the typical vandals that mark up the pages from time to time. Why, because it is harder to catch and more difficult to correct. One method used by the "True believer" is to wait until some minor vandalism occurs, and revert and mention that vandalism has been removed--but at the same time, takes out text that the "true believer" doesn't like and then says nothing about it to alert anyone. It may be just high school kids with a "hacker" mentality. Just stay alert or the Wikipedia will become nesting area for cults. RPJ 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] User:Gamaliel's userpage

Please do not edit other people's userpages, it is considered vandalism. - Akamad 09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a rule on that?

RPJ 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's called User page vandalism; Replacing User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) -Maverick 08:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait aminute. You are mistaken in your facts. On his user page "Gamaliel" claims to be "proudest" of his work on the Kennedy web site going "insane" over the "conspiracy nonsense." RPJ didn't say it your friend said it. Moreover, it was the user's own work product that ended up on the user's page.

Mr. AZmaverick, you better look at it again. It was all "Gamaliel" making those offensive statements not RPJ.

I'm sorry that let the cat-out-of-the-bag so to speak on his "Gamaliel's behavior. It may be embarassing to him but he wrote it.

Then post it on his talk page. His user page is off-limits for that sort of stuff. -Maverick 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deceptive edit summaries

I do not know whether 66.91.203.81 (talk • contribs) is, in fact, you, nor do I really care. However, looking at the edit summary, and the actual nature of this edit (which I saw, and reverted). I find it extremely difficult to believe that 66.91.203.81 was acting in good faith, due to the deceptive edit summary, regardless of the actual content added or removed. If you feel that this is valid content, please re-insert it, with an appropriate description of the changes being made. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:26] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Stop trolling. The edit summary in the edit I reverted said "typo" when it was clearly a more significant change, and you know that, now go away. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:01] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Don't pretend. Some friend asked "freakofnurture" to come in and stick his nose into other people's business and he gets poked. He never read anything about what he's doing in the article and tries to bluster way out with nonsense slang.

RPJ 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some friend? Please clarify your accusations of collusion. — Mar. 3, '06 [08:51] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Hi. I noticed some of your comments regarding user:freakofnurture. I don't know much about the topic at hand, and heck, he may not either. But a big part of Wikipedia is just up & dropping in on areas you don't know much about, helping out as best you can, and learning on the way. I don't have an opinion about your content dispute, but I do think you should drop by WP:AGF and WP:LOVE -- there's never a reason to be harsh to your fellow editors.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and for working to improve Wikipedia! :)

— Adrian Lamo ·· 08:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing the 'POV-section' and 'fact' templates, I added?. These are for all editors to see and act upon. Mytwocents 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

You don't give specific reasons for putting signs on articles effectively saying the article is improperly written. If you want to critcize the article you must give specific reasons. You don't do that. It doesn't appear you are capable of doing that since one assumes you would follow web site rules if you could. Mytwocents simply appears to lack the self discipline necessary to avoid breaking the web site rules.

You asked so I'm making it as clear as I can be.

The other bothersome habit you've acquired is chopping out of articles viewpoints with which you disagree. Your work product consists almost entirely of cutting out viewpoints you don't agree with and hanging signs on articles stating they are poorly put together.

Rarely do you contribute information to an article.

RPJ 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the emphasis, why are you removing the the templates. As for for statements on rules, you give no wikilinks supporting these judgements you make. Mytwocents 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mytwocents" ought to read this:

You don't give specific reasons for putting templates on articles that effectively say the article is improperly written. If you want to criticize an article you must give specific reasons. You don't do that.

Is that clear enough for "MYtwocents?" Since you speak in jargon that you don't seem to understand, you may be in over your head trying to contribute to this website.RPJ

I just don't believe in 'feeding the trolls' Mytwocents 08:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your above quip still does not explain why you do not give specific reasons for your deletions and other major changes. RPJ 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

You don't get to alter or remove the comments of others from my user talk page. Gamaliel 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.

