This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gwen Gale. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sparky Barnstar
The Sparky Barnstar
For your helpfulness, for your kindness, for answering questions that others would just ignore, for being there for users, dealing with the muck and mire that comes with being an admin and for doing what you can where you can to make Wikipedia a better place...I present to you the Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I understood what you were saying because I've been around for a while (though "lt" took me a second because I usually see it as "NLT"). Edit summaries like this and comments like this make it really difficult for some users to follow what you're saying (which is the basic point of the essay I linked). So, if possible, please include links, at least for the first instance in a section. :-) (For what it's worth, I used to do the same thing until I had to deal with countless users reading my old deletion summaries and not having any idea what they meant.) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't do it often at all, it did flash through me thick brain that I was "acronyming, wlinkless" quite a lot there but I thought, on that page with those very experienced users, in that context, the way I was setting up the sentences I wrote, it would be hard not to understand :)
So far nobody has told me they didn't understand, however, thanks for the helpful nudge, I do agree, one must be very mindful when skating along that edge. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry
I am sorry to see that you are butting heads with that IP about the Hitler movie. At issue is the removal of contents from a talk page. A talk page has much more leeway. Sometimes, people are inarticulate and have a partial idea that needs incubation. Removing comments is a very big act and liable to stir up anger. So do this with caution. On the other hand, the IP editor does display inappropriate anger and writes in a way that is hard to understand.
Best of luck.
Care to incubate with me some BLP1E ideas? Abby is a one event person. I think the BLP1E language can be improved so that there will be fewer fights about people like Abby, the sailor. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think AS is BLP1E, her circumnavigation attempt was a string of events and got very wide coverage. Moreover, with the ongoing controversies, methinks a book is coming, at least. That said, BLPE1E is wontedly dealt with by coming up with a longer, search-unfriendly article title and not much else. I understand the notion behind it, but being notable for one event is still notability and I don't think the article title should have much to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I also don't think Abby is a BLP1E violation but I do see how people conclude that. People conclude that because she is known for one event. However, the event is significant. Lots of people are only known for one thing. Some of those people are known for one significant thing. I could go to BLP1E to try to clarify but before I do so, I do want to know that I am not a one person crusade but that I share the same ideas as some others, like you (if that is really true). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
current version of BLP1E/new version with bolded insert (final version not bolded)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event of low significance, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
What do you think? The current version suggests that one event people should not have articles, at least, that is the interpretation of quite a few people. So when a person is involved in a significant event, there is always conflict to having an article. I would like to see less conflict in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, I don't like much of anything about the wording of WP:BLP1E. I agree with you that it could use some work, although I don't know what the consensus (of those who watch that policy page) would be. Perhaps putting of low significance or of low notability in that sentence would help. One could try.
As I said earlier, most often, the outcome of BLP1E is a new title and some refactoring for an article, along with a redirect from the person's name. I don't think this helps readers. On the other hand, since there is always a redirect, it's a small worry.
Although the first sentence in BLP1E is true enough, I don't think it fits the topic of BLP. From my outlook, a single event can make someone notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Milowent is missing anything. I agree with you that the edit summary was not civil, I do think Milowent has taken the hint. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware that the AN discussion about you was moved to ANI, where User:LessHeard vanU closed it as "The consensus of a majority is that there was no abuse, although a few editors believe that non optimum decisions were made. Mistakes happen, and abuse is systematic repeat of non optimum decisions despite advice. All these points have been made, and do not bear repeating." So, you can, as you already have, go onto better more pressing matters. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, where should this discussion continue? I see three threads (counting the one I started on AN) about this subject. Should we combine those and put them on the visible AN board? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, there is also the open thread here. I will let you move the discussion how you wish (as I stink at moving discussions). I have listed some images already loaded on Wikipedia and highly used on the AN discussion for use. Just need a image maker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Icons do have sway over how users think of software, UI graphics also do set many and sundry moods so I think it's very much worth talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll see how it goes. By the way, thanks very much for letting me know about things popping up in threads elsewhere. It's helpful of you but aside from spanking new threads, there's no need, once I'm aware of a thread, I'll see any new stuff that might come up there. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I will check in on the thread later in the day. I have to go out soon, but will be back later. Sure, no problem...I wasn't sure if you had seen that as it got moved all over the place and then closed. As long as you know where they are that is all that matters, just glad to be able to help. :) Let me know if I can be of assistance in other areas in the future. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As ever, if you spot any new threads you think I might want/need to see, I'm happy to hear about 'em :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
plots in films
After the recent incident about the Hitler film (doe eyed Lara...), I thought of a film to write an article for Wikipedia. It has won awards. One possible section is a plot summary. I read before that someone asked if the entire concept of plot summary is original research. The answer was that the original source is the film so it is not. This is if the plot summary is mainly a summary of events without a lot of commentary. Do you generally agree with this? Or is a plot summary something that should not be there at all?
Your guidance will help determine if I even write the article. Without a plot summary, the article may become "-- was a film. It was released in ---. It won the -- and -- award. The End" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's not original research if you only give a very straightforward description of what happens (the plot) in the movie (such as "Alice goes to the market where she buys oranges, then comes home to find she forgot the lemons, whereupon she calls her neighbour and talks at length about the rising price of Haas avocados..."). However, you cannot give your take on things like symbolism, underlying meanings (such as "morals to the story") or character motivations other than quotes from dialog without citing them to an independent source (such as a movie review). Even calling a film something like an "anti-war" movie or "chick flick" needs a source. You can also list the cast, lifting this from the credits is always the safest way to go, some editors do lift the cast from imDb but leave such a list uncited to imDb, because it's not reliable enough and be careful because you will pick up a mistake from imDb now and then. By the way, the "trivia," "goof" and "bio" sections of imDb listings are awash in mistakes, stay away from those other than as hints for stuff to look for in reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you're helping combat the vandalism at Apollo 13; thanks. I had understood and hoped the new reviewing trial would take care of that. Can this article be added to the queue? I can not figure out how to use this new privilege. Any pointers will be appreciated. --Yopienso (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The vandalism there isn't very heavy (I had a look before posting this and would have semi-protected if I thought it would help). PC so far is in the early days of testing, so there's a cap on articles under PC, see Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Deployment_and_requests_for_inclusion. The slow, early testing is needed, some editors (me among them) have deep worries about this tool being wielded in ways which have aught to do with skiving vandalism and BLP vios. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:AIV is Backlogged
Since you are online, you might want to give the lone admin trying to clear up AIV some help. It is heavily backlogged and getting worse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I was going over your communications and actions regarding me and/or my actions, looking for positive and useful edits that I could thank you for. I like to take the time to thank my fellow editors for taking an interest in my work! I wasn't able to come up with much, unfortunately, but I did come up with this:
WikiThanks
You wrote to me "BLP applies to the whole project space and it's going to stay that way." However, you didn't add "Get used to it."Subtle power-assertion statements such as yours usually have "Get used to it" appended to them, but you didn't do that. That was nice of you, and thank you! Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, happily, I was sleeping throughout the whole thing. You were already aware of the (off-wiki) background behind how my earlier block/unblock of Malke happened and hence, why I'm not at all startled with this outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I thought of trying to make a helpful comment on her talk page, but I see she still refactors (removes) anything there she doesn't like (which she can do, though I'd think she shouldn't say "moved" when in truth she's only deleted), so I didn't. If you want me to comment on the ANI thread I will, but haven't seen a need so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I've said before, give her enough rope. Just like playing poker, you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. It is her life after all, and who are we to say that she cannot waste it away by embarking on a kamikaze path towards a BAN? The choice is hers, after all. I wish everybody all the best and may we not cross path again in such a manner. Best. --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™17:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a Meta/Labs discussion going on about the very subject, so you might want to chime in there as well. I don't have a Meta account, so I could only post as an anon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
They're aware, also that Mike Godwin has said "no eye," so I think it won't be that long before it's swapped out with a new logo, I don't care if it's one I did. He also said "no globe" but that's because the globe is copyrighted to WmF and hence not free, the hitch there is, the globe is already being used in sundry other project icons. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think since Wikipedia is a division of Wikimedia, I don't think we would get in too much trouble with the globe being used. I don't see WMF suing en.Wiki, though if they did, it would be funny. :) So, while I understand the "no globe", I don't see it as a big problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's not the worry at all, it's only that scrapper sites and others "shouldn't" be picking up the globe, since that's the "branding" of the project itself: Most managers of copyrighted logos tend to try and keep them within tight bounds, moreover to keep them from becoming generic (as happened to this logo in many areas of the world), I understand his thinking on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I understand. Then probably the lined logo would be the way to go. I directed the Meta discussion to the WP:Reviewing discussion, so they will see some of the other logos proposed. I only showed the one I liked. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Guess I should have also said, I'm neutral on the globe showing up in project icons, but it's Mike's job to look at stuff almost wholly in a careful, legal way, which is why I understand what he's getting at. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, this discussion is not about the reviewers logo, but yet about the logo next to "Accepted" (shown here). Sorry for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that, nothing about the icon(s) for PC seems to have been thought through in any way. Unhappily, it does seem to me that the awful Eye of Sauron icon indeed echoed the hopes and outlooks of at least some of those who brought the tool to en.WP in a way far beyond the bounds of what many if not most editors thought it would to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No, really? Well well. (Bet you never realized before that "Hoary" was actually Zoriah Miller!) -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, later I saw you'd said the same thing towards the bottom. Anyway we know this is all your doing, Zoriah, when will you take ownership of your abuse? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my own pattern of contributions was like this for a period of a week or so way back when. At least this person seems sane and balanced; I wish I could say the same about the other contributors to the "discussion". -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was only sayin', can't recall if I've ever seen an AfD streak like that last for almost a year and a half. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
None - in the article. It got squashed on talk page. But I think the expenses accusations which were always ridiculous should be removed from talk. Kittybrewster ☎18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What I did see on the talk page didn't look like a worry to me. The expenses scandal in the UK, along with the utter financial bankruptcy of its government, are widely sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think abuse by a few MPs should remain recorded / discussed on the talk page of an MP who was hardly mentioned and did virtually nothing wrong. Kittybrewster ☎18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It's all sourced and verifiable, he's a politician. Truth be told, it would likely be helpful to readers if there were something sourced about the expenses scandal and however he might have gotten tangled up with that, in the article text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Remember this user? Their block was upped to indef after personal attacks, edit warring, block evasion/abusive sockpuppetry. They made a promise to you, and everyone, that they would not do any of the above.
They have recently renamed to the username Sugar Bear, and have started edit warring, and socking again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I have layed out the past history there, and I can here, if you wish to read it.
