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.
Would not like to discuss the people behind their backs
Hi Gwen, Here I explained to user:SarekOfVulcan why I opposed his RFA. In order to do this I had to bring up your conduct, when you unfairly blocked me after being canvased.
BTW it has been more than a month since you have lifted my unheard of, unfair and humiliating bans that I was forced to accept, and I have not made a single contributions to any of those boards, except my own AE case.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I forgave, but the lessons should be learned from this in order to prevent the same unfairness happen to other editors. Wrong actions and unfair blocks should be discussed not to punish somebody, but to learn in order not repeating the same mistakes in the feature. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for assistance on BLP
Hello Gwen, you've been of great help in the past and I would like to ask if you would mind looking at the Harry Cook article, its talk page, and my talk page, please, because a sensitive issue relating to this BLP has arisen. Regrettably, I don't have time to investigate further right now, but it looks serious to me and I wasn't sure exactly where to raise this (on a quick look at the administrators' noticeboard). The anonymous edits make a serious accusation against a living person, which on a very brief search I have not been able to verify. If you are unable to get to this, I will look into it further later today, when I am able. Thanks for your help. Janggeom (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I just stumbled across this, and I just wanted to say that I think you're much to be commended for your admirable appreciation of irony. No reply necessary; just wanted to say so. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Please Help
Last year you had banned the user for vandalism on the page Chamar.
This person is again vandalizing the Chamar page.
I won't be able to do any kind of admin stuff for about another week. You might think about asking another admin for help in the meantime. If you do, please give diffs, also link to the new user's page and do sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved and the other user has been banned and all of his changes deleted from.
On 10:34, 20 May 2010 you stated in an edit, in references, "Ritscher's expedition report, more information pending" - is their any more information please? unsigned 20:53, 8 May 2011 User:Arthur Warrington Thomas
I've lengthened the IP block and removed all the BLP vios I could find. Please keep in mind, any editor is free to rm BLP vios on sight. Likewise, given all the sockpuppetry and disruption, if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. Meanwhile, this looks like enough support for a community siteban to me, so I've added ban tags, so anyone who stumbles onto this later will be aware of the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Reading the current discussion on the Whitman page, an IP User states As much as I hated to read the article announcing his condition and circumstances, it would be a tribute to McCoy to be able to use his history (and the history of how he was treated by those who could have helped him before I met him (I have documents from clinics where he presented with PTSD issues to professionals, well before I helped him, and they missed the diagnosis), as well as the APD being non respondent and the City of Austin sueing him for the awards I got him.
71.85.120.252 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The above statement is a strong indication that this IP user is one in the same of the many who have been blocked/banned as he refers to himself helping Mccoy, same as has been stated in the past. I also feel that the statement "I have documents from clinics where he presented with PTSD issues to professionals, well, before I helped him, and they missed the diagnosis" would be personal medical history and does not belong on a public forum discussion page.
I chose to make you aware because you possibly know more history than I do and if it is in fact the same editor, then we went round and round a few months back and I would rather not go that route again because it was not pleasant and IP user 71.85.120.252 already left a message on my talk page stating I appear to have a "bone to pick" so I don't want to make matters worse Bateauxny (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You deleted an article on Houston McCoy, as G4, recreation of deleted material. The {{afd}} on this article really disturbed me, for various reasons, including an alarming lack of openness and transparency by those claiming the original article had to be deleted due to unspecified past vandalism and to non-public, and likely unverified, claims McCoy's family had requested deletion.
My understanding of G4 is that it authorizes the speedy deletion of previously deleted articles that
are substantially identical to the deleted versions. It is my understanding, however, that if someone makes a good faith attempt to draft a new article from scratch, that is not a recreation of the deleted version, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. It is my understanding that if someone thinks the new, independent draft should be deleted, they have to initiate a new {{afd}}.
Can I ask, before you deleted the article, how closely you compared the version you deleted, with the version deleted due to the original {{afd}}?
Can I ask who started the second version you deleted?
Can I ask whether your deletion was in response to a CSD tag?
You may not be aware, there is a lot of longstanding and ugly background to this, some of it having to do with glaring BLP worries (I guess you've already read the AfD). So far as I know, these have been mostly stirred up by a now site-banned editor through sundry accounts and IPs over the years, who indeed began the latest article. Moreover, it looks like this latest deletion was then later oversighted by someone else altogether.