Or see WP:NOT

Ramsquire 20:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stick to the point: Illegal deletions, are they happening or not?

The point being being discussed involves deletions of information with which the deletor disagrees. Deletions are made with no reason given or an impermissible reason given.

Here is a fact situation: There is very important information relating to President Kennedy's assassination. This article is devoted specifically to the assassination. One of the most hotly debated topics relating to the assassination is whether there were two shooters or one shooter. Important to this determination of the number of shooters is the nature of the wound to Kennedy's head.

If the back of Kennedy's head is blasted out, that is a good indication he was shot from the front. If his face was blown out (such as depicted happening to one of the bandits at the beginning of "A History of Violence") the result looks horrible. However, Kennedy's face looked untouched in death.

Instead, the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out. A treating doctor looked at the wound in the back of the head and drew a picture. Look at it. [4] The doctor gave a statement about the wound. Here is what happened:

In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage. When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing (a tracheotomy). But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:

"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart directly."

Dr. Peters did look and observed:

"There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing."

Dr. McClellend provided this description:

"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."

"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.

Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter. [5] See drawing by Dr. McClellend [6]

Now, this is deleted. Is it deleted because any of this is untrue? No. Does some one want any more sources given than what had been collected to and linked in the emergency room section of the article? No. It was deleted because some one didn't agree with it. Somebody doesn't like it.

But, the policy of this web page is that all significant viewpoints be presented. There is no reason to exclude this information about the treating doctor's views of the wound. As we know, the eyewitness accounts of the treating doctors and the eyewitness accounts of the personal bodyguards for Mr. and Mrs Kennedy (that had a real good look at the wound) all saw a big gaping hole in the back of the head. The testimony of the bodyguards was also deleted from the article. Why?

Several editors still believe that Kennedy was shot in the head from the back and they don't want any evidence in the article showing Kennedy was shot from the front.

Therefore, they chop out the viewpoints of the eyewitnesses because what they saw doesn't agree with what several editors believe happened.

The policy of this web page is all significant viewpoints be included in the article. It is a basic rule.

RPJ 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

MY point is: Wiki is not an exercise in free speech as you claimed.

Are illegal deletions happening? Well that depends on your point of view, so I can't answer that. All I can suggest, once again, is that you try to reach a consensus with the other editors, and assume good faith (I am trying to take my own advice by reaching out to you, again). You should actually listen to their reasons for deleting work, and maybe they will listen to your reasons for inclusion.

Ramsquire 17:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire keeps avoiding the point: He and others delete out well sourced and pertinent viewpoints they disagree with. This is against the basic rule of this web site which is to include all significant viewpoints, not just those viewpoints with which Ramsquire agrees.

RPJ 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Whom are you talking to when you refer to me as Ramsquire? This is a semi-private dialogue between me and you on your talk page. I am trying to end this non-stop bickering between you and the administrators and other users.

2. To that end, please stop accusing me of deleting information for no other reason than I supposedly disagree with it. I have never done that. For every edit I made, I explained why I did it, and it never was due to me disagreeing with a fact or conclusion. I have made edits to the article that I feel are necessary as a way to clean it up. The only entries of yours that I did delete was the persons present at the autopsy, and the presidential motorcade. For both I created external sites and they are accessible through the article. They were not deleted. I did make a suggestion to take out the block quotes, but I also made a suggestion to summarize the quotes with a jump cite to the full text. Hardly the work of someone trying to supress a viewpoint!

3. When we first came into contact with this article, I had good faith belief that you were just trying to improve the article. That attitiude is laid out in my first comments on this talk page. However, since that time I have come to doubt that. To me it seems you want to convince others that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Noble goal, but Wiki is not the place to do that. I do feel that because you have never given anyone else that good faith benefit of the doubt that I gave you, it may be the reason why your entries and suggestions are now viewed as toxic to the article, by some. Just because someone asks for the page to be protected, it does not mean they are trying to hide your voice. Every edit is not an attack on you personally or your viewpoint.