Plainly, since they have gone back on their word, and they are doing the same things that originally got them blocked indef in the first place, could you return their indef block?— DædαlusContribs23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I do understand what you're getting at and tend to agree with you. I'm ok with the month long block since in some ways a month is a stronger stop than an indef. I also see the IP has already been blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how it's stronger. He made a promise and he broke it, he's had a history of edit warring and socks, he still seems to be under the understanding he can get away with it because he has had FAs and GAs. An indef would change that, IMO.— DædαlusContribs10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean to say is, this guy has had several chances, but he keeps reverting back to edit warring/the idea that he's infalliable in terms of facts about things he likes. It's a repeating pattern of behavior that needs to stop, and now he thinks that because he's done a few things differently, he'll be able to get off on the socking. He needs to be shown otherwise.— DædαlusContribs10:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It's harder to get a month-long block lifted than it is to get an indef block lifted (indef = indefinite, which could mean a day or two): The pith of an indef is, the worry may be so great that the admin is thinking the user shouldn't ever be allowed to edit until the user has acknowledged and dealt with whatever's gone wrong, but this can often take very little time for the user to do, such as with indef blocks for legal threats, many of which are quickly lifted after the editor says they won't do it again. Meanwhile, he hasn't gotten away with a thing, he's blocked for a month, which is a long time on the Internet. If he keeps it up after the block lifts, the next one could be for six months or a year, or there could be a ban as the outcome of an ANI thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, it stuck for almost three years. I must say, the kid who wrote that hoax was a fairly keen writer (though the other two he seems to have done were a bit clumsier and this earlier one got caught straight away four years ago). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Unforgiven
If you have a moment, can you take a look at
this, which looks to me like a needless page move. As there is no other film with this title, confusion seems very unlikely. So, no disambiguation issue. But, I cannot seem to figure out how to revert the page move. What am I missing here? Can you be of assistance? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my reversion of my own edit? I made a mistake and fixed it. Did you look at what you reverted before you did it? JSpung (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like this with proper referencing.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be the only relevant statement in the article: "There is evidence on the island suggesting that a castaway was there for weeks and possibly months." Ric Gillespie. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The source clearly says Earhart may have survived for months as a castaway on Nikumaroro. Please stop PoV pushing by wholly misrepresenting the source and undo your edit, which is not supported by policy. I truly thought you were a neutral editor here and I'm saddened to see this kind of PoV pushing from you. Maybe it's only a lapse, I hope so. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see Earhart mentioned as the castaway, and there was no dating, DNA testing or any other means of making that connection. Jumping to the conclusion that Earhart could have been the only visitor or castaway is a real stretch. FWiW, I would love to see a conclusive answer to the riddle of Earhart's last days, but this report wasn't it. Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Bye-the-bye, I have recently tried to retrace Amelia Earhart's brief sojurns to Canada. She had served as "Sister Amelia" at a military hospital in Toronto in 1917–1918, had travelled to Banff/Calgary with her mother on her cross-country trip to Boston in 1924 and her two journeys to Newfoundland on the eve of her transatlantic flights in 1928 and 1932, were her only visits to Canada. I am doing an article on Amelia in Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Titles as you know are not written by the author, and this title has no relation to the information presented about a campsite that was discovered on Nikumaroro where a possible inhabitant may have been present. If you look I made a change in the statement attributed to the recent article and didn't actually strike out the submission completely like another editor had done. Review the original article and see if there is a genuine affirmation that the castaway that may or may not have been there, was indeed Earhart. FWiW, The article could easily have been titled: No one knows for sure if Earhart was a castaway on Nikumaroro, but that title is not as alluring or interesting as casting the tantalizing "what if/may have?" question. Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Has your wanton PoV pushing blinded you even to the first sentence in the article? Amelia Earhart, the legendary pilot who disappeared 73 years ago while flying over the Pacific Ocean in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator, may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island, according to preliminary results of a two-week expedition on the tiny coral atoll believed to be her final resting place. Please undo your edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I already have changed the edit but does this statement not revolve around "may" and "believed" rather than "had" and "was". TIGHAR has not proved anything other than finding a campsite that they believemay have been used by Earhart but could have been used by someone else. Until final testing of DNA evidence comes in, this is just another tantalizing maybe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor can't tweak what the source says to fit their own PoV. The source doesn't say "a castaway like Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro," it says Earhart herself "may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island." Please fix your edit to echo what the source says, not what you want it to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
teams
You wrote on the pending changes issue "little "PoV teams" of editors". This is a big problem. Even some administrators are involved on this. This is too bad. If there were a journalism teacher in the classroom, much of this nonsense could be avoided. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't see a history of vandalism there I'd rather that Risker, who will likely be back later today, would handle that. Myself, I'd rather see a retired tag go up first, so an editor wanting to leave a message won't be startled by full protection. Watchlisted, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie...just seen it and wasn't something I could help on and seen you were online. :) Thanks for taking a look though. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I don't know if you want me to or if you want to, but one of us should let Risker know this is resolved. Again, thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she's great. I've looked over the back and forth on the talk page and it's getting too deep for me. If there's a call for consensus, I'm for keeping the edit. I don't understand why the opposition to it is so determined. Good luck with it. :) Malke201023:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was aware of that text. I don't see myself as being in a dispute with Desertfax, I don't agree with a few editors on how to source or otherwise handle a wee slice of a sub-section in an article and we've been posting about it on the talk page. I've said more or less all I have to say about it, now I think it's for other editors to either sort it out or let the whole thing drop until/unless more sources show up, as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize we didn't have this talk long ago, but this user appears to be evading his block, again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I realize we already discussed the prospect of an indef block, so instead of that, could it be upped to maybe 3 months for block evasion?
In regards to duck like contributions, in case you need me to show you what I saw, let us compare these two:
There is a user "Yworo" who is trying to push his POV edits on the article about GNU.
His edits have been corrected by me an other users. But Yworo insists. In his latest attempt he tries to use a source that reflects the opinion of someone who shares his POV as justification for his edits. He is trying to add the word "incomplete" in the definition of the GNU operating system. That is highly disputable. Could you help keep this definition impartial and warn Yworo?
Calling GNU "incomplete" may be somewhat over the top, but it is still in development as a stand-alone OS and I can't say I've ever thought of GNU as a meaningfully "complete OS" as such, though I've long understood that's what it's been meant and hoped to be. The source cited by Yworo is an opinion piece, ok to cite, however if the cite is going to be carried, the text should most likely echo the notion that incomplete is being cited as an opinion. GNU is most widely known as a big bundle of applications, utilities, interface and other software which is ported to unixish OSs like the BSDs and Linux distros. The lead doesn't seem straightforward about that.
Y'all might think about finding a way to cite that there are indeed sundry outlooks as to where GNU stands. It seems to me, the wording and sourcing needs tweaking either way. gnu.org gets to the pith straight away: Hurd, GNU's kernel is actively developed, but is still some way from being ready for daily use, so GNU is often used with a kernel called Linux.
I am up in a recall RfA here. Because it is a recall RfA, the bureaucrats have declined to close it (this is discussed in detail in a couple of sections here. It turns out there is no set procedure for how a recall RfA is to be closed. Presumably any editor can close it. I'm not sure that's a good idea. And both at the the bureaucrats' noticeboard and on my talk page it has been stated by several editors that the only person qualified to close the RfA would be me, the subject. I guess this is so, but 1) as you can imagine, this could lead to claims to conflict of interest, and 2) I do not want to quaff this cup all alone.
Instead I would like to set up a trio of closers, including myself, with the majority ruling. There is no precedent for this but then this is a fairly unprecedented situation altogether. I would like the other two editors to be persons with good reputations for fairness who cannot be accused of being selected by me in my own self-interest. Would you please do me the favor of being one of these? I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to do this.
The RfA can be closed anytime after 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC). The closing process is discussed here and elsewhere. Some people have said that the usual 75%-ish standard should be relaxed for recall RfA's; I'm not sure I agree, but all this would be entirely up to you.
Yes, as one of three, or I'll close it all by myself if you like. You can trust me to be fair either way. I've already thought it through. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise (to help). I have also posted a long reply on my talk page regarding this, I'd like you to take a look at and comment on. – Tommy[message]19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good, thank you. As one of three, if you please. I will post this at the appropriate place now. I realize that this could be controversial and stressful for both of you. Would it at all help if I made my closing "vote" first or last (that is, before or after you have "voted")? If you have no preference my general inclination is to go last. Do you have any other questions or concerns? Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
When it closes where do we discuss this? I was just looking at a bureaucrat discussion regarding Riana's RfB (for example). – Tommy[message]18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I wonder why you have fully protected Anythingyouwant's talk page? I would like to leave him a message asking him to consider coming back, so that we can finish discussing the issue he raised at WT:Administrators. Would you mind unlocking his talk page, or posting a message there on my behalf? LK (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Hopefully, he'll return after a while. It'll be a shame to lose a steady contributor over a talk page disagreement. LK (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You should have told me about this earlier and I am wondering why you did not. I am willing to help you close this but I must give a rationale for and as any close I make. I will not do it by selecting multiple choice answers on a form. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Idea- do you think it'd be okay to revdelete the closing process, which takes pleace --right now--.. that way it isn't publicly avail.. I don't care if admins can see it. I do have a lenghty rationale, but seeing as this could be more anon then I had predicted, that'd be better. Anyone can email me with any concerns. – Tommy[message]15:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it is traditional for an closer to write a statement in a closure that may prove to be contentious. –xenotalk15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I bit the bullet, !voted, and provided my rationale as best i could. All I hope is that people don't take it against me, and if they do, I clearly expressed myself and my rationale. – Tommy[message]15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I found this report from Fox News that might interest you. [3] It mentions quite a bit and confirms the bone measurements, etc., and TIGHAR's trip, etc. Malke201019:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's telling that all the while, some editors seem to have no worries about the sourced speculation and claims in the "ditched and sank" section of the article, never mind the flawed sources from which much of that theory has been built (whether or not AE and FN did ditch and sink, which is still wholly unconfirmed), moreover with the highly muddled notion that a nod to Occam's razor is all one needs to believe the FDR government's carefully crafted and mythologized story as to what happened to them and why. There is lots of evidence that AE's poor planning for the stunt, blended with US Coast Guard disdain for AE, led to careless botches on Howland and more big mistakes in the search that followed. Ditched and sank is the spin they quickly put on the public relations disaster of having partially financed the useless trip of a famous celebrity, for the propaganda value, only to have lost her altogether. US government employees even "smoothed over" the Howland radio logs. Most of this is thoroughly documented in Gillespie's Finding Amelia: The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2006. ISBN1-59114-319-5). Much of what kids are taught about AE in the US state-run school system is wrong and otherwise highly lacking, swapped out with hagiography. To put a cherry on top, so to speak, Noonan's reputation was trashed with unsupported claims he was an alcoholic, never mind she brought him along because he was at the time one of the most qualified aerial navigators in the world, having charted most of Pan Am's Pacific routes himself along with navigating many of Pan Am's first Clipper flights across the Pacific. Oh, but wait... what does this say about AE's judgement, if she let a drunk be her navigator? Erm, uh, she was a woman and missed that? Her father was an alcoholic so she fell into the trap of enabling likened behaviour? The victimology pitch fits in so neatly with all the other spin. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that about the 'ditched and sank' section. And agree with the Navy's attitude towards her. They gave a half-hearted attempt at helping her. And Putnam would have well known AE's strengths and failings as a pilot and that is why he got her the best navigator on the planet. I don't believe Noonan didn't know Morse Code. I think that's part of the spin, to blame the pair. Noonan was smart enough to know that if they missed Howland they could try for Gardner. He probably planned it ahead of time. There's no reason this can't be in the article so I've suggested an RfC.Malke201011:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Earhart and Noonan do share some of the "blame." Noonan knew Morse but he was slow/weak at it (Pan Am Clippers had radio operators). They left their Morse key in Lae, as I recall, thinking it wouldn't be needed (bad planning). There is evidence that a belly antenna on the Electra was damaged/snapped on take-off from the grass and dirt field at Lae. The LoP (line of position), which Earhart reported to Howland by vox radio, falls within easy sight of Gardner/Nikumaroro's NW end and yes, following a known LoP to the nearest land would have been a standard thing for an experienced navigator like Noonan to have done, once it was clear they couldn't spot Howland. Meanwhile some writers and posters say they didn't have enough gas to make Gardner but I've seen rather convincing calculations that they did, so the fuel question is not at all settled, as some make it out to be. Elgin Long even "made up" a strong headwind on the way to Howland, so he could speculate that they ran out of gas and ditched seconds after her last supposed radio communication. However, many post-loss signals were documented throughout the following days and the Elecra could not have transmitted if it was floating in the water. There is also some evidence someone tried to key Morse code from the Electra by clicking the hand microphone's talk button on and off, thus switching the carrier wave on and off in a way akin to what a Morse key would do. Her husband GP himself thought at the time, they had most likely wound up in the Phoenix islands (one of which is Gardner). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand about Noonan. I thought it would be required by Pan Am in their ground school. Maybe they didn't require expertise, just knowledge of. I think they flew along the line of position to Gardner and landed on the reef. When you think of all the mistakes they made, and especially some of the mistakes Earhart made in earlier flights, it makes me wonder if she didn't have some kind of 'tempt fate' thing going on. Do you think Noonan was up front in the cabin with her?Malke201000:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Noonan taught their ground school now and then. He flew with Earhart hoping the wide publicity would help him promote his own navigation school. He knew Morse code, but was slow at it. Both of them were advised to bone up on their code before the stunt, but they didn't. Noonan was sometimes up in front with her, sometimes piloted the plane but mostly stayed aft at the little nav station. Amidships was taken up by fuel tanks but one could clamber over them (the WC was aft). It was very, very noisy in the cockpit. Earhart canny knew she was taking big risks throughout her career and it caught up with her at last. Most folks aren't aware of all the evidence which, taken together, yields a strong likelihood they landed on the reef near the Norwich City wreck and sent radio messages from there, with Noonan possibly injured and dying not long after, Earhart possibly surviving for weeks, even months, on the other side of the island. The skeleton was found in 1940, when England was already tangled up in a second world war and most of the colonial administration's time and interest, on orders from London, was going into efforts linked with that. Gallagher, the colonial administrator who was also a licenced pilot, thought he had found Earhart's remains and said so in telegrams. Early colonists reported seeing plane wreckage on the reef during their early years there (39-41 or so, as I recall) and the children were told that a man and a woman had been flying the plane. No serious efforts to search the island were made until over four decades later and it is a very hostile and dynamically changing place and drinkable water is hard to come by, which is why the colony was abandoned in the early 1960s (likewise Arundel's coconut planting project in the late 19th century). If she was a castaway there in 1937, alone, it may have been more or less a living nightmare for her. The land crabs will nip little bits of flesh out of someone sleeping on the ground and big rats nick any unsecured food. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've always wondered what happened to Noonan. And I wondered about the water supply. Storms in the area would have brought rain water, but the exposure alone on that island would have doomed her, not to mention any injuries that would have added to it. In her weakened state, the rats would have started biting her, along with the land crabs, so given a lack of water and the effects of thirst and dehydration, it would have been a very painful death. How were the colonists able to overcome the lack of water? Did they process the sea water?Malke201013:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