BLP woes of this kind are now and then handled off-wiki (more often than not because they have to do with information which is not published or is thought to be unfit for publishing because it is both private and not notable enough to be encyclopedic, or harmful/hurtful content which has not been published by a source which can be cited here (WP:RS). Arbcom as a group has long been aware of this one, Jimmy too, which is why WP:DRV would likely be a waste of volunteer time.
As for G4, an article need not be word-for-word the same to be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy." Also please keep in mind, though good faith content is deleted within policy on this website all the time, going only by what I understand about it, I would not say the recreation happened in good faith.
Now, owing to the awful history behind it, I locked Houston McCoy from further re-creation after doing that last deletion. If you believe you could write a thoroughly sourced article on the topic which doesn't stray beyond the bounds of WP:BLP and which shows that the topic is notable beyond WP:1E (I don't think it is, but that's only me), you might think about writing something up in your user space and asking an admin to have a look at it. If you ask me to unprotect the page, I won't do so without a consensus and even then, might run it by arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Since you're an administrator, I was wonering you can help me out on the following: Balthasar Gérard has no categories. I looked at the edit page, but I couldn't figure what needed to be deleted or added. Also, at Nicki Minaj, the references in the "Personal Life" section are out of order. I tried adding a new reference, but I was unable to add a footnote. Could you help me? B-Machine (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to drum up some action to fix a missing article.
I've posted on the moving admins talk page and on BWilkins talk page but I'm not getting much response. The article Joseph Smith, Jr. was moved but in doing so managed to get stuck in a double-redirect. I'm not an admin so I can't fix it. BWilkins said something about there being over 11,000 edits and that might be an issue. What steps are there for reporting technical issues like this? And if you have any ideas on how to get the page back, I'm all ears. Padillah (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That alone is a big help. I already asked on the talk page where to find a developer and how do we bring this to their attention. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you helped fix the hash I made of Joseph Smith during a page move. Thanks for that. There still seem to be over 11,000 edits deleted, and I think we need a steward to get them back. Do you know anything about this? -GTBacchus(talk)19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So far as I know, moving pages with thousands of revisions has been a longstanding woe. The documentation (Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Merging_page_histories_of_pages_with_many_revisions) is beyond sketchy. Those 11,000+ edits could be undeleted in chunks through the web interface by an admin, but it would take "forever." Doing so all at once bumps into the bounds of what the software/hardware can handle and worse, if there are enough edits, even trying can bring down the whole website (I've heard about this having happened now and then). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried restoring the whole lot? I am tempted to try. Or are you scared what might happen? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It brings up a server error (fails) and very likely slows down the whole site for a minute or two. I wouldn't try it again. I'm worried that I was lucky, that trying this when there's an odd or heavy traffic load, could crash the whole show. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, in hundreds of page moves, this is the first time this has happened for me. I think it was because there was some kind of burp when I first tried to move the page, and I got an error message and hit "refresh". That re-sent the move-and-delete-the-target command, which since it had actually been carried out the first time I tried, deleted the page I had just moved to the target. Kind of freak accident, and I hope someone is able to fix it. -GTBacchus(talk)06:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this is the first time you have tried to move a page with so many revisions. I read somewhere that only stewards can move a page with more than a certain number of revisions. Can't remember what that number is though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That first "burp" was wholly and only owing to those thousands of revisions being beyond what the system could handle. Though I'd never hit 'refresh' on an error message (I'd back up, look at what happened and only then maybe try again, or not), it's a software design flaw and the documentation on this is beyond lacking, maybe because it's somewhat unlikely, over all, that a page with a shakey name will gather so many revisions over so many years (almost ten years on this one), much less a page so prone to almost daily back and forth on content, like this article, before someone moves it. As an aside, I do think the rename/move was both very helpful and matches spot on with Wikipedia:Name#Common_names. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That's because it's a very big SVG (vector image). When you click on it next time and are taken to the image page, click on the image name/link there and it should come up (worked for me). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there's a problem. The Second Ivorian Civil War article is a copy of the 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis article. They're the same articles about the same conflict. I want to reintroduce a merge discussion at Second Ivorian Civil War to merge it into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, but I was told to wait for some reason. Could I do it now? B-Machine (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you still talk the same way when your socks are spotted. I knew it was you when you asked (and by the way you asked) about the image in the racetrack article above. Took me a few minutes looking through my talk archives to recall your sockmaster name, though, I'd long forgotten it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not causing trouble, so don't worry. The reason I left a message was because I actually missed talking to you. Weird, I know. B-Machine (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. It's been long enough that I did think the bygone should be bygone. As for those two Cote d'Ivoire articles, please do heed the consensus (or lack). Given there have been two threads lately which brought forth no consensus for a merge, you should wait at least a few months before bringing up any notions of a merge again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Apology