4. Finally, you feel that Gamaliel, SNY1er, Mytwocents, JimWae, myself and others are making illegal edits. There is a process at Wiki to deal with that and it is not to post attacks or long diatribes on the mission of Wiki on the talk pages. I suggest you file a formal complaint against us and any other user you feel is violating the Wiki spirit, and let the community deal with it.

Ramsquire 20:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are a sample of the "Wiki" spirit "Gamaliel" uses in connection for his deletions.

2-26-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was "pushing disproved chin nonsense AGAIN"

2-24-2006 Gamaliel said "oh lord not the mauser and the big chin nonsense again"

2-17-2006 Gamaliel said another editor was being "quite obnoxious."

2-16-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was making "an absurd claim."

1-30-2006 Gamaliel said an editor wanted "to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article."

1-24-2006 Gamaliel called an editor's information "rambling, barely coherent rants."

1-19-2006 Gamaliel refered to an editor's position as "your ridiculous objections."

1-12-2006 Gamaliel said he was going to remove "this Mauser nonsense."

1-2-2006 Gamaliel said that a contribution "is nuts."

12-31-2006 Gamaliel decided someone's edits "were a mess."

9-21-2006 Gamaliel accused an editor of "offensive amateur analysis.

It is not in accordance with web site policy. We are supposed to be grown ups (I hope I am correct in that assumption) and be tolerant of viewpoints with which we don't agree. Yet, some such as Gamaliel and yourself just don't seem to understand this.

RPJ 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROVE IT!!!

You once again attack me for being insensitive to viewpoints I disagree with and editing in a non Wiki way.

Prove it. Show the quotes and edits that I did that back up your attack.

Where have I ever deleted anything because I felt it was nonsense?

Now I admit to attacking you personally, because frankly, I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. That's fine, but our personal feelings toward each other is beside the point. The point is you claiming that I have violated Wiki policy by deleting viewpoints I disagree with. Show me where I have done this.

If you can't prove your assertion, I'll know that your just full of it.

Ramsquire 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

It wasn't me that blocked you. Your block log says that Freakofnurture blocked you on March 3rd, and Jayjg blocked you on February 19 for a 3 revert rule violation on the Lee Harvey Oswald article. Both blocks lasted for 24 hours, and have long since expired. -Mulder416 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rifle Section...

1. My description of the addition I made, is just that my description. So it is perfectly fine for me to say the pictures shows the rifles are identical, because I think they are. The text in the article orginally read "nearly identical", which is more accurate and NPOV, so there was no need to edit it because it conflicts with your views.

I will revert your changes because they picture was added for the reader to decide if the rifles are identical, nearly identical, or look nothing alike, not as a source of the information. The information came from the findings of the Warren Commission, so it is verifiable and from a reputable source.

2. The rifle found in TBSD IS a Mannlicher-Carcano. It was made in Italy (because it said so on the weapon), and the Dallas Police authorities authenticated it within hours after testing it. But more importantly, looking at the pictures carefully show the markings of a Mannlicher so I am also reverting your changes there as well. If you have doubts, the quickest way to show it's a Carcano is the guide at the end of the nozzle. On a mauser it is wider and thicker than on a Carcano.

Now I am sure you are going to find some typo, or say that I am not properly sourced or some other response, to tell me I'm wrong. So I await your response.

Ramsquire 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Again you have no citations for anyone to check. Also, in an article, an editor is not supposed to provide the editor's personal opinion on whether the two guns are identical. Please, read the rules of the web site before you do any more harm to the articles.

You now take on the tone of a gun expert. That is probably complete nonsense. A while back you were pretending to be an expert on the law.

Just be like everyone else and cite sources. RPJ 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsquire never seems to give sources

Ramsquire, you never seem to have any sources for all your pronouncements. It is always the same thing "Blah, Blah, and blah." But, no sources to back your statements. Don't you realize people are on to you now. Why would anyone take the word of an annonymous person who calls himself "Ramsquire" when he doesn't back up what he says with citations?