They had evaporators, also brought sheet metal for roofing, which caught rain water (there was a big cistern), later they dug some brackish wells but that was a very hard slog. The colony was abandoned by about 1963, maybe three reasons have been cited for that but the biggest was, they never did get a steady supply of well water going. The sunsets over the lagoon were said to be stunning, however. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that he's still socking to avoid this block. Just look at these IPs: [4], [5]. I think that we should seriously consider blocking the account permanently. RG (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
excuse me but how it happened I don't quite know but I seem to have made a rollback edit to your talkpage without wanting to, I have tried to revert it but the server is not grabbing the edit form or something. sorry. I have replaced it by hand. Apologies again. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It happens more than ya think :) With RB, idle clicks are the devil's tool. One stray click on the screen and... whap! Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
W/regard admin closure at afd for "Lolicon"
Your quick closure of my 2nd nommed afd at lolicon disallowed full examination of the issues involved, which, in my opinion and for what it's worth, would tend to reinforce an unfortunate perception about the project on several scores!--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
If you keep edit warring over the close, you'll most likely be blocked from editing. You were baiting, disruptively. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing substantially wrong with Lolicon, which has GA status. I tried to explain this, but had limited success. The article does not promote or justify pedophilia.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify with me your reason for removing the (imo exceptionally tame compared to some material) image which is was used to illustrate the Lolicon article. I looked at it earlier, and considered there to be nothing wrong with it being there. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no defence, but it seems silly that we allow pictures of genitalia and sex acts on wikipedia, yet remove cartoon images of children which aren't even erotic, let alone sexual. Your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks. BarkingFishTalk to me | My contributions17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I support your reasoning Gwen Gale. I used the exact same reasoning recently to get rid of the image at Gokkun. Note though that the Lolicon talk page archive has 13 (!) pages. I am quite familiar with the content of all or most of these pages -- and they are all, mostly, about the image for this article. So unless things have changed expect a wild ride! Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Some of them seemed to answer as though they didn't even read what I was saying. Even BF's post above has nothing to do with what I said, that the img is original research. Would the editors at Romantic music let stand an original MIDI file from a non-noted uploader which was claimed as carrying the features of, say, a Sonata form composition for pianoforte from that era? How about an uploader's original recording for Hip hop music? I think putting up original works as examples of genres/styles is not only OR, it's unhelpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
But I think you should check out this thread. Quite simply, the editor it is about, seems to have unrelenting PAs based on religion, or what they think the religion of the other person is. I myself don't think this is acceptable at all, especially since there have been 3 RfCs with no outcome as to a change in behavior.— DædαlusContribs01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering why the page on Jon "Flip" Muro was deleted? he is a legitimate music producer with a few notable credits to major artists which all have valid references. He has a fan base and the latest artist he has contributed major production to has received well over 100,000 hits on you tube total. If there was a problem with the way it was written or formatted please let me know I will change it in any way that is necessary. I would certainly like to at very least have access to the article to retain the work which was put in on it. It is in no way offensive or in bad taste. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter thanks in advance
The discussion on WP:Reviewing was archived a couple days ago as unresolved, so I guess we are stuck with the "CBS-esque" eye logo for the Pending Changes/Reviewers logo. Just thought I would let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
One of these days I will have to read JRR Tolkien, I am out-of-date on LOTR knowledge. I guess, though, the logo will remain until CBS or the family of Tolkien :) go whoa, that looks like our image. We, at least, gave it our best try. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I am trying to read more, but so far I have only gotten through The Complete Calvin & Hobbes (which if you were a fan, I totally recommend). I have George Carlin's autobiography and another book that was the kinda-basis for my favorite TV show, so I am trying. :) I will add some Tolkien to the list once I finish those off. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, we have corresponded a few times before and I would like to ask your advice, please. A fellow contributor, Douglas M. Smith, has accused me of conflict of interest and challenged me regarding my real life identity. I responded to his accusations, and he has only recently replied. In reviewing his edit history to try to gain some measure of his background on Wikipedia, I note that he appears to have made a libellous edit (still currently live) to Sakiyama, Akatsuki's user page. The rest of his edits, however, appear to be good faith edits. Of course, there are any number of possibilities here (e.g., a compromised account), but the edit to the other contributor's user page is disturbing. I am not sure how best to proceed, given his apparent animosity towards me. I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this, or who to refer this situation to; thank you. Janggeom (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, there's a request on RfPP for full protection of GNU. As I see you recently protected and unprotected it, I thought I should let you judge how to handle it. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgintalk|contribs03:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I think that it must be very evident for you now that user Yworo has one sole purpose: to include words or any kind of language that gives a negative image of the GNU operating system. He is pushing for inclusion of words like "incomplete" or "not stable" in the first paragraph because that is a very important place in the article, it is, maybe, the only one read by many people who use wikipedia and who have not much time to read articles in full. They just want to have a quick idea about the desired topic. If you check past edits done by Yworo you will confirm that he has a very strong bias against the GNU OS or anything that is related to Richard Stallman and the FSF. We could spend months here discussing on the use of the words he is pushing for but we will never reach an agreement because he is using a very subjective language which intentionally aims to give a negative image of GNU and the concrete and tangible achievements of the FSF. The first paragraph of the GNU article should be as objective as possible. It should describe what GNU is: a computer operating system that works with different kernels the best know the linux kernel which is known as GNU/Linux operating system by some and just "linux" by others. What might be considered "incomplete" or "unstable" is the GNU Hurd but that is another different article and descriptions of the GNU Hurd should go in that article. Please try to offer a neutral and objective alternative to the biased version obsessively pushed by Yworo.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There may be enough input from other editors on the talk page now, that some kind of consensus can be found. Strong PoVs on this abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
After observing the discussion and the arguments given by Yworo, who has caused the current edit warring, it can be seen that his only aim is to modify the GNU article in a way that describes GNU as anything except as a functional computer operating system that uses different kernels. Please be careful with accepting that user edits. He has caused conflicts in the past because of his insistence on pushing his POV on articles and then accusing other editors of POV and bad faith.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Going by what I've seen on the talk page in the last day or so, I'm still hoping input from editors will be enough to smooth things out. As an aside, I'd think saying something about GNU Linux in the lead would be helpful to readers, moreover given the GNU/Linux naming controversy over many Linux desktop distros. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If I have a question about something, I will post it here for you. [6]. And please also look over my talk page. Thanks.Malke201015:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Seeking your counsel
Hi Gwen Gale. I'm sorry to bother you again with a non-article issue, but the fact is that I am troubled and I would value your counsel.
I was recently involved with a dispute with another user, which raged for while on his talk page and at Wikiquette Alerts, but nothing came of it. However, I guess that other users watch this user's talk page and kind of "gang up" on people who post there. I was really trying to have a person-to-person dialog between me and the other user, but that didn't work out. Oh well, fair enough, no problem.
However, one user, who goes by the name of Ning-ning, who I don't know and don't recall ever interacting with, posted this, which says:
A grade-A genius. Edits prominently in a dirty area without considering basic tenets of web security. Deletes an invite to a Wiki meetup on grounds that it might reveal his geographical location. Escalates some imagined labelling and then introduces us to his wife and kids. Appears to edit a certain other wiki under his Wikipedia user name, with a user page citing the pages he has written, created or essentially rewritten- these include Space is minty fresh (breath mints being one of the Wiki H's interests) and Negro. The latter redirects to a page on the Birmingham N***ers.
Although I'm not happy with any of that post, I'm especially unhappy with this person hunting me down on other web sites so that he can smear me as a racist. Is this allowed? Is there anything that can be done about this?
(For what it's worth -- and I'm not sure how much effort I'm supposed to be expected to put in here defending my posts on other web sites, but whatever -- the article he refers to is the article "Negro" on Uncyclopedia, which when I stumbled across it was appallingly offensive, I quickly rewrote it to be basically unoffensive, and later another user (who I don't know and have no control over) came along and for reasons of his own redacted the article as a redirect to the "Birmingham N***ers" article. I can prove all this with diffs. I'm not convinced that I should have to.)
As a matter of fact I have always stood foursquare against racism, and my father in particular was a a community leader on this issue during the Civil Rights Era. So all this leaves me feeling rather unhappy.
Although I tried to diffuse the situation with a humorous reply (that's me!), it didn't really work, and I find that the whole thing continues to bother me and makes me sad. I've been here awhile and I'm beginning to feel like not editing the Wikipedia anymore if I have to be be called a racist in addition to everything else.
I gather that this person Ning-ning is a long-time productive editor so there is no question of really sanctioning him. I surmise, based on my experience with his wikifriends, that trying to engage him will only lead to me being further jeered at by him and other editors that I haven't met.
Is there no recourse for this? Is this where Wikipedia is going? Should I just bow my head and cross the street? Should I just quietly fade away? What would you do, and and what do you advise?
If you'll kindly allow, I'll go to the pith straight off. Editors who contribute to such articles, whatever their outlooks, become targets for smears. As for humour, without vocal inflection, timing, body language and other cues, it comes across online as meant or hoped, maybe less than half the time, if that. Even a smiley :) can and will be taken wrong. Moreover, even if online humour is understood, it's easy to cite in a way that makes the writer look like an utter jerk. Likewise project space essays about these topics. Most editors are cool, understanding and very forgiving, but now and then, here and there, some editor will, for whatever reason, cite whatever they can to make another editor look dumb, harmful or worse.
Only because you asked, if you're going to edit those topics, stick carefully to sources, post neutrally and don't try to soften what you do with humour, it won't spin out the way you want. If you want to get mixed up in policy discussions having to do with such topics, every little thing you post will be looked at for even wee flaws in wording with which to smear you, sometimes much later. Is it worth your volunteer time? Do you believe you understand these topics thoroughly enough that putting forth your outlook on them here will make the world a happier, safer place? Be wary of such thoughts, they're often wrong. The road to hell is paved with good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the sources mostly have to do with them having caught on in a big way this year, hence the seeming skew in weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gwen. Just a quick and possibly fairly novice question - my apologies if I am asking about something obvious. In the Polanski talk page, I have been told to remove the word "rape" by user Off2riorob as a BLP violation. Given that the word is repeatedly used in the article and of course the facts are widely disseminated, including his arrest and charge with statutory rape, this seems a stretch - do I have to remove it? I don't mind removing it if I have to, but I wondered where I stand with this one. Would appreciate your comment if you have a moment. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed it for you, such vocabulary is easy to spin into a BLP violation and editors should be highly wary of using it on the talk page outside of quotations cited to sources taken as reliable on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Word meanings shift following how they show up in context. "Criminal charges saga" would be ok, what you posted was not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Strengththroughjoy type of insults.
I don't know, maybe my username invites it, but the Strengththroughjoy last insult [7] reminded me about another insult, here [8] (bottom of edit). It's probably nothing, but since Strengththroughjoy suddenly appeared just when I had filed an ANI on Pmanderson I thought it might be worth checking out, although I don't even know who can do it? Can you? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'd already thought Stj does likely have another account (he came close to saying so in the latest post on his talk page), could be User:Pmanderson, I guess, though I'd like to see more before taking these thoughts to CU. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
and done with absolute conformity with Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. In short a specific allowed usage. Cheers Collect (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And the definition of "appropriate notice" says, Do not send notices to too many users. Dozens is way too many. It was canvassing. Please don't do that again. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And how, pray tell, can "everyone" not be interpreted as "everyone"? It was, per the policy, appropriate notification - and I have asked others as well <g>. Meanwhile, look at the user page of the complainant who , for some odd reason, picked you to post to. Including the bit where he states
You sent too many. This is not anything near a big worry and I truly don't think you meant to do anything untowards or "stacky" at all. Please don't do it again, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor this guy is, before they even read my edits. So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Highly unlikely - it is a very boring task at best <g>. Meawhile, why not pruse the material at hand - the person is clearly one who was involved in Sarah Palin per [9] and thst he is one who had a run-in with me in the past under one or more of his other accounts is quite likely - you may get several birds with this one! Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If that means you won't be doing it again, there's nothing more to talk about. As for the diff you gave me, so what? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Collect stopped by my page to ask me about this situation. I've decided to share my views, take them as you like.
First, I think when deciding to give notice, one should use a mechanical approach... set criteria (participated within X weeks, or what have you) and then notify everyone who fits. Collect seemed to have (from this distance) complied with that. Winnowing down to a smaller list by applying judgment... seems like it might introduce bias, and that would be bad.
Second, I think the block of that sock was good, but an SPI is in order to get to the bottom of this, if the sockmaster is an established user, more than just a block seems warranted. Why have you told Collect not to file SPI reports? Do you have a problem with someone else filing one? (did one happen already?)
A mechanical (which is to say, algorithmic) approach is the way to go, so long as it doesn't lead to cavassing. As I told Collect, dozens of posts to user talk pages is not a "limited posting," moreover within the meaning of "do not send notices to too many users."
I don't recall ever telling anyone "not to file SPI reports." Collect likely mistook the meaning of something I said, a diff would be helpful.