May I please ask you to accept my apology for giving you a hard time? I am hurting by my block log, but this reason is not good to hurt others. Sorry about this.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. By the bye, your block log has been spotless for seven months, in which time you've made, oh, about a jillion edits and uploads. To me, that's very cool beans. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Curious to see whatever happened to getting those revdels reviewed. I was going to drop it but then noticed that some of my comments are showing up as not being accessible in the history. I assume none of my comments met the criteria for redaction. Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with it. If Mbz1's comments were malicious enough to deserve revdel is certainly questionable and there is no way mine fell under appropriate use. I also think it is funny that a bot posting the signpost was caught up in the deletion. I have emailed arbcom and I am stunned that it was allowed to happen in he first place. So I will follow up with them. Cptnono (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I was not. You should have said that in the first place. So will there be a review from the community on if your original revdel was even appropriate or are you shying away from broader participation by the community?Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that everything has been done within policy. Please take any further questions (or comments) you may have about this to arbcom, by email. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Gwen's RevDel was of some egregious personal attacks launched at her by an editor with a longtime hatred of her (as admitted in one of the oversighted posts), who was just attacking her in hopes she'd block her indef. That editor has finally found someone to do that for her, so this issue seems pretty dead. As Gwen said, it's been sent to Arbcom. If you have a problem with it, that's the next place to go. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not received a response from them yet but I did get one from someone familiar with the conversation. It is not even close to what you are saying Dayewalker and Mbz1's comments towards not liking Gwen were not egregious enough to be removed without review from another admin. If Gwen would have been open and at least alluded to what the reasoning actually was then this wouldn't have even come up from me. But as a reminder to Gwen, even if the conversation deserved to be revdel'd, I still believe you sidestepped scrutiny by not engaging the community. You could have sought administrator review without going into details at ANI. If this was one time concern it would not be a big deal. Unfortunately, you have received repeated allegations of covert misconduct and it makes sense that editors are skeptical. I do agree that this conversation has run its course unless you feel like responding to the criticism. Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I watched Mbz1's final fall into attacks and disruption as it happened, thank you. Goading an involved admin into blocking you with awful personal attacks would have been RevDel'd by any other admin available, if I had the tools, I would have done it myself. Mbz1's attacks at that point were obvious trolling, and should have been deleted quickly and ignored so as not to give her any more attention. There's no reason to have more discussion about an editor who was literally asking for a block, especially not now. The information has been sent to Arbcom, if there's a problem, I'm sure they'll address it. Dayewalker (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I can only say that, so far as I know, the written policies at Wikipedia:Revdel and Wikipedia:Oversight have been followed from beginning to end. Dayewalker is only trying to be helpful here, but I'm not going to get into what content stirred this up. This is why I have asked you to take any further questions or thoughts you may have straight to arbcom, by email. Thanks for your understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Just thought you should know,
Radiopathy has been consistently violating his indefinite 0RR restriction that he was placed upon some time ago, and has been reverting many good-faith edits that cannot be construed as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination:
There are of course more than that, and I realize some are quite old. At most he should be given a warning to cease.
I realize I've been inactive for awhile, but life has gotten really busy for me. Frankly I've been distracted with administration of several other websites.— Dædαlus+Contribs23:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back! That 0rr is over six months old, so it's gone stale. Also, those edits look to be from harmless to helpful, to me. I don't think even a warning is called for, going by what I see here. The only worry would be if he were to edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What, you are not going to block the editor, who btw was not notified about this post, by the request of Daedalus969? It is something new, isn't it :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You were told to stay away from me. It really isn't hard to follow. Just stay away. Also, there is no requirement, this isn't ANI.— Dædαlus+Contribs00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if what Daedalus969 is doing now isn't tantamount to running a single-purpose account: he has made very few 'contributions' for the better part of a year, yet suddenly reappears to make baseless accusations against an editor with whom he has stirred-up quite a lot of ill will in the past, and to hound another editor whose experience of Wikipedia was likewise soured by Daedalus969's actions.
The only other 'edit' he made today was to tag a user as a blocked sock, when in fact that editor has made a well announced clean start recently: [12],
[13].
Surely there must be something that can be done to discourage this type of behaviour. None of us should be subjected to this. Radiopathy•talk•02:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked in your contributions today, found you had been reverting. Aside from that, I've been watching a single page over a period of weeks, on and off, in regards to alternate account abuse and ban violation.