Remember, you were recently just caught again making a statement and then backing down when asked to verify it.

• RPJ: There is no chain of custody on the rifle.
• Ramsquire: "Yes there is."
• RPJ: Where?
• Ramsquire: "Its not in the article." "I'm not going to do any research for you."
• RPJ: Ramsquire, please, just admit you made the whole story up about a chain of custody on the rifle.

RPJ 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Gamaliel

If you want to post messages on my talk page, fine. If you restore deleted material or do anything else to my talk page again that doesn't involve posting a new message written by yourself, note that that is vandalism and will be dealt with accordingly. Gamaliel 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your last post, I now ask that you never post on my talk page again. Gamaliel 05:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I decline. It isn't "your" page, and you can't roam around the web site threatening people and then hide on this particular page when such matters need to brought to your attention and addressed by yourself.

RPJ 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block warning for harassment

Catching sight of your latest message on Gamaliel's page, I reviewed the page history of the last week and noticed that your posts consisted of a string of nasty personal attacks. It's not up to you to "decline" to cease harassing another editor. Stop posting on Gamaliel's page immediately or I'll block you. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen is wrong and provides no evidence.

A little bit of power intoxicates some.

RPJ 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's A good thing

Because I thought I was the only one who was being picked up on by this dude above. IT seems he thinks he owns Wikpedia and therefor' has it out for everyone. Look at the first things on his user page, explaining how to deal with angry users, and even listed off some of the insults he's been called. An A-Class DICK! Yet, I don't see him following Wikipedia Rule 4010125bgtisfjb which states "DOn't be a dick!" EZZIE 15:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block message

You have been blocked for trolling and harassment at User talk:Gamaliel after being warned. I see you have been blocked for trolling before, so this time you get 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Assassination Records Review Board

This article needs categories, some more context and/or background, and general reformatting to comply with the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I'm not familiar with the subject, so basically I found it difficult to understand what it was actually saying. The first section heading is also confusing and ambiguous. Thanks for offering to help, I hope this gives you a steer. ::Supergolden:: 10:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entrance wound or exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head

You made a change in the Kennedy article and cite a transcript. Could you provide the citation to it? Thank you.

(→Kennedy declared dead in the emergency room - the transcript says that he thought that it could be either an exit or an entrance wound in fact)

RPJ 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The transcript that is already cited there says:

Dr. McCLELLAND - I saw the large opening which I have described. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Mr. SPECTER - Based on the experience that you have described for us with gunshot wounds and your general medical experience, would you characterize the description of the wound that Dr. Perry gave you as being a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or was the description which you got from Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and Dr. Carrico who were there before, equally consistent with whether or not it was a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or how would you characterize it in your words? Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible.

WolfKeeper 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The wound that Dr. Perry described is the neck wound; not the head wound. As you may recall, Dr. Perry arrived shortly before Dr. McCellend and made an incision into the neck at the point where there was a bullet wound. he did this to insert a breathing tube.

Dr. Perry gave the impression to Dr. McClellend the wound was an entrance wound and not an exit wound. The Director of the FBI would have been furious about this since he already had decided that Oswald did it alone (see article) and for Oswald to have done it alone all wounds on Kennedy's body would have to be exit wounds not entry wounds which would indicate a second shooter from the front.

The gaping wound in the back of the head was clearly an exit wound.

RPJ 02:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on second thoughts you're right. Still, I'm standing by the removal of 'exit' from the article. He's only an emergency room physician, it's not really his determination whether wounds are exit or entry. He was trying to save Kennedy's life, not do forensics on what actually transpired.WolfKeeper 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for RPJ

I have just read through your talk page, and the pages of others that disagree with you. I was shocked. You are getting an awful lot of criticism. You have my sympathy, and respect.

You are an obviously intelligent and competent editor, who just wants to cover every possible angle of the story.

For the people that attack RPJ, I ask you to think about the person who replied to a comment of mine with these words:

"I don't know. I'm just asking."