As you know, some sleeper socks are run to stir up woes for other editors in the wake of content disputes. This one found a policy weakness in Collect's editing (mild canvassing, not meant in bad faith) and went to an admin (me) who had once upon a time blocked Collect for something else, most likely hoping Collect would get blocked again. As it happened, I didn't think what Collect had done was too worrisome as such and only left a note about canvassing.
Collect tried to tell me the editor was a sock, but rather than giving me a diff, copy-pasted some text (above) into his own post, which at first made me think Collect was talking about his own sock puppet. When I later had a few minutes to look into the account, I quickly blocked the sock, who I'd say was hoping we'd think Hipocrite was behind it, which is highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Mick Gerace
Hi there, Can i get back the latest relase of this article? Also I have followe Wiki rules, copy paste similiar artiste so not sure why this has been delete? I alwo own Copyright for the image, which is used on myspace and wiki. How can i proof this?
Ta
petr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerw (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when you have a moment would you have a look at what is going on here. I have asked a couple of questions on the talkpage and received fair enough answers but looking at the created content I saw some possible content violations and unreliable citations. I realize it is not in the main space but there are still imo issues with creating such content there. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding previous blocks I have had, and promises to ask for assistance;
I have tried to keep my cool, but as I had previously said, if an issue has the potential of becoming uncivil, I will defer to someone uninvolved. In this case, I am deferring to you. Please see here. Thank you for your time, Gwen.— DædαlusContribs00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see this till many hours later and meantime, it's been more or less resolved with an indefinite block of Sweetpoet. All I have to say is that when Sweetpoet called you "childish," there was no need to answer by calling Sweetpoet childish (swapping personal attacks). This made at least one admin mistakenly think you were both "to blame" for whatever was happening. So, no matter what, keep your cool, don't call other editors names, even if they're calling you names whilst standing on the edge of an indefinite block, as was Sweetpoet. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should also say, since an editor can mostly remove or keep things as they please on their own talk page, although WmF does own all userspace on en.WP because it owns the servers and has the last word on what they carry, WP:OWN is about another kind of "ownership" and mostly has to do with the mainspace. If there are worries as to how an editor is handling their userspace, cite Wikipedia:User pages as a guideline instead, maybe along with policies such as WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX and/or WP:NPA as needed. Userspace is given lots of leeway unless it's being used for disruptive stuff like attacks or blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for mis-stepping there. I'll try to keep my cool better in the future. As said before, if it has the potential to turn bad, I'll post here instead of replying in turn.— DædαlusContribs07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive Editor in the Ciara article
Hi Gwen Gale. This editor repeatedly keeps adding the ethnicity they believe to belong in the article Ciara see here:[10] I have repeatedly told the editor that ethnicity requires a citation from a reliable source but the editor refuses to follow policy. Thank you for your time.Mcelite (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Mcelite is the one being disruptive. This user totally does it to everyone's pages. Numerous editors already warned the user about it. Any celebrity with a little drop of Native American blood, the user removes the African American category and states that it should be cited. I don't see why it requires a citation, when its obvious! Georgia Peachez (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked into it for a minute or two and it seems to me she's likely of mixed ethnicity. A category is ok if it's reliably cited, it's not ok without a citation. Meanwhile both of you are saying the other is being disruptive on other articles, perhaps you should try talking about that with each other a bit more? If someone else takes the time to check into it, they may indeed find both of you are being disruptive. Please think about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides, "obvious" is a bit odd: try telling a Jamaican-American that they're African-American, and they're just as likely to spit on you and say you're sterotyping than anything else. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
We're not talking about Jamaicans are we? So stay out of my damn conversation. Anyways, yes she could have something in her, but she needs to cite her source as well instead of removing the category. By the looks of her parents (i'm not judging on how her parents look, but its clear that she has just as much black blood as anything else[11]). That's all i'm saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgia Bird (talk • contribs)
"Black" does not equal "African American". There are many genetic sources of what I believe you're referring to as "black" colouration, and not all of them through Africa - or recent enough for them to refer to themselves as African. If her parents were, for example, Trinidadian, she's not African American. These days "African American" is usually a title one uses on themself, not one that someone bestows on you due to this possible accidental use of the term. If she has never identified to herself as African American, then in reality you cannot use the term. Post 9/11 a lot of Sikhs were seriously beaten by groups of angry American because they "looked Muslim". (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is that Mecelite purposely denying Ciara's black heritage by saying she's everything else, but black. I don't care if she's Jamaican, Bahamian, or Trinidadian! The point is that the girl is BLACK! You can look at her parents and see it. Georgia Peachez (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you think Mecelite is "purposely denying Ciara's black heritage." I'm not thrilled about wading into editing kerfluffles over characterizations as to ethnic background. Terms like black and white may be ok as fuzzy adjectives in broad topics, but their meanings break down quick when put to an encyclopedic biography. Likewise labels such as European-American, African-American, Native-American and so on. If a notable person has verifiably self-identified within a given background, or their background has been noted and thus can be cited, a category would be ok. However, if an editor is looking at photographs and on their own, noting, "Black... white... Asian... white... black... Polynesian... Arab..." that's original research, it is not the same thing as recalling the sky is blue and putting that in an edit. Ethnic and religious categories should be cited. You may want to get more input on this at WP:BLPN. Meanwhile, my biggest worry was that both of you were edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, my insisting on a reliable source for Margolis leaving the Sun has nothing to do with whether I like what it says or not and I strongly resent your interpreting my motivations. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The source was already reliable, I've put another on the talk page. If my take on your PoV was mistaken, I'm very sorry. You were wholly mistaken in saying blogs can't be used as sources and skiving reliable sources as "unreliable" is often a sign of wanton PoV editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Admin Gwen Gale's usage of administrative Blocks.
Gwen Gale: Please explain the basis of the block that you placed on myself. Instead of engaging in a dialogue that was existing in an article's TALK page, as well as the topic you started on my talk page, you choose to not reply, and instead you blocked me for a week for "disruption". That block was appealed and removed. On the surface this appears to be a gross misuse of your admin role. Why would you not engage with me in the two discussions, or if unwilling, simply move on, or hand it off to an uninterested admin? --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So, Tombaker ... as a WP:TPS, I looked at your complaint. Your block was valid to protect the project, and extremely necessary. The unblock at this juncture was clearly premature, and your unblock request was a disgusting abuse of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTTHEM. So you push your very thin luck to come here to browbeat the blocking admin as a continuation of that WP:SOAP? You might want to rethink that, as the disruption from you on many levels clearly needs to be stopped. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Replying here, not sure if this will unarchive it or not...my response will follow if this technical aspect is overcome. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Only so you know, in spite of the standard template notice on the top of my archive page, you edited that page. A note here would have been enough. No big worries, though. I've manually unarchived this thread. If there is no further post here in the next day or so, it will automatically archive again. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, the block was properly removed. This is the 2nd time your blocking of me has been overturned. I have reasonably asked you for clarification of what my actions were that caused you to have block me. It simply is not necessary for you to threaten blocks upon me, especially for actions that you are not explaining. It is a reasonable request for me to ask for clarification, and I hope you will honor this request, or state you are unwilling to engage in any dialogue without resorting to blocking. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No. The first block was lifted because you agreed to stop edit warring. As for the second block, your first unblock request was declined and five days later, another admin mistakenly lifted the block (you were lucky). Don't disrupt Roman Polanski and you'll be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Bwilkins: Saying something does not make it so. If you would, please explain why the block was valid, and extremely necessary. I believe you are unfamiliar with WP:SOAP, as nothing I have written even remotely falls within that categorization. Asking questions for clarification is hardly brow beating, and its entirely reasonable for an Admin to be accountable for blocking another editor. Bwilkins your professing that there is a disruption, without explanation, is counter to the collaborative editing process of Wikipedia. Admins are not the owners. I stand behind my edits, and they are within the guidelines. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I do so look forward to the day when you learn what "collaborative editing" actually means; or at least start doing it - that's what led to your block - you might even look up the word "disruptive" too...I have faith in your abilities to understand those words someday. And to think ... Tom Baker was the best Doctor... (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen
There is a user that vandalises the article Nikos Galis using the names BullDog3, Ironexmaiden, Seahawk35, or his IP. He almost replaces the picture with other pictures taken from other sites. Can you do something about this? Thanks Sportin (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like vandalism, but it does look quite odd. You might let me or another admin know if it keeps up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are the editor supporting inclusion of a source, I very kindly welcome you to justify your edit after the two reverts to place the material back into the article. BigK HeX (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, those are not citations to blogs. Wholly aside from this, since this has nothing to do with blogs, some blogs (those under verifiable editorial control with noted/published authors) are indeed allowed as sources on en.WP. Some editors, owing only to PoV, try to cut reliable sources they don't like by saying they're not reliable. I hope that's not what has been going on in that article. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Opinion/advice?
We have an editor who is determined to impose Oxford spelling (-ize versus -ise) on several Britain-related articles. He has the mistaken notion that WP:COMMONALITY allows him to make these changes. His actions prompted a discussion at MoS. Notice his edit summaries, and look what was deleted from the discussion. Notice also his reaction - and mine - to being templated for what he was doing.
A group of us reached consensus on an issue at The Beatles. User DocKino unilaterally decided that the consensus version had to change to his preferred version - without first discussing. I reverted back to the consensus version and he reverted it again, posing a strawman question on the talk page.
It's obvious that this person has some strong feelings about the way things should go here and is going about it in quite a few wrong ways.
Now and then I tell folks offline that the ise - ize kerfluffle is rather hollow, even funny. This goes into it a bit, though not far enough. The pith is, ize is drawn from the Greek and has much deeper roots in British English than does ise. The latter was a reactionary French affectation put on by some British authors in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, hoping to show they were more "intellectually" with it (or whatever) than those upstart Yanks across the pond. In four words, the ize have it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I love it that the OED gives "americanize" as an example! However, here in England, most schools still teach that -ise is right and that -ize is an americanism. Most British newspapers follow that too. Indeed, many think [12] that Webster wantonly introduced -ize as a fake differentiator between those honest American toilers and their sturdy word endings and the shifty, decadent, possibly French, Old Imperials. I assume you are a US'er Gwen? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Need I tell anyone, be very wary of anything someone tries to teach you in state-funded schools? Most older Brits with whom I've talked about this (even Oxford and Cambridge folks) do say ize is the way to go. I grew up with both Americans and Brits (also speaking French), so I've always spoken/written a mix of US/UK English (some would say a canny muddle but that's another tale :) For a long time, I switched between UK and US spellings, going by whatever happened to be the readers' most likely backgrounds but about five years ago, a native French speaker changed an English language document file I'd written from ise to ize, which got me thinking, I looked into it and said 'bye to ise.
As for Webster, he did do a lot of political-linguistic tweaking, but Webster did not come up with ize, the suffix was already at least 3 centuries old by then and was used on both sides of the pond. Ise showed up very late in the game, as a thumb-bite from London at those uppity, wayward Yanks and it stuck. Etymology does have sway and ize has much deeper support. Yes, one could say that in an article about the Beatles, which at its core is a UK topic, one might stick with UK spellings but there's a slow, steady shift back to ize, as the OED strongly hints, not wanting to ruffle too many feathers. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean the one invented by the 50s White House as part of the global-power con-game. I seem to recall someone doing some research and finding that, at one time or another, the US had claimed "Special Relationship" status existed with 11 different nations. There must be quite a wait on the Special Relationship Hotline Phone. Not to mention a lot of Special Relationship Presidential Cookies boxes to hand out. It makes me sympathise and possibly even rheumatise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought you were getting at that one. Follow the money, when that runs out, so too the, erm, "relationship," as is wont to happen, which somehow makes me recall the line spoken by the Noah Cross character in Chinatown (film), Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's ok, we have someone who thinks we should use Ivory Coast instead of Cote d'Ivoire, and have done 3 RM's and now an RFC - their original argument was that they didn't like the use of non-English. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deutschland is a redirect, as is Cote d'Ivoire, the latter for the wrong reason (diacritics), but since redirects are cheap, I don't care much about where the eddy winds of consensus about many naming conventions on en:WP may blow from year to year. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your (and the others') thoughts. What about this bitey editor? Should he be allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia, reverting at will and hurling insults at anyone with whom he disagrees? Radiopathy•talk•15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. There are two issues here. The first is that consensus was reached to change genres in the lead of The Beatles; User: DocKino immediately changed what had been agreed upon on the talk page, offering some lame excuse to combine two rather distinct genres. If he had any objections, he should have started a discussion without changing the consensus version. I later reverted to the consensus version, and he immediately re-reverted to his preferred version. DocKino did start a discussion, during the course of which two editors complained about the unilateral change.
The second issue involves -ise versus -ize. This discussion took place after I had run a script that changes "American" spelling to "Bitish" spelling, ie, color to colour, installment to instalment, etc. It also has the option to use -ise or -ze suffices; I chose -ise. The first issue here is that it has been explained to this person ad nauseum that he is citing the wrong guideline (WP:COMMONALITY) to rationalize his changes. Please note the tone that this person uses in his dealings with other editors. So - the second issue - a discussion was opened at WP:MOS. Please note once again the incivility, including this juicy nugget, which was deleted from the discussion.