Radiopathy; I have made no 'baseless accusations'. Mbz1, quite clearly above, claimed I was asking for your block. No. I asked for a warning, that was it. You and I have had our spouts, and I know you hate me. Why else would you now try to get me blocked, all the while slandering me as being an SPA. WP:NPA, in case you have forgotten. Daniel's talk page isn't on my watchlist, and even if it is, I haven't been paying attention to it. If you had bothered to read any of the above post, instead of selectively doing so as you clearly did so above, you would know I've been busy with life. I've dropped the issue of your edits, which you should have noted, I haven't said anything more on. At this point you're just petitioning for a block of an editor you clearly hate.— Dædαlus+Contribs03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Userfication request
Even though I did not create the article Medical-Surgical Nursing Certification Board, I was wondering if you could userfy it for me. I am working on a series of such articles related to nursing certification, and when I went to work on this one, I noticed that it was speedily deleted under CSD A7. I am very familiar with CSD A7, and will ensure it passes this criterion when I recreate the page, but I wanted to see what it looked like. So, would you please restore this article to User:Jsfouche/Medical-Surgical Nursing Certification Board ? Thanks! jsfouche ☽☾Talk13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please follow the discussion on the talk page. Don't interject in the editing before you have familiarized yourself with what's going on. Misessus (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I know what's going on. I've watched that article for years. Among other things, you're trying to get what you want by edit warring. You're now on the edge of 3rr. Please stop now and wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You clearly don't, since you reverted to an edit including the Mises-bit, for which there is no support (not even from BigK). So stop moralizing and start reading, please. Misessus (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so we are taking the sand box approach. Very mature. Have I read it? I've written about half of it, if not more. Misessus (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You brought it up, I answered. As for how you put the above, only so you know, I won't be drawn into bickering with you, or being baited. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh. You might have misunderstood the 22:09 post, owing to how I worded it. I was indeed saying I'd read the TP threads, but I was asking if you had read the policy links, not if you had read what you had written, since it's quite foregone that you read what you wrote. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was just coming to talk to you about Misessus, and I see there's already a convenient section to discuss it. I've been drawn into this discussion because Misessus came to my talk page asking for an administrator to look at Austrian School. I don't know how xe picked me (although maybe there's a list of admins that defaults to listing them from most recent to oldest), but, in any event, I took a look, and I'm sure you've seen my comments there. In case you're not watching, I've also had extensive discussions on xyr talkpage. I was about to give some sort of final warning for incivility (you've basically already given one for edit-warring); but since you say here that you've been watching for years, are we already past that point? I invite your far more experienced administrative advice. watching here Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching the page for years, I only became aware of Misesus' behaviour today. I spotted something on my watch list that looked like edit warring, undid it and waited to see what would happen. He's been warned now on the edit warring and other battle behaviour. He seems startled to have been told that behaviour here can draw more heed than content, which is understandable, lots of new editors scratch their heads over that one, some never get over it and either leave or are blocked. Hope that doesn't happen here. I think Misesus could be quite helpful in this topic area, once they learn more about how things are done here and maybe find a way to work within that. This is much harder to do, for some editors who come here with a strong PoV, to write only in one or two topic areas, rather than for building an encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, as long as xyr behavior hasn't been going on for a long time, I'll just keep monitoring for now. You're right that bringing in experts is both important and challenging, and very different than just bringing in a "regular" editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Only so you know, I didn't say anything about "experts." All contributions from any editor must be sourced if someone has asked for them. It's still way dodgy, though. Since many secondary sources are riddled with flaws and are often written by "experts," reader beware. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
My first thought is of WP:Standard offer. Two years is a very long time on the Internet. One might keep in mind, this would be at least the third time Malcom has come back (see User:Kwork, that was a mess).
Along with an I/P topic ban, one might think about a six month ban on edits anywhere in the project space having anything whatsoever to do with Judaism and a stern warning that no personal attacks of any kind or shape will be put up with, ever, no matter what, even after six months of helpful editing.