Does that sound like a vandal? No, it certainly does not. It sounds like a concerned individual who only wants to know the truth, as we all (hopefully) want to. RPJ wrote those words, by the way...

Thank you for your work, RPJ.

andreasegde 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest, RPJ, that it is a much better approach to pursue the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process rather that voice your suspicions of the motivations of fellow editors? In my experience, the latter seldom succeeds in resolving disputes, rather, they exacerbate them. You could start with an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why RPJ is being attacked so much. He seems to be an intelligent and concerned editor that is not given to swearing and attacking people (until that can be proven, and not just POVed). His "attacks" seem to be misconstrued. I have read through his well-written comments (NO, I am not a conspiracy theorist) and I see no problem. He only wants to present both sides, and he is constantly thwarted. I see no reason for this, and it reads like a lot of POVs. C´mon guys, let´s be nice. andreasegde 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Please stop. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Use talk pages to illustrate your points. From: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. On 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC), Gamaliel reported you to be blocked, but I didn't think it was justified on making personal attacks. However, the link he provided did show some point-making. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton Hill

You blanked the article, I remember tagging it with {{db-blanked}} as you only made 3 edits to the article before blanking it. Before it got speedied, I noticed the article was moved just after you blanked it. Sorry for tagging it if you didn't mean to blank the article. Kevin_b_er 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down and have a cup of tea

I have no idea why RPJ is being attacked so much. He seems to be an intelligent and concerned editor that is not given to swearing and attacking people (until that can be proven, and not just POVed). His "attacks" seem to be misconstrued. I have read through his well-written comments (NO, I am not a conspiracy theorist) and I see no problem. He only wants to present both sides, and he is constantly thwarted. I see no reason for this, and it reads like a lot of POVs. C´mon guys, let´s be nice. andreasegde 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to theories

Thank you for your reply, RPJ. Nobody else has answered yet, so I will wait awhile before doing anything. Something has to be done, though.

I have also put in a short piece about the "changed route". I used to believe that some time ago, until I looked at the pictures that are on the discussion page, and I looked carefully at a Google map of Dealey. I know the quote is anti-Garrison, but the second picture tells the story (look at the top...) What people don´t understand is that if there was no "changed route", it points the finger at Oswald, as well as other shooters, because they would know which way Kennedy would come, so we´re all back at the beginning again. Ho-hum...

Have fun. andreasegde 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about my edits on the theories page? I always leave a message on the talk page before I do anything, as you know. Have fun. andreasegde 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changes and your attitude on changes which is to make the page better from an objective standpoint. The biggest problem I see with the article is a misunderstanding by some of the editors on:

• What a neutral point of view means;
• What information needs a citation; and
• What a reliable citation means.

The neutral point of view misunderstanding is by far the worse problem. Some editors, that do quite a bit of reverting, are still under the belief that if there is an "official" decision by an authority figure, that other significant viewpoints that do not agree with the official decision are not expressing a "neutral point of view' and therefore, should be deleted. No matter how many times one reminds certain editors that neutrality means presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue and letting the reader decide, still erroniously believe it means the "official version" is neutral and all other viewpoints are not neutral.

Therefore, these editors put a great emphasis on trying to label decisions as being "official" so that the deletion process can be undertaken.

The second problem is over what information should be followed with citations. After working on this article for a while, I am comfortable with the approach that most information should be cited since the article generates a good deal of controversy.

The third problem is the quality of the citations. Some of the editors don't seem to understand the difference between primary source information from records and witness that are contemporary to the events being discussed, and secondary source information. There are several somewhat related problems in this area.

• Some editors erroniously believe that first hand information is not allowed, and everything must be introduced by someone else that gives an opinion on it.

Some believe that any opinion presented on the internet is worthy of citation as a reliable source, and any document that purports to be a primary source document is an authentic document.In the Kennedy assassination, there are numerous pictures that are used puporting to show the assassination or the autopsy. There are two related problems here:

• First, not providing support that the picture or other document is genuine. Is it what it purports to be; or was it falsely created or tampered with by the custodian, or past custodians of the document; and
• Second, whether some person, who is not the custodian, has simply taken a copy and tampered with it and then put it on the internet.