I've posted something. The main worries seem to be WP:NPA and what may be a willingness to edit war. I think getting stirred up over ize - ise is mostly a waste of time, moreover since it's a UK topic, even if ize is indeed the way to go. By the way, the stylistic adjectives look unsourced to me. The Beatles, for sundry reasons, are oftentimes whatever some listeners and even authors want them to be. Sources will not always agree as to what this was, so a thorough mix of cites will only help readers (moreover tamp down any back and forth between editors). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your comments and your admin help.
The -ise/-ize debate at The Beatles specifically is not about which one is more correct, but rather about retaining the existing variety, per WP:RETAIN. This article primarily used the -ise form until DocKino started his eradication campaign. In the version before DocKino's first edit, there are six instances of -ise (not counting those within quotes, which can't be changed) and two of -ize. If you go back to the first available edit, "epitomised" jumps out from the very first sentence. DocKino claims that WP:COMMONALITY demands that we change to the -ize form in the interest of stylistic uniformity, but it says no such thing; its focus is on the commonality of words and phrases. Radiopathy•talk•15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that I have over 7,000 edits and six barnstars to my name, yes, I'm very familiar with our personal attacks policy. Two points need to be clarified for you:
(1) If you had bothered to read the whole thread, you would have understood that the context of the discussion at that point had been established by a series of objectively false claims and insinuations about my editing actions by the other editor. Not that one bad deed would excuse another, but context is important to appreciate that...
(2) I don't consider the edit you found objectionable to be a bad deed at all. I willfully ignored our P.A. policy and would readily do so again if I ever again encounter an editor who advocates a nationality test, an ethnicity test, a religious test, or any other such test of fellow editors for any reason, including to determine the acceptability of an edit of theirs. If you are not as sickened and appalled by such a suggestion as I am, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to adjust my principles to accommodate such poisonous proposals simply because getting personal in response is "not on." I would say my choice of response was quite "on" in this case, judging by the evidence—without exactly retracting his filthy suggestion, the other editor certainly did slink away from it as fast as he possibly could. I call that success. I'm sorry that you disagree. DocKino (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a personal attack worry. Meanwhile I looked at (only) a sprinkling of your edits and I didn't find any ise sweeps by you. How many articles have you done that on? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Very few actually; for the most part, the -ise form was already there, and other UK spellings, such as travelling and behaviour, were the extent of the change. The Rolling Stones had five instances of -ise prior to my running the script, and seven afterwards, but quite a number of other, ostensibly "acceptable" spelling changes occurred. Radiopathy•talk•23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Given the PAs are nettlesome and beyond the bounds of policy, the way to keep all this from stirring up into even more needless kerfluffle and woe, I think, is to let it fade by not running scripts which shift spellings between ize and ise, at least without overwhelming editor consensus to do that kind of thing. Either way, I do plan on saying a bit more to DocKino and maybe to PL290. Calling a spelling disagreement on a privately owned encyclopedia website "ethnic cleansing" is beyond codswallop. It's not like some corrupt ministry of culture is putting forth a law backed by police powers and what's more, the Greek and Latin etymologies have more or less aught to do with anything "ethnic," both have had wide use in Anglo-Saxon writing for a long time. Trying to polarize a discussion with that kind of empty talk is on the edge of disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All this bloodletting on something as trivial (IMO) as this. I’m quite content to see both spellings as it tends to keep both camps happy, and besides, going with one or the other surely means re-formatting the whole article? Are we in favor of that or not in favour of that? BTW, I have great respect for PL290 who usually gets it right, but who is definitely backing the wrong horse here. DocKino has an abrasive manner and often resorts to personal abuse. This is deterring open and healthy discussion. The Beatles discussion page is usually a lively and interesting place, but always respectful - until recently. If you are able to keep an eye on things for a while, then that would be good.--Patthedog (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A note
Someone told me you that you are absolutely wonderful and I thought you should know :-) I read a couple of your posts and have to agree. Your only hint is that it was another admin, who is actually pretty wonderful herself ;-) I am just a lowly editor with much to learn and thrilled to find a respected resource. G'day to you ! Namaste! ...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: I have asked several times now for a clear explanation to why you blocked me, which have been rudely ignored. Please respond to this specifically or state you will not.
Toddst1 I would like to disabuse you of the notion that I am in any way harassing anyone. I have asked Gwen Gale a straight question about a editor block which merits an equally straight response. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: I am sorry but you have pointed at nothing which indicates why I was blocked, when you did it. You stated it was a preemptive block. If you are not interested in providing accountability to your admin blocking of an editor, please indicate you do not want to provide the information, and I will be responsive to that accordingly. It would be most simple to just give the reasons, especially since you now maintain that they were given. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen I am sorry that you refuse to provide accountability for the actions you undertook as an Admin. Accountability is simply providing the basis for which you are creating a block to an editor.
Since you seem determined to obfuscate and side step in every possible way, instead of simply giving reasons of what I did to merit getting blocked, it does seem that my asking for your cooperation here has run its course. Your assumption of bad faith of why I am asking for clarificationare rude and uncalled for, and clearly self-serving. I asked you a straight question. You are not willing to give any justification for why you blocked me. It is reasonable for me to ask.
The block was reviewed by an interested party, and then removed by an uninterested admin, whom did not see the reasons why you blocked me, it does not feel that you even reviewed why this block was overturned.
As I said Gwen, asking you on a your talk page seems to have run its course. I am left with the perception that admin functions were not used properly, and interested parties where involved along that side.
That lifting bit in the swamp is spot on where the Star Wars saga lost me. I mean, I groked the allegory and all, but Joe Campbell-stirred myth overlays got a bit too thick, even for me. I'll always like A New Hope though, I mean the early releases, with all the little blue screen glitches and other wee bumps, wonderful moviemaking. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, I first saw it in a cinema with flocks of other kids on re-release on a Saturday afternoon and as I recall, sat through it for two showings, then asked to be taken back the next weekend. I've seen it a gazillion times since then. It even works as background/mood images on a screen nobody's much watching and even its flaws can still somehow pitch in to take me to a galaxy far, far away. In the craft this is called suspension of disbelief and that one's always done it for me, wookiee and all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one way of putting it. The loops of wikilawyering on my own talk page don't bother me, since they'll stop soon enough. The only pith would have to do with any BLP worries churning underneath. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I understand it from my past experiences with regard to tendentious editors trying their luck with WP:BLP (one recent case being John J. Pershing), what goes around comes around, it will be his turn soon enough. And its all concisely chronicled on WP:OWB, we'll just have to wait and see who gets the last laugh eventually, eh? Cheers and best. --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™11:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, old Black Jack. Guess I do recall reading something about that but it's been donkeys' years. Not a BLP worry but that aside, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, per my observations... TB321 has been very careful to cover his track (very well indeed if I might add) along with his selective choice of words, I also noted his recent SPI case being proposed because of an over-bearing similarity with a BLOCKED user (as noted by the nominator) but he was eventually acquitted mainly due to the differences in IP range. CSI Gwen, it's all up to you now. *grin* --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™11:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It has always appeared borderline. It was brought to WP:REFUND by the creator, and I have been working with him to make it work - figured I would bring in the excellence :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It is borderline at most, the cites don't seem to support any meaningful independent coverage at all (and my outlook on N is rather wide and forgiving). IP and moreover patents being doomed one way or another and soon, a topic about a bunch of patent lawyers and their own little bureaucracy meant to bulldoze innovation into neat, fenced-off patches of barren gravel, doesn't stir me up much. That said, I can at least give you input on the text whenever you like, to do with as you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Image Question
I was looking for a new picture of NFL football player Kelley Washington, as the one there is horrible, and found this one. The problem I am running into is it is CC 2.0. Is that covered by Wikipedia or is that one of the CCs we don't allow? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, want to work on the page and get it presentable. Right now it is just a jumbled bunch of some sourced, some not information. With local papers and such, I can make a good article. That person is, sadly, the best that has ever come out of my high school, so they should have a good article on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, that and he is the biggest thing to come out of the school, period. Most of us went onto office jobs of some sort, some science jobs, some vet jobs, some work at Walmart or grocery stores....some went nowhere. He went the highest. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here. I know I'm correct that using an album's Amazon page, or any online store for that matter, as a ref for the track listing is wrong. Please opine. Thank you again. Radiopathy•talk•21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The track list is highly verifiable. Her website has the list and can be taken as wholly reliable on this topic.
If by some odd fluke there was no source for the track list, the album itself could be cited as the source. Any editor who had a copy (hard or soft) could verify the track list and do this. A straightforward listing of tracks and/or credits isn't OR.
I wouldn't want to cite an Amazon sales page, but I might do it in a pinch (there is no pinch here) then put in the article text something like Amazon.com lists the tracks as... with a note in the citation that this was pending a more reliable source, making readers aware of where the list came from. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
On 16 September 2010, I added a brief paragraph mentioning that Peg Entwistle and her father had no marker on their burial site. I noted that it had been unmarked for 77 years and that a fund-raising campaign on facebook had been undertaken to provide a marker for Entwistle and her father.
Later, as you saw, others began tweaking the paragraph. Can you please tell me: 1. Was my original contribution acceptably written? 2. I was sent photographs of the marker and can verify its existence, however, the same photograph has also been posted to findagrave.com. As this site is used in the article as a reference with regard to Entwistle's burial, may it not also be used to verify the grave marker? Here is the link to view the image: [[14]]
Also, in the event that you, or other administrators, find the mention of the marker irrelevant to the article, I would posture that it is worth at least a brief mention in light of the many people (to my understanding) from around the world who donated to the facebook campaign. Please know, too, that I am not affiliated with the campaign or the findagrave people, however, I am writing Peg Entwistle's biography, as Wiki editor Wildhartlivie can verify, and I believe noting the new marker holds some importance to the article.
Hi. I took it all out only because it was wholly unsourced and as such, it quickly got spammed. As I said in the edit summary, anything about the marker must be sourced and written in an encyclopdic (neutral) way, you're welcome to do that. I think findagrave.com can be an ok source for graves, since graves are so verifiable, if other sources can't be found (but I'd be very wary about citing findagrave.com for anything more). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I completely understand and agree with your reason. I have never used findagrave as a research tool, nor would I ever. But in this case it, and findadeath.com (another site that irks me) and the facebook page of the woman who started the campaign for the marker, are the only sources featuring the photograph. And as I mentioned, since findagrave is already used in the article, I think it would be okay to use here again. I have recived a video and more photos of the marker, and it is indeed in the Entwistle/Ross family plot. Anyway, I'll work on an encyclopedic entry and if you say it needs more or less, I am flexible. Thanks Jameszerukjr (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tweaked it for NPoV and flow. I took out the name of the person who seems to have been behind the donation drive, since it smacks of heavy self-promotion and either way, is not at all notable to the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I said I am flexible, but I think you are way out of line with the article. For a long time the article stood on its legs because I, as Entwistle's biographer (the book is on its way), VERIFIED the sources. For example (and I'm only going to give two for now), you deleted the entry mentioning her signing the RKO contract on June 13....I HAVE THE CONTRACT IN FRONT OF ME! I'd be happy to send you a scan of it. At the top it says, "This agreement made this 13th Day of June, 1932, between RKO Studios and Peg Entwistle." It is signed by Entwistle, David O. Selznick, and Daniel L. Oshea, Selnick's Assistant Secretary. Then you added that Entwistle played in bit parts in several films (I'm paraphrasing), and referenced a source. But this claim of bit parts in other films proved to be untrue when I researched the entire body of RKO's inter-office memos at the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences archives in the Herrick Library in Beverly Hills. (I have copies of all the Selznick and Cukor memos regarding "Thirteen Women," and other possible Peg Entwistle-related projects (such as discussions regarding Billie Burke wanting Peg instead of Katherine Hepburn in "Bill of Divorcement." (Would you like to see them, too?)
I can go on and on with your deletions--which, in my opinion, have a somewhat thinly-veiled personal bent. Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to much of what you "tweaked." I understand editing for flow and NPOV, but your scalpel became a chainsaw to an article, though far from perfect, was quite acceptable to long-time Wiki editors and other administrators.
I tried to be polite and respectful and reasonable, but it turns out that you are entirely unwilling to discuss anything with regard my expertise into the career and life and death of Peg Entwistle before "tweaking" her Wiki.
Entwistle's family--namely her brother Milton Entwistle and his daughter--furnished me with hundreds of documents including diaries, letters, and telegrams. Before I met them I spent 5 years researching her career--literally reading the era's newspapers and theatrical-related periodicals a page at a time. I spent hundreds of hours doing interviews. I found Entwistle doing radio in 1925, having lunch at the White House in 1931, being black mailed, and a dozen other things no one--not even her family had known. And because of her family's cooperation, I was able to complete a timeline that other authors had never before been able to string together. EVERYTHING I discovered has at least two verifiable, reliable sources.