My take is that Malcom mostly seemed very unhappy with the outcomes of his volunteer editing here. That's ok, understandable, but venting unhappiness the way he did is not the way to behave towards other volunteer editors. So, yes, I hope Malcom can come back and thrive as an editor, if he likes. Even though reblocks are easy (or maybe because they are), I think there should be tight bounds as to how he might (carefully) step back into this project. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks about adding the 1890's thing to the photo of Klara Hitler. I know it was sometimes aroud then because she looks so young. I'm also looking for a photo of her holding a little kid that I saw on a show called "Hitler's Family" but cant seem to find it. Thanks --Frankonno (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I went by her face (which looks 30-35ish to me, though it's a 3rd-4th generation copy at least which makes age guessing more dodgy) and wardrobe, which looks quite middle class "Sunday best" in the 1890s. All told, it looks like about 1895 to me, the year Alois retired to what he mistakenly thought would be a life of government-pensioned-ease raising bees in the countryside. The photo seems to have some kind of seal on it, which means it may have been on an identification paper or card, perhaps in a government archive.
I've seen maybe a dozen photos of AH with family members throughout his youth. There's one with all of them out in the garden, in front of the house, when he was 5-7 years old. I only bring it up because they are out there. However, even though such photos were taken in the late 19th century, what has sway as to public domain is when they were first published and it could be that some I've seen have only been published in the last two decades or so and hence may not be PD. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
We do not punish - we protect the integrity of the wiki. Please read WP:BOOMERANG and please read WP:EW, they illustrate clearly both the logic, and the necessity of this topic limit. Gwen Gale has shown to have made a great decision and I am sure has the support of the entire uninvolved community.--Cerejota (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I have raised this point at the current post about this issue at WP:ANI. LK (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't break any rules. The burden was on Misessus to make his case, and his argument wasn't valid. In fact, he was committing a formal fallacy. What's more, he broke WP:3rr twice. What charges are being levied against me?--Dark Charles (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
How could he violate WP:BURDEN when it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." WP:BURDEN, which is a part of WP:V, talks only about the burden of adding information, not the burden of removing it. WP:BURDEN isn't even something you can violate--it's simply saying that if you want to add something, the burden is on you to provide any necessary sources. In any event, even if Gwen Gale is involved, I am not, and I support her imposition of restrictions. If your edits are good, and you discuss disputes on the talk page, there's no harm in being under 1RR anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm? I reread it. I guess you're right about that. But tell me: am I in my rights to revert an edit that deletes sourced material that has been there for years? What about if the majority of editors that weighed in at the time agreed with me? And there's also the whole issue of me not actually breaking WP:3rr.--Dark Charles (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This comment is only based on the discussion above. Qwyrxian knows I dig him and I am not going to jump down Gwen's throat just to do it. BUT, admins involved in a subject should not be using their tools. This is especially true if it was not obvious vandalism. It does not matter if the review of an admin says it was an OK use of the tools. Gwen should have requested a third party (IRC is exceptionally expedient if speed was the concern) and not pulled the trigger herself. That would have saved her a headache of dealing with the charge and it would have ensured the community that everything is on the up and up. Admins really need to stop doing this.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind dealing with it, that's why I asked for review and comments at ANI (and said the editors could appeal it there). Also please keep in mind, I didn't use the tools. Hopefully this will bring more heed to the tiresome bickering going on at Austrian School, before it blows up into something worse as the article gathers more and more traffic (it's becoming a political topic and those can get way nasty on en.WP). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
To Bwilkins: That's actually kind of my point. I was following WP:BRD. Misessus made an edit and I undid it. We went to the talk page and I got consensus for my position, but Misessus kept redoing his edit regardless. And I wasn't trying to force an edit on anybody; I was following WP:BRD and was helping to enforce the consensus position that favored the original content. Also, in reply to what you said on my talk page: Misessus did violate WP:3rr twice, and was not blocked. In fact, from Gwen Gale's reaction and other comments, that doesn't matter and both Misessus and I have been equally disruptive.--Dark Charles (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRD is at its root 1rr. If someone breaks the BRD cycle by restoring the edit without what you think has been enough discussion or consensus (and whether or not other editors would agree with that), you can't "fix" the broken cycle by undoing again. If this keeps happening (as it has at AS), it becomes edit warring. By the way, you may not have seen, in my post to misessus I said if they breached 1rr they'd likely be blocked for two days, where for you, I said one day. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that if you break the rules then your edit stays, but if you follow the rules you just have to take your lumps? And you're actions go even further, specifically: Should the editor that originally broke WP:BRD go over WP:3rr in the process, both editors in the dispute get WP:1rr? As though both were equally disruptive. That's not right. If this is really about editing warring, then the fair solution is to impose WP:1rr on the page. WP:CON was on my side and WP:BRD was violated by Missesus. The only thing that can be said about me, in particular, was that I was a active editor. With all due respect--and I mean that--this looks like false equivocation to me.