There is also too much emphasis on creating saints out of those whose opinions or testimony with which the editor agrees, and demonizing those who the editor disagrees. This is very distracting when it is overdone, and makes an article look like a sleazy attorney's memorandum.

Finally, there is an unprofessional editing problem involving the arrogant, "know-it-all" writing style that hints of the editor's access to inside information, and/or the editor's great knowledge of the area. Such a writing style has "buffon" written all over it and can't help but give a bad impression to the reader.

This arrogant style may also tend to discourage some newcomers who want to edit. A typical example will be an editor who reverts a contribution with a cryptic comment such as "reverted this POV nonsense that was debunked long ago." RPJ 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sarcasm is very irritating, and it could lead one into a dangerous game of tit-for-tat. It´s basically a courtroom tactic, which comes from playground tactics: "If I don´t agree with you, and because I don´t know the answer, then I will be sarcastic and just confuse the issue." It´s sad.

I put a comment on JoeGoodfriend´s page, because he needs to know some truths about this whole scenario. I find it very strange that he attacked you when you both fundamentally agree. Did I miss something here? Maybe you could talk to him?

I have made some edits that have not been reverted yet, but maybe because I´m being very careful before I do them. Have fun. andreasegde 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Shaw

It was very short and sweet. Because I have never worked on the article, I was surprised to be contacted. Don´t jump the gun though - take a look at it and see what he means... We´re almost getting to some sort of understanding (apart from two who will not swayed, but they know that anyway) and it would be a shame to lose that... andreasegde 10:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 33 Assignments

I'm still waiting for your source on that. Should I stop waiting? Or is the proof coming. Ramsquire 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for 72 hours

This is your 4th offense for personal attacks or troll-like activity. Please stop. Specifically, this is for the following posts: [7], [8] and [9]. And I know these aren't the only ones. You should know better by this point. --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

If you are serious about reporting Gamaliel for a supposed slight, you should take it to the incident board, not Andreasegde's talk page. The link to report administrator abuse is WP:ANI. Ramsquire 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You left a complaint on Andreasegde page? Did you not? I was refering to this edit. If you feel there needs to be action taken by Gamaliel, then WP:ANI is the place to launch a public informal complaint. Ramsquire 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

If you can find the WC transcript of the doctors testimony from that Michael Griffith's article, I won't object to placing that in the external link section of the article. However, there has to be some showing of Griffith's notability to use his opinion. Ramsquire 21:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop with the Personal attacks

Accusatory comments such this can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. This is a repeated charge you have made against Gamaliel and myself. If you continue to do so, I will have no choice but to report you. Comment on content not on the contributor. If you feel Griffith is notable and thus his opinion of the transcripts matter, then make your argument on the talk page. Or, alternatively, as I've said before you can just link the doctor's testimony from the WC. Ramsquire 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Editors" must learn that it is improper to delete properly cited information because of personal beliefs

In answer to the person above (Ramsquire), there is no personal attack on you or anyone else, only a critical review of the editing skills being exhibited.

Remember, each page of this we site states:

Please note:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly . . . do not submit it.

I don't believe that the other editors have to stand by silently while a small group of editors (including Ramsquire) roam through articles deleting properly sourced information from the articles because of their personal belief systems. That is not how this web site operates.

Some editors contribute very little except ripping out what they personally don't like. Then, they claim to have hurt feelings when the problem is addressed by other editors.

This is a continual problem at the Kennedy assassination web site. This web site is not supposed to be a "home page" for various government agencies that don't want criticisms of their long ago activities.

Nevertheless, there is a small group of editors at this site whose only self perceived job is to delete any information that is deemed to reflect badly on the government agencies involved.

All three deletions below involve information that a few editors don't want the readers to know about:

• Here is one "reason" for deleting pertinent information:

• • "restoring one, removing one"
  • That's it. This is a "reason" given for a deletion by "Gamaliel."