Wiki editors Rossrs, and Wildhartlivie, and I spent weeks "tweaking" the Entwistle article--it wasn't perfect, but it was good enough for them and so it remained good enough for Wikipedia until you came along and decided you knew more about her than her biographer. How ironic that a Wikipedia Administrator, in trying to establish a foothold of "one-up-menship" into a long-accepted Wikipedia article, actually deleted facts and added untruths--I'm sure you're quite satisfied with yourself.Jameszerukjr (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Jameszerukjr, your research can't be cited here, because it's original research. Rather than go through each thing you said, I think it's enough to note that I never, as you say, "added that Entwistle played in bit parts in several films (I'm paraphrasing), and referenced a source." Rather, I took that out. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Ownership? Hardly. I stand corrected in my error of attributing the "added that Entwistle played..." to you. As to original research, if you view the article as it stood before I ever began to make my first entries, and compare with what I added over time, you will see that most of the article is actually comprised of my "original" research. Virtually everything in the original article was in error. I was the one who obtained--through my research--official documents such as her birth certificate and coroners report (not the death certificate, but the detailed reports) that allowed the article accuracy regarding her given name, dates of birth and death, etc. Moreover, it was my research that uncovered newspaper articles regarding her time with Henry Jewett and the Boston Repertory, her Guild tour, and the quote from the San Fransisco interview. So, at what point are these primary sources no longer my original research, but acceptable WP sources? And as biographies are often used as sources in WP articles, what happens when someone will wish to contribute and use my book as a reference?Frankly, I no longer care what you all do with Entwistle's article. Do what ever the hell you want to it, you're going to regardless of what I say or ask, for you are a fanatical, totally unreasonable lot. And I find it interesting that neither of you addressed my concern as to why the article was fine for so long after Rossrs and Wildhartlivie (and others) helped to shape it into what had been deemed an article conforming to WP policies and guidelines--clearly, the "ownership" of this article is Gwen'sJameszerukjr (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Jameszerukjr -- I realize it can be upsetting if you're working a topic you care about, and you make a good faith effort to improve it, but collide with our policies that may seem at first to be arbitrary or counterproductive -- but please consider what Wikipedia would be like if we allowed original research and indiscriminate use of primary sources. Everything here has to be verifiable. It's really the only possible way to write this thing that is defensible, because otherwise people would be adding all sorts of off-the-wall things and there'd be no policy-defensible mechanism for fixing the problems. It is possible to write an article that is well-written and complete and accurate, but fails verifiability. Thanks, Antandrus (talk)21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But administrators must also follow the policies. Now, Gwen changed or deleted too many of my edits--pure and simple. I mean, where does she get off saying the police surmised Peg died on Sept 18? What's her source? She have the police report? I do! The police surmised no such thing! The death certificate--not my original research--says "Date of Suicide September 16," as does the police report, Coroners Report, and Inquest. The date of death given as September 18, 1932, is because that was when she was DECLARED DEAD by the coroner. If the coroner had not examined the body for another hour and eleven minutes, Peg's death date would have been recorded as September 19, for he would have declared her dead at 12:01 AM, yet the date of suicide would remain September 16, for the coroner knew the rate of decay. That was the way it was done in 1930s Los Angeles....The coroner knew what he was doing--Gwen didn't. I have official documents provided to me by the City of Los Angeles, yet Gwen would rather what? Use a newspaper as a more verifiable source than these, or just pick one section of the death certificate without reading the entire document? Has she even read it? All of it? Why am I even having this discussion?
As it stands now, the article contains a good deal of ambiguity, whereas before it had very little. And once again, I raise the concern that the article was argued over, discussed, and a concensus agreed to by numerous long-time editors such as Rossrs and Wildhartlivie, and, if I remember, Pinkadelic. At any rate, the article stood on its legs for many months before Gwen brought the hatchet. I care about Wikipedia, too, and I am concerned about unverifiable entries making their way into any article. I fully remember when Wiki was the laughing stock of the Internet and scholarship in general. Did you see how many pages Gwen used up in the "View History" and then had the nerve, the gall, to tell me she "tweaked" it? She didn't tweak it, she rewrote the damn thing. And would it not have been a polite courtesy to first talk over all the edits? This, more than anything, is why there are so many ill feelings between contributors on Wiki. Too many are simply too head strong to think, "Wait a sec, so and so has obviously done a lot of work here, maybe I should talk some things over with him to reach a concensus and make a better article." That's what a professional editor would do--that's what my book editor does with me...and isn't that what Britannica and all other encyclopedia editors do?Jameszerukjr (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're wholly mistaken, I did not edit the text to say the police surmised she died on the 18th. The text I edited says the police surmised she died on the 16th. You seem to be misreading most of the text in the article.
As for "tweaking," again, you have misread something. That was an earlier comment I made, about de-spamming the grave marker edits, before I looked into the wider article and found worries stemming from content sourced to original research (which readers cannot verify for themselves through published sources), along with echoes of the tabloid sensationalism and spin which seem to have clouded this topic for almost eight decades.
That's a lie! You're guilty of sophistry and manipulation. Oh, You are a clever one, aren't you. I read what you edited. I saw what you did--what you added, what you deleted--I don't how you did it, but we both know WHAT you did--and you continue to do it! With the full weight of your title and insider access as an "administrator." I'm not an expert at Wiki--oh, excuuuuse me--I mean "Wikipedia."
And why, for the love of God, do all of you continue to refuse to address my issue regarding the concensus that was reached long ago; namely, that the ARTICLE WAS FUCKING FINE UNTIL YOU DECIDED YOU WE WERE NOT AS BRILLIANT AS YOU? GO FUCK YOURSELF...I'M DONE...GEE, WHAT A LIFE YOU HAVE! WIKIPEDIA...NO PAY, NO GLORY. AND THE BUTT OF JOKES FROM JAY LENO AND DAVID LETTERMAN.
OH, AND BY THE WAY....You should remove the photo of Peg from the article, for, as your puckerd asshole will see, it was contributed by me--from MY ORIGINAL research. You are a fucking a liar and a hypocrite, Gwen. You have no true alligenmce to Wikipedia....you belong to a hateful, politcal band of cultish fanatics within...me, I'm just a fucking Iraq War Vet who tried to help make Wikipedia honest....
You changed the history to reflect your "rightness" and calmly sit back and wait for the maniac to vent. Well, there ya go, Miss Cunt..you got what you wanted. GO FUCK YOURSELF. (Oh, know, gee, I guess I won't be able to edit for Wikipedia anymore after that tirade)
WHO FUCKING CARES. WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO ME? IF YOU HAD ONE FUCKING OUNCE OF INTEGRITY, YOU WOULD COMPARE THE VERY ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH MY CONTRIBUTIONS...Peg Entwistle's Wikipedia looked like a fucking GOD DAMNED article from WEEKLY WORLD NEWS.Jameszerukjr (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I've given Jameszerukjr a short cool-down block. You may wish to remove all or part of his latest comment. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, the time I spend editing at Wikipedia has diminished. My responsibilities in the real world have increased. I'm now taking care of an elderly parent, so cannot spend much time here. I'm proud of my work at the Houston article and enjoyed getting it to FA status. However, the most enjoyable time I feel spent here was working with you at Shamrock Hotel. Just wanted you to know that. Take care, Postoak (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen Gale! I don't know if you'll see this soon-enough to avoid having to look in archives, but I thought I should let you know that I quoted you at ANI from the summary you wrote in closing this RfC/U for user Collect.
Collect is claiming that RfC/U was invalid or badly compromised by irregularities, and I'm wondering whether you could shed any light on that? I don't think it constitutes "canvassing" to ask you that or to inform you of the thread, but if you do then feel free to ignore. I've not contacted anyone else, btw, except the parties named and the admin who instituted the block against another user that Collect began the thread to obtain. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Note particularly that I was not the one who issued the complaint about User:Screwball23. I fear OS is a relatively new user who thinks dispute resolution means seeking out disputes <g>. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ohiostandard, it would help a lot if you gave diffs of edits (please see the wlink if you don't know how to do those yet). As for Collect's RfC/U, that has gotten a bit stale, it's been awhile. Also keep in mind, RfC/Us are not binding, which is to say, they're more or less only reminders to an editor, to stay within policies which are already there. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Collect, you do seem to be at it again: Collect has often answered worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors.Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy if someone, anyone, could translate exactly what Collect is trying to say, as I find it completely and totally unintelligible. There is not a single shred of evidence that I have followed Collect anywhere, least of all, the CC arbcom pages. That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. For the record, Collect has a long, sordid history of making false claims and assuming bad faith, and it's time for it to stop. My belief, based on experience, is that Collect engages in tendentious behavior to wear down the patience of other editors and to waste their time. The most recent example of this bad behavior can be seen on Talk:John Birch Society, where pretty much everyone has had it with him. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Eh? Last example was your "move war" on a simple essay WP:Josh Billings - for which you were soundly reprimanded by User:Jclemens. And of course your insistence on posting on my user page after being told not to [16]. Now his "key issue" -[ he asserts that [17] does not have a "suggest edits" button on article pages. Random example: [18]. I say that towards the upper left (directly above "Travel & Geography" in this case) there is a button labeled "Suggest Edit" with an icon of a pencil. If you see this, tell us. If you do not see it, I need a new computer really badly! This sort of "stuff" wears me down even without all the radiation I had (sigh). Collect (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, please stay away from Collect's talk page. Both of you, encyclopedia articles about political groups do not easily lend themselves to the dialectic shorthand such groups tend to put into their marketing. It's a trap. Also keep in mind, the sources to be had on such topics are often themselves muddled. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Being a tertiary source, an encyclopedia is nothing more than a handy and quick reference, no encyclopedia is a reliable source. Drop it, as an utter waste of volunteer editing time. Collect, please stop ending your posts on my talk page with that <g> thingy, it makes me think you're being flip, or worse and I don't want to think that. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, just so we are on the same page, tertiary sources like Britannica are considered reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. You and I may not give them much credence outside Wikipedia, but this has been discussed on WP:RS/N many times and is not a subject of dispute, and is in fact, part of the reliable source guideline. In other words, we use encyclopedias all the time here, and you'll find them in many featured and good articles, but most often, they will be used, not by themselves, but to complement secondary sources. Obviously, if we have secondary sources that contradict the information in such an encyclopedia, we would have to consider abandoning the tertiary and using the secondary instead, since for the purposes of Wikipedia, secondary sources take precedence. Of course, if you know of a proscription against using encyclopedias as reliable sources on Wikipedia, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
Meaning, once editors begin to dig at all into a topic, encyclopedias are out, gone, toast, the end. Stay away from 'em, other than as a means to find out what to look for and where, but even that can be way dodgy, owing to the wanton systemic bias of most any tertiary reference. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above" "they [tertiary sources] will be used, not by themselves, but to complement secondary sources." And that's exactly what you find in our featured and good articles. The fact is, there are many excellent, technical articles available only in encyclopedias, such as medical, religious, and art history encyclopedias. There's nothing wrong with using such sources, and we use them all the time. Gwen, care to show me a FA or GA review where authoritative encyclopedias were removed? We use them all the time, but we don't rely on them as solitary source. Again, we use them to complement the material we already have in secondary sources. That's the entire point with the EB source Collect disputes. It merely reiterates what is said in the secondary source literature, but does so authoritatively. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Specialty/professional encyclopedias are not at all the same things as GI references like Britannica or en.WP. The former are often taken as secondary sources in themselves. Another way to put this, if one cites a tertiary source like a GI encyclopedia, one has then spun up "quadriary" text, a nest of worry for layered mistakes at each step from the primary sources and hence, more often than not, likely to mislead one way or another. As for "featured" and "good" articles here, be wary, User:Antandrus has written something short and sweet about those. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the Antandrus page, as all of us should be. It doesn't sound like you and I are really disagreeing, Gwen, but again, the point I'm making is that when we use a source like Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the Encyclopedia on Climate Change, our usage doesn't change. That is to say, the best encyclopedias are only citing the most notable primary and secondary source literature, and when we cite an encyclopedia, we are not citing it for its unique view or approach, but rather to confirm authority of usage and consensus on a particular topic. This is the case with Britannica in my example, which I would like to run by you. The material Collect disputes from the EB said this about the Fox News Channel: "Despite its slogan "fair and balanced," however, the network's coverage was widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." This particular factoid isn't seriously disputed by anyone, but Collect found fault with it for some reason that he can't quite explain, other than his personal point of view of "I don't like it". Regardless, this material is repeated in many reliable secondary sources, such as Rutenberg (2000), Niven (2002), Morris (2007), Groeling & Baum (2007), Iyengar & Hahn (2009), and many, many other sources. Even the head honcho himself, Roger E. Ailes, the Fox News Channel chairman and chief executive, said: "I think there is an underserved audience that is hungry for fair and balanced news. If the conservative point of view is not presented anywhere else in journalism, then those people will come to us..." What I'm seeing from Collect here, in my own personal opinion, is a pattern of unsupported opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation. Whether we use EB is inconsequential, as the secondary sources already support these claims. The purpose of using EB in the first place was to show this support was mainstream, not fringe. To this day, Collect keeps arguing that EB is "user-generated", avoiding the preponderance of secondary sources that exist without requiring EB at all. I apologize if this is all a bit convoluted, but I'm getting the sense that Collect is engaging in POV pushing, and misusing the talk page to prevent resolution of a dispute that isn't in dispute by any source. More information here, if you are interested. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about encyclopedias, we'll need to talk about them one by one. I can only say this, don't cite EB other than to get an article stub going and you won't go wrong. As an editor, I would not lend consensus to a citation from any GI encyclopedia. As an admin, I'm only saying that citing EB is but thinly supported by policy and only then for quick overview. On the other hand, I would tend to be ok with a citation from something such as Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
This aside, if Collect is saying EB is "user-generated," Collect is mistaken, broadly put. EB content is under editorial control. As for Collect's behaviour, that's a whole 'nother topic. Are you reading this Collect? Do you see and hear the feathers ruffling? Do you want to see them fly, too? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) Sorry - your position on this was exactly the same as mine. To the letter! And the old emoticon dates back to 300 baud days (ask Xeno). Collect (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I know about the emoticon's background and what it's meant to mean, but I don't think it's always taken to mean that anymore. Speaking of which, if editors are telling you they're being nettled by stuff you do, take the hint. Outlook/PoV is not at all the same thing as how one goes about getting stuff done with others through open editing here. If feathers are being ruffled, as it were, that won't help you or anyone else get what they want. Please keep that in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Advice please
I really need some advice on a completely untenable situation. Over at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth there is a situation that I need direction. I am refraining from comment so that you can make your own decisions based on what you see in the talk-page. As one of the most even-handed, level-headed editors I know I appreciate your input. Padillah (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Both JJB and Martin Hogbin have the temerity to question my motives for reverting changes. Even though I've now acceded to all but one of the changes JJB at least, Martin backed off after only insulting me once, is still trying to make this about my being "anti-lipogramic".