• Here is another "reason" for deleting a simple link: "No showing of notability of Michael Griffith. Griffith has published articles mainly in pro-conspiracy journals and also published four books on Mormonism."

• • This bizarre "Reason" was given for a deletion of a link to a collection of sworn testimony by the doctors who treated kennedy's head wounds.

• • The witnesses saw the back of the president's head blasted out. The author collected the pertinent parts of the transcripts which is a great time saver for researchers. "Ramsquire" apparently doesn't want anyone to read this because he wants the collection of medical testimony deleted as a link, and claims he will "allow" a link to external transcripts of each doctor or witness and require the reader to wade throught each one to find such information.

I'm sorry Ramsquire, your offer is declined.

• Here is another cryptic reason for a deletion of pertintent information:

• • "NPOV edit and grammar changes." This involved the deletion of the word "criticism" when used in connection with FBI conduct.
  • This is "Ramsquire" again. Ramsquire feels that the word "criticized" when used about the FBI should be deleted and "scrutinized" should be used.

• • But Ramsquire is wrong. The Congressional Committe voiced criticism of the FBI:
    • 1. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President."
      2. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments."

That is "criticism" of the FBI whether Ramsquire agrees with it or not.

Ramsquire's answer to this is that not everyone agrees with the criticism leveled by the Congressional committee. That doesn't matter. And it certainly doesn't matter that "Ramsquire" doesn't agree. No one even knows the identity of "Ramsquire".

We do know who the House Select Committee on Assassinations is, and that is why its official reports can be cited.

RPJ 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and civility issues

You've been asked an incredible number of times to stop attacking other editors and focus your comments on article content. Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is very clear. Recent edits like these [10], [11] and the above section of your talk page violate that policy. Since the previous four blocks for the same issue haven't gotten the point across, I'm increasing the block time to a week. Please take that time to review the policy and the comments you're making and find a way to avoid them in the future. Shell ^babelfish 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

Just letting you know I'm looking into this now Glen 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mangojuice:

As you know, as a logged in user I have made a large number of substantial contributions to this Wikipedia project. Some of the contributions have been in technical areas of law and government, but most of them (probably over 1,000) are in a group of related articles on a highly controversial subject.

Thank you for taking the time to critique the three comments I placed on the discussion pages of this very popular, but highly controversial group of related articles. My comments related to the editing practices of a small group who I perceive to be violating a fundamental editing rule of the project by deleting properly sourced information that belongs in the article.

I was pleased to see that you concluded that my “words have been civil” and that my “comments have not been outright [personal] attacks” on the editors who engage in the wrongful deletions.

On the other hand, you perceive my comments create “tension and discord” that are “disruptive to the project” because I “imply [the editors in question] have poor judgment, or that they don't have expertise, et cetera.” Allow me to respond:

• I agree with you that when one criticizes another person’s work product, that criticism may create “tension” and may even create “discord.” But, robust free speech is healthy, not harmful to the project. The basic warning on this project is that the editing work performed may be edited “mercilessly.” There is an old saying by President Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” I also recognize that one of the editors that I criticized is an “administrator” of Wikipedia. However, nothing in the rules give him (or the editors that he works in tandem with on these articles) any special immunity for breaking the basic editing rules of this project. If so then I’m contributing to the wrong project.

• I also agree with you that we should all assume “good faith” on the part of the other editors, and if one does that, “[P]eople will listen to your arguments, and if they're good ones, respect them.” That is correct –most of the time—but not all the time. In this case it is not true. The editors whose wrongful deletions I’ve criticized long ago forfeited the right to an assumption of good faith on the controversial subject in question. Do I have evidence of this? Of course:

• The controversial subject matter has two main schools of thought: Those who support a government panel’s conclusion that one person committed a certain murder; and those who support a different and later government panel’s conclusion that two or more person’s committed the murder, i.e., a conspiracy to murder.

• It’s been my observation that the same group of editors, led by a project administrator, simply want to delete as many properly cited links and information as possible that support the conclusion reached by the second government panel’s finding of a conspiracy. On his user page the editor in question brags about his work:

If you want to witness insanity firsthand, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense. Gamliel

Therefore it is not surprising that this editor deletes properly referenced material establishing the conspiracy with dismissive statements such as “more conspiracy nonsense.” This has been going on for a year. This “editing” by the editor/administrator in question has been to his attention an he has been repeatedly asked to stop it. But, his response is to get another administrator to block me for criticizing his wrongful behavior. Therefore, I don’t assume good faith on his part, or those who participate in the deletions (and point of view forks).

1. There is one important point you made with which I flatly disagree. You wrote:

The only purpose in making them [criticisms of the editors] is to not only point out that you disagree with the edits, but to try to put yourself above the other contributors making them.

No. They should just be held accountable, by name, for their, improper deletions. One of the other editors is also trying to become an administrator. This is very bad for the project to have this type of personality in any type of administrative role in this project. Under the rules of this web site, dialogue is encouraged to resolve differences. I’m exercising what I believe is the normal prerogative of an editor to discuss wrongful conduct at a very fundamental level.

RPJ 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Mauser

Please don't start another edit war over this again. Why not just ad a paragraph to Kennedy assassination theories? Gamaliel 21:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

These are a few of the simple facts found in the Warren Report testimony that make the Report's findings so implausable. This information is required to be in the article to fully inform the reader. These facts that raise the questions about the correctness of the Warren Report must be in the article. The web site policy requires all significant information be placed in the main article. Other wise the reader is only getting part of the story. Remember, all the significant evidence should be presented--not selected pieces.

This is a very straight forward reason. Put in all significant information.

RPJ 07:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A brief, quickly corrected visual misidentification is not a significant piece of information. Gamaliel 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what your cryptic statement means to convey.The rule of this web site is all significant information is put in the article.

RPJ 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning that RfC Is becoming necessary

If you continue to make edits deemed to be in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V I will have no other option but to pursue RfC procedures with you. I have explained numerous times that you need to provide reliable sources for your edits, and have gone so far to explicitly show you the problems with the form and style of your recently proposed edit. In addition, I have tried to be as clear as possible in my responses to your additional concerns. Even today, I went a step further in trying to clarify my position. Yet despite my best efforts, you have completely ignored my points, and wrongly accused me of seeking to hide or delete information. In each of the edits, provided I have consistently asked you to provide sources and have expressed my willingness to let my objections lie if it is against consensus. Please provide sources for information you wish to place in the article, show me proof of a consensus that I am acting against or desist from these wrongful accusations. Ramsquire 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Ramsquire's remarks. Your behavior needs to change or we will have no choice but to persue dispute resolution. Gamaliel 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of RfC

Please take note that you are the subject of an RfC. It can be found here. You are free to give your side of this dispute. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added something

This seems to be a simple problem; Editors who stand by the Warren Commission, and those who don't. It's a case of "Yes it is", and "No it isn't". The truth is that nobody knows what happened, because nobody actually saw Oswald actually fire the rifle. This is a fact, despite one or two people saying that "It looked like him". Asking for citations (when all the books written about the subject are POVs anyway) is going nowhere. RPJ is asking that all points of view are included, i.e., "let the reader decide" - which is fair.

I understand that Wikipedia is about facts, but don't forget that Bush and Blair both believed that "Weapons of mass-destruction" were in Iraq before it was invaded. Give RPJ his own page, and stop fighting. Be nice. --andreasegde 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mae B. Russell

I feel I need to inform you that when using quotes, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. I didn't delete your quotes because I happen to know that there is evidence that Oswald may have in fact said these things. However, I would ask that you allow me to do research and find another source than Mae Russell, as she obviously isn't a reliable publisher. Or you do the research. I also request that also consider putting the quotes into wikiquote instead of this article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning you. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You can suggest findings of fact and remedies on the Workshop page of the case. Only arbitrators may edit the Proposed Decision page. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)