The edit summary for this change questions my motives right off the bat.
Somewhere in this menage is the accusation that "Your implication that common phrasing trumps sourcing conformity, and your switch-up from this rationalization to that, do not play towards showing good faith" Which is the lipogramatic way of saying I'm only doing this to be anti-lipogrammic.
"But this is ridiculous how much work you put in to say at last that this is all about your liking, and to imply that antilipogrammaticity is not on your mind at all."
All of them require interpretation because JJB refuses to engage in straight-forward communication (choosing, instead, to communicate in lipogram). I would like to simply ignore him, inasmuch as he refuses to communicate rationally and clearly, but I don't want to get into an edit war with him. How do I work with someone that so clearly doesn't care what I think or how I feel? How do I work with someone that has shown no indication of a real willingness to work together? Oh, he says he'll improve the article but every "improvement" he makes is lipogramic and then he argues that "it improves the article because the book is a lipogram and the article should be too". I'm not really looking for recourse, I'm looking for advice. What do I do with this guy? Padillah (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for helping me get up to speed on this. Truth be told, I think it's kinda fun that someone wants to do the article on that topic, a book written in lipograms, with lipograms. I think it's harmless, too, so long as editors are in consensus to carry the text that way. However, there is some likelihood that the text can't last all that long as lipogram (it would be a fluke, however happy, if that happened).
As a start, you might ask that JJB stop talking about "good faith" altogether, WP:AGF is taken as a given here, that's the policy, there's no need to bring it up at all unless blocks are nigh (and even then, there's often no need). Can you put up with his going to such lengths that he even talks about the article in lipogram too, or is it all too much to abide? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As cute as it may sound it renders the article almost unreadable (and decidedly unclear). For example, with that restriction in place we can't even mention the authors' name (Ernest Wright) or what the lipogram is (try telling someone you are not using the letter 'e' without using the letter 'e'). So debate was had and it was determined that, in the interest of clarity, the article not be held to lipogrammatic restrictions. However, some editors took it upon themselves to offer help only inasmuch as they could edit as a lipogram. Ostensibly, they would not remove 'e's but they would not add them either. This is turning out to be more difficult than first imagined.
As for the talk page stuff - sadly, no. I find it very difficult to communicate with JJB in any precise way. A casual conversation is usually possible but anything that takes precision is usually accompanied by several level of translation, a few made-up words (that I have to make-up a definition for), and a healthy dose of obfuscation. JJB's penchant for ignoring the topic doesn't help either.
Not to mention my good faith is being stretched to the breaking point. How can I trust these editors are not trying to re-lipogram the article when their intentions are made perfectly clear with every post on the talk page? I don't feel good about leaving the article, I know if I did it would revert, in sort order, to the obscure, unreadable, lipogram it was before. But I don't know that I need to edit war over every change and subject myself to questions about my integrity and intentions from people whose contrary intention are vividly clear. Padillah (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I say let them have fun, since maybe there does seem to be a consensus to keep trying at skiving e from the text, it'll either wind down on its own, or in some unforeseen way, notch in to something lipogramish that sticks. If you're truly worried that readers will be on the losing end of this, you might try gathering more input through a content RfC. Likewise, if I'm missing something, please do tell me. Whatever you do, don't edit war or anything like that, it's not worth it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want to add this link as a sample of a diff from when the page was completely lipogrammed, for the sake of comparison. This actually stood for a few months with only minor changes until being reverted sometime in late 2008. Since then, the article has changed somewhat but not really much. —Soap—23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said above, I think the notion of lipogramming the text of that article is rather fun. Otherwise I'm neutral about it (I don't care if it's lipogram or not and as anyone can see, I've never been involved in the article). I protected because two editors had fallen into a bitter edit war over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Additional background
Actually, on your own talk, you just confirm what I go on and on saying, that continuing at "notching in" and "skiving" this topic, within normal limits, is within contributors' rights. So I am hoping you can talk this out with us. First, kindly consult WP:WQA#Additional factors and say what you will. Also, I want to know how I was warring, in that Padillah only undid two diffs, and I didn't undo at all. If you want to look at all diffs and find two words that Padillah undid and I put in again, and if you want to stand on that (is it warring to call "it's not his town" gratuitous if Wright says it's "his town"?), I think it's our most unfought war in WP annals. So I don't think topic history supports a finding of a "war".
You say I know what I'm doing. Actually, I thought it was assuming good faith to say to a contributor that an action is hard to follow in good faith. All my words following that point amount to nothing but trying to outrun a tar baby. But if my good faith toward Padillah is not sufficing you, consult that link again, and say what you will.
Finally, if Padillah actually supports your paradigm, as I do, all disputation that you might lock us for would vanish. As I always say, if all contributors work toward improving things, lipogrammaticity is fully moot. This is normal topic cycling, not counting a WQA complaint (I don't start such) and a dug-in position that I am told I could not call "gratuitous". If your half-month-long lock stands, discussion will chill and start up with bad blood all around. If you can kindly undo your lock now, such additions as I was trying making during your lock (now at its talk) might possibly fix points in which this topic is flat-out wrong (as in its misquotation of Word Ways, put in by anti-lipogrammaticists). I work slowly. Thanks for your thoughts. JJB 17:38, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Should I undo this? It fails WP:PROD and is factually wrong. JJB 17:43, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Here because increasingly off-topic on WMC's talk.
I think that even with the current wording, that interpretation is a stretch. From the context, it's clear that the admonition against discussion of a living person elsewhere in the project applies to an article subject under discussion and not an editor (or some other named person outside the Wikipedia world) — not a named person in their editor capacity — especially in the context of dispute resolution or policy enforcement. Unjustified assertions against editors (named or pseudonymous) are covered by NPA, not BLP.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that, as far as policy is concerned, "Dr. Connely" and "WMC" are distinct and disjoint and the latter doesn't get to be treated differently because the former exists when discussing WMC the editor. Does that make any sense? — Coren(talk)17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Our outlooks on that seem spot on the same to me. One way or another, an editor's handle has no sway as to policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malke, I only fixed an html tag which, I don't know why, was left open in MRG's signature. I did this because, with the tag left open, all the fonts below were botched up (rendered as superscripts), you can see that here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. That's my doing as I moved this comment from MRG's talk page so I could hold on to it for easy reference. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to be careful to include everything in a move. Thanks for keeping an eye out on my talk page. That's very nice of you and I do appreciate that. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, what is the proper way to deal with this? I doubt that this is helpful to collaborative editing, but am not sure if there is any action that can or should be taken. Soxwon (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this source, did you read the discussion on the talk page? I don't think anyone was denying the source because they disagreed with it, but because it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's web-hosted by the Mises institute, but there's no indication that it's published by the Mises institute, and there's no way to track down the mysterious "Institute for Business Cycle Research" to determine if it is a reliable source. This wasn't a POV matter, but purely a WP:RS one. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I brought this to your talk page, but if you think that the Ptak bit is a reliable source, it seems the best thing to do would be to start the discussion again on the article's talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
mises.org is a highly reliable source as to Austrian economics, likely the most reliable to be had on that topic. Aside from this, I've downloaded the PDF of the article from mises.org and it is thoroughly sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please use the talk page discussion on those exact sources before reverting. There are serious questions about the documents in question being reliable sources which have not been answered by the editor adding them. It's not the site that's in question, it's the author and the group that's publishing the documents. Hosting is by Mises, but the publisher is IBCR. Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If by "I won't be drawn in", you mean, "I won't discuss this on the talk page", then you should probably not accuse Ravensfire of edit warring, since they did discuss the issue on the talk page, and reverted twice over the course of several weeks versus your reverts twice within one half-hour. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, you're trying to defend a blind reversion without looking at the existing discussion on the talk page, which SEVERAL of the reverts pointed to. The content is not, as you put it, "verifiable", as it comes from an unreliable source that the editor would not demonstrate otherwise. The only edit war was the one you continued. Further, even AFTER being invited to use the talk page, both when you were initially reverted AND when I posted this on your talk page, you haven't bothered. Examine your actions on this matter critically, as you did not help Wikipedia here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The five of you have made more than a dozen reverts which blanked a citation from a reliable source. Meantime the new, good faith editor, who at first didn't even know how to sign a post, tried to talk about and answer questions as to the source (mises.org) and then, after being shooed away from the article talk page when one of you shut down the thread with an archive template, cluelessly breached 3rr, was blocked for a few days (likely overlong for a first block of a new user over 3rr), came back after the block, made two more good faith edits in two days and was blocked indefinitely. This kind of thing can go on for a long time on en:WP, but I think you'll find the hoped-for outcomes are fleeting. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The main thing is not to edit war over it. It would be ok to carry the article as a lipogram (yes, I know he says that's not what he wants) if there were a consensus for it, but as I've said before, any consensus for such a thing would be less than fleeting. You can bring more editors to the article talk page with a content RfC. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think writing helpful articles without breaching the bounds of plagiarism or copyvio is a skill and the sooner the project heeds this, the better. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Thank you again for your assistance; this was starting to become very sticky. Your "sage" advice is always welcome. Now, don't fall off your chair! (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
Gwen, there has been a lot of feverish activity on the above talk page. From the archive talk, you seem to have been involved in this one for some time. Your opinion on the line of thought being followed (see dark blue lead section) would be most appreciated (relates to a revised Lead section). Farawayman (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I'd been watching that thread now and then and I've put in my two pence as to what I think so far. If I have time, I'll try to say more later, perhaps after Dr. Dan writes something up. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
en.WP is awash in plagiarized content. I very often look things up on Wikipedia (say at least 100 times a month) with no thought as to editing or doing an admin task. If I dig into the sources, which I tend to do, given I see an encyclopedia only as a way to begin looking into something, I find text swiped word for word from sources both cited and uncited at least a third of the time, maybe more. It has been this way since I first stumbled onto Wikipedia years ago. If I were to fix all the plagiarism I find, I'd be spending most of my waking life editing en.WP. So, I only skive plagiarism when I've come to build an article. More often than not, I wind up rewriting and resourcing more or less everything. It's that bad here.
The notion that sourced content cannot be written without straying into OR is mistaken. However, doing so is a skill and takes time, either one of which may be lacking in some volunteer editors. As I've said before, en.WP's draw for many is not so much the encyclopedia building, but a kind of text-driven, interactive adventure and social networking game like a sprawling MUD, with an outlet for sharing what some call "knowledge" with thousands, even millions of others. There are so many and sundry things one can do, it can be addictive and fun and moreover, it's free.
The site is also awash in sockpuppets. Some editors would be startled to know who is behind some of them.
Without COI, Wikipedia would grind to a halt within hours. Mixed with all the systemic bias and sockpuppetry, most high traffic articles wind up carrying all kinds of flaws as to content and weight, as do most news articles, many published books and even peer reviewed academic journals of all stripes. One does what one can, on en.WP and off.
Arbcom membership is a thankless task. It should never handle any but the most daunting snares and these are far and few between. Arbcom members are elected not for their arbitration skills, but one way or another, for not having peeved many other editors. By far and away, most IP editors are helpful, most user accounts stir up more help than harm, most editors who can't get along at first either learn or leave rather than being tossed out by block and as a percentage, the number of sitebanned users is vanishingly small.
Hi, Gwen; I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your statement that I would like Sarek desysopped. Not only is it untrue (I would simply rather that they either stayed away from me administratively, or better still, used their buttons in line with policy) but I have never stated such a desire anywhere on- or off-wiki, so you can have had no reason to make such a claim.
Especially given your concern that I read too deeply into one of your comments, therefore, please could you consider striking it? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Blow it off, wait for Sarek to speak up. You're doing harm to yourself by going on about it on ANI. Alikening Sarek to a mugger was... dumb, mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I was simply continuing the analogy, put forward by Wehwalt, in which ANI was a 911 control centre. Within the bounds of that analogy, which both I and Wehwalt accepted has its limitations, and does not perfectly mirror real life, my comparison was entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, please could you consider striking your comment in a spirit of collaboration, if only because I have now made clear that what I want is not the desysop of Sarek? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop. Please. I think Sarek was wrong, the end. Whatever you do, please please don't put a talkback template on this talk page, I beg you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your unpleasant jibes about talkback templates any more than I appreciate your false insinuation that I would like Sarek desysopped. Please could you at least either strike the comment or give me a reason why you won't to strike it, in the spirit of the part of WP:ADMINACCT which reads, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If you could see my face right now, you would know that I'm not trying to piss you off, but I am sad and serious and honest. It is not wikilawyering to point out that you are expected to answer queries nicely. Please could you either remove your false accusation, or explain why you won't or can't. This is a reasonable request. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine, advice noted. Thank you. Now please could you either remove your false accusation, or explain why you won't or can't. This is a reasonable request. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to have a third opinion-ator take a look at our dispute here, then? Because I am seriously unhappy about this. Sorry to persist, but I cannot see any reasonable basis for your attitude here. Please talk to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
We both know what you've been doing, the outcome won't be what you want. In asking you to stop, I've been trying to help you. Please stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have told you the outcomes I want: that Sarek does the right thing with their admin buttons. I have a creeping suspicion that you are right, and that that will not be the outcome. Nevertheless, if you want to help me, I would genuinely appreciate it if you could retract your – deep breath! – inaccurate suggestion that I am hoping for Sarek's desysopping. Now what I'm going to do, is to set myself an email reminder for this time tomorrow. I'll give us both a chance to cool off from the heat of the moment, and then I'm going to ask you once again to consider doing this for me. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag, I perceive a consistent pattern in your editing, of fixating on an issue and posting on it over and over, out of all proportion to its importance. Your perseverating on ANI today, before the person you were criticizing even had a chance to comment, is one such example; I fear this is another. Please reconsider this aspect of your on-wiki behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. However, as I would have thought that Arbitrators would be only too well aware, Wikipedia editors are human beings (for the most part) and have feelings. And sometimes, when someone insults you, it may have been completely unintentional, but it will rankle in your mind nevertheless, until or unless it is resolved. This is one of those cases: obviously Gwen's accusation is meaningless in the wider context of life, the universe and everything, but it has upset me, serves no purpose (I am genuinely sure that that was not its purpose) and is thus fertile ground for reconciliation to be made. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
TT, if you think there is something amiss between you and Sarek, I still think you should talk to them about it in a more or less friendly, non-threatening way. If after having done this (one last time if that's what it is), then think about an RFC, but is that truly called-for? Having said this, I think it was untowards of you to call a good faith edit nonsense, likewise I think it was outside the bounds of policy for Sarek to REVDEL your heedless edit summary, as even Sarek has now said. Next time, rather than telling someone you think their edit is nonsense, say why, citing policy and keep in mind, this is only a website, a database and a highly forgiving one at that. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You probably won't believe this but when an anon changed the text in the article Amelia (film), I did a check on word usage and found that "myriad" is now predominately used as a noun, while its use as an adjective has been classified as "archaic". Nonetheless, I am not wedded to the word and trying it out in different ways, I just found its use as a noun more "pleasing to the ear" (how about that for a sucky reason!)... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Maybe I should have phrased it a different way; "myriad" as an adjective came into use as a "poetic form" in the 19th Century, and today, both the use as a noun which predates into Medieval times and as an adjective is accepted, although there have been debates about the usage that stem from "author choice". Most commonly, even today, "myriad" as a noun predominates but the terminology of archaic had been applied to its use as an adjective within the narrow confines of illustrative language. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, okay, since you put it in such a nice way (just a disclaimer here, am I talking to the same H/Gwen Gale I have come to treasure like/admire sort of??) FWiW ;) Bzuk (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Heh, we both know writers get all stirred up over their craft. If it makes you happy, I'll put it this way, "Undo your edit and maybe I'll speak to you again" :D Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Darn, I had already made the revision.... now you come up with a sugar-coated proviso?! Bye-the-bye, I've retired again (third time and counting) and gone back to the disreputable work of filmmaking (two films this summer) and writing, with a trek out to Toronto and far-flung reaches of Newfoundland to try to traipse in the footsteps of Amelia through her three or four sojourns in Canada. I found her hospital ward in downtown Toronto where she had been "Sister Amelia", a copy of her sister's auto/biography, her bedroom in Trepassey (still complete with the hairbrush she used, located in what is now a rudimentary local museum) and her "airfield" (cow pasture is more like it) at the top of a hillside in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. The girl had guts, no question, a slipup one way or another and she would have been dashed into the mountainside or fallen down the slope. I also located a 16mm film made by a Newfie doctor that shows her takeoff in 1932 and some revealing scenes of her preparation and interaction with the locals in Harbour Grace. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Oh, she had guts and I've always liked her, I think she was way lucky to make it to Nikumaroro (forgive me that little dig, heh). Any hope you might share that Harbour Grace flick with a wanton Niku-hypothesis heathen like me? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The black-and-white film was actually sent (with all rights unreserved) to our local museum where I was toiling as the Education Coordinator, and after screening it, I realized that it contained two episodes that were directly linked to Newfoundland: the Earhart sequence and the ditching of the Dornier Do.X in its troublesome 1932 transatlantic flight when it beached at Dildo, Newfoundland (no kidding, actually Dildo, next to Upper Dildo... no one there in the local museum could precisely tell me the origin of the names but it seems to be a contraction of a Spanish word for a sword part or there are plenty of other theories to choose from. "Some say Dildo was named after a Spanish sailor of the same name who sailed the waters of the area. Others claim Dildo Bay was named after a ship’s part, a long metal cylinder. Still, others assert that Dildo, Nfld., is named for a certain species of cactus, the Dildo-Pear Tree, found only in the Caribbean. Still others hold to the theory that Dildo was named after an archaic term for a song’s chorus. The word is used that way by Shakespeare in A Winter’s Tale, Act 4, Scene 4: “…with such delicate burdens of dildos and fadings.” This enchanting vision—of the voices of singing sailors rolling over a remote bay—has a near irresistible charm. Unfortunately, the last inescapable definition for Dildo is that of a phallus. This meaning has been in English usage since at least the 17th century. For example, in 1673, the infamous Earl of Rochester wrote a bawdy ballad called Signor Dildo. And believe me, the text for it could make most Rap singers blush." (brazenly stolen off a Canadian Legion magazine article). After this two minute segment, there is a pause in the film and then it starts again with Amelia's arrival at Harbour Grace. I took a DVD copy of the film along with me to show the curator at the St. John's University Library/Archives and they identified the origin of the Earhart sequence. A local doctor had shoot the footage in 1932 and after his death, his son had transferred the original 16 mm film to a VHS version and sent copies to the aviation museums in Canada, basically with the hope that the film would be preserved in archival collections for future generations. Unfortunately, the VHS copy arrived with no corresponding documentation and disappeared (Raiders of the Lost Ark-like) into our film archives to be later found by our film archivist who passed it to me. The Earhart scenes are expertly shot and spliced together but only amount to a five-minute section but are extremely revealing as Amelia was "weathering" the time away in town, bereft of her usual, Svengali-like husband. She is completely at ease with the children and adults in Harbour Grace, turns directly to the camera in one scene, shyly smiling, revealing an unusual, gap-toothed moment. The film ends with her takeoff and in walking the actual "runway" today, you realize just how precarious it was to attempt a flight there in a heavily laden aircraft (it now serves as a glider field, and they are basically launched by tossing them off the side of the cliff...). As to the long convoluted answer to your query, I am delighted to send you a copy of this historic film. (I purloined the museum copy one night with the permission of the film archivist to make a surreptitious transfer that I brought to Harbour Grace's regional museum so that they would have a unique addition to their smallish Earhart collection.) What you have to do is to give me the specs of what DVD version you use (a computer DVD version will automatically read and play in Apple Macintosh computers but I can't guarantee the same for the spawns of the DevilPC bretheren) via an email request (my email is enabled on Wikipedia). FWiW :] Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Warning, the wlink in this post ain't work friendly. I'm startled to say, Dildo#Etymology matches up with what I've read on this. I sent you an email, argh, I'm such a geek as to media files which is to say, I can't foresee worries there. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I entered all the users listed there into user compare, except for park(who has been here long enough to amass 40k edits; no chance he could be a sock), and in my opinion from comparing the data, you can gather a bunch of editors with similar interests and get cross-over in edits. It doesn't automatically mean socking is going on. Given the data, I don't think any of the editors is related, but that is only a brief glance looking over 200 or so of the edits from the accounts(the ones that crossed over). I'm not seeing many similar patterns in editing style such as edit summary use, so I don't think any of the users listed are socks.. for now.
However, that doesn't mean socking isn't happening. RP is very active, and usually will try to get unblocked. Seeing as they haven't even addressed the block, I do feel concerned, especially considering their past history of sanction evasion through socks. To that end, I do suggest you keep your eye out, but I do not think any of the above accounts are socks.— DædαlusContribs07:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Me either. I've had Dr. Strangelove on my watchlist for a good long time and there haven't really been any problems. But this user strikes me as intentionally trolling rather than as just dumb. Well, I guess we'll see what happens next... Yworo (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Whatever he's been up to, it seems to me so far as though he's never bothered to look into anything having to do with policy, which tells me he may have shown up only lately. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Chemical element articles
Thanks for the sodium protection. You'll notice that nearly all chemical element articles, and most basic science articles need this. Consider isotope and atomic theory, which have both had a recent history that consists almost entirely of IP vandalism and reversion. Could we not have SOME kind of vague guideline for sprotection of articles, when > 90% or > 95% of the edit-history, or something, is just IP vandalisms and reversions? SBHarris16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of this comes from bored kids at schools. The rate of vandalism (over time) has something to do with it, but anything with more than about one v/day, with most of the edits in the last few weeks being v, can be semied at least for awhile. Let me know if you want me to look at something. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the two mentioned above (isotope and atomic theory). Also, I think every element that hasn't yet been semi-ed fits your criteria. OTOH, for an example of success, look at the article atom. For the last two months since it was sprotected, there have been only 7 edits, all good ones. Before that, it was a major battleground and timewaster for every science editor person on this board. People who can't wait 4 days for a user name, are simply people who don't have the self-control to edit science articles. If they MUST fix a typo or spelling error, they can always edit someplace else for 4 days so their heads don't explode. SBHarris16:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I looked at isotope and atomic theory, they do show spurts of vandalism now and then but the rate is too low for sprot, since it's reverted fairly fast and then things go for days or even weeks without a hitch. The policy is such that the vandalism needs to be truly significant, since the goal is still to leave as much content open to IP editing as can be, without wrecking the project. That said, it's nettlesome to see all the pranking and I do agree that some high traffic, core science articles do need ongoing protection. I don't think that would be true of all the elements, but if you show me some that are worrisome, I'll look at them. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Shady acres :-)
Heya Gwen, long time no talk!
I think that was probably among the first articles I made here, before being chased off to Wikibooks. I'm not sure it's much of a standalone article, but cool to see you're perhaps still watching my page after all this time :-). --SB_Johnny | talk17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Yes, I could tell, that had to be one of the first things you ever wrote on the site :) I did a quick search, the term is used in gardening and the topic can be cited. Could be merged into Gardening or Garden though, I guess. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I guess you can probably tell that I didn't do a lot of "IP editing" before making an account ;-). It's making me a bit nostalgic! --SB_Johnny | talk20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you take a look at the behavior of Bus stop(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) at Talk:Jan Schakowsky? He is insisting that using "Judaism" in a religion field in an infobox is "original research" if the sources say "Jewish". Both Jayjg and I have explained that the religion field takes a noun and that "Jewish" is an overloaded term which is ambiguous as to whether it refers to religion or ethnicity and thus using "Jewish" in the field is both unclear and incorrect grammar. He is going on and on at great length about why only he is right. Yworo (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I do think it's a bit odd that he's going on in such a wikilawyerish way, all about putting a label on someone in an infobox. The thread shows he hasn't got consensus and he can't edit war over it. I would say, wait and see if he stops and if you like, let me know if it carries on. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
![[11]](http://cdn.concreteloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/cici41.jpg){kind=link}