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As you know, there's more going on with the bickering than that. Moreover, others along with myself have already gone over the edit warring policy with you. Editing a Wikipedia article isn't always easy (nor is it meant to be) and most editors sooner or later learn they can't always get what they want as to content and stay within policy at the same time, even if it seems unfair (and it can be unfair), one must abide by it. Some articles seem to grow towards helpfulness rather like the pitch drop experiment. First things first, the edit warring must stop before anything else can be done about content worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Unblock
I almost forgot about this user [14] until his name popped up my watchlist recently (I have pages I posted in auto-watched). It appears he still has not been unblocked after the 1 month duration expired. Maybe it's time to unblock. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. No need, he's not blocked anymore (it lifted, as they do, when the time was up). You can take the template off his user page though, if you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am having trouble keeping tags in place in the Genbukan article (multiple IP edits). Could you take a look at it when you have time? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I've semi-protected the article and put the tags back, but they're getting very stale and I've posted a comment about that on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice you're busy reverting my changes regarding Trudl Junge's name. Yes, she is widely known as Traudle, but it was not her given name but a very common German nickname, short for Gertraud. Please check how German Wikipedia treats this. Unless it is clarified that Traudl is a nickname, we will continue to have the constant misunderstandings in English Wikipedia, where Gertraud Junge and Traudle Junge are treated as two different persons. All the references to her memoirs state that they were co-written with Melissa Müller and someone called Gertruad Junge. But they were not.
Changing the article title to Gertrud Junge and keeping Traudl Junge as a re-direct means that everybody can find her when looking for Traudl Junge, but will at the same time learn that Tradule is a nickname. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to to give people knowledge.
Gertraud Junge redirects to the article. The policy on the English Wikipedia is straightforward (as I noted on the talk page, which I think is where this discussion should be). Either way, such a move shouldn't be done without consensus, no worries about that though, I know you were coming from a helpful outlook. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gwen; with the re-direct from Gertraud. You with see where I suggest: (Gertraud) Traudl Junge, as to listing as author, so there is no confusion. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I don't see a need for tweaking the names, I've found readers of sources and footnotes tend to be quite sharp about this kind of thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel that strong about it; just a suggestion. I would leave out the Gertraud Junge as co-author to avoid any confusion and list only Traudl Junge as author; as the book covers' (HB and Paperback) state. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think you need to talk with Misessus. His recent comment is a blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY not to mention WP:NOTAFORUM, and he seems to think that he hasn't actually made many, if any, violations of Wikipedia policy. Here is some of his most recent comment on the Austrian School talk page:
...It also bothers me that [...] supposed guardians of WP rules and policies like you, BigK and LK would have been content with having the integrity and informative value of this article torn to shreds. Most, if not all, your objections and references to WP rules and polices have been proven to be misguided at best, blatantly wrong at worst. Aren't you supposed to take a neutral stance as senior editors, regardless of what article is in question, and also respect the expertise of those who clearly are more familiar with the subject matter? ...
When you post about an editor's comment, you should use diffs (WP:Diff), like this one to Misessus' comment. I don't agree with what misessus said about "senior editors." Here on en.WP we tend to call them exprienced editors. I've been watching that article since long before Misessus came along and I think they're indeed very experienced at edit warring, badgering, tag-teaming (WP:TAGTEAM) and gaming (WP:GAME) the sourcing policy to get what they want. They aren't neutral about Austrian School at all. They don't like it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Hence, whilst I think misessus gets too shrill and has been edit warring back (which is why I put him under 1rr), I don't think his post is all that uncivil and at worst, it's close to the edge of a personal attack (WP:NPA), but isn't. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a personal attack against me and a few others, and it's clear baiting. What's more, unless he refers to a specific violation it's not a constructive comment for the Austrian School Talk Page. Do you think that Misessus hasn't violated WP:CON, WP:BURDEN, WP:IRS, WP:SYNTHESIS, etc.? Several editors have pointed out these violations to him, and he's shrugging it off as just folk trying to censor him. He's taking your decision as a validation of his position, so I think you should point out that yes he has in fact broken Wikipedia policy. Also, he's done more than edit war; he's broken WP:3rr twice in the last month or so, and has done so before. I've never seen an editor break WP:3rr before and not be blocked. This is kind of my point: Misessus can bully and bait and break policy and then you're holding everybody equally responsible.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Austrian School is fast becoming a political topic and those are likely the hardest topics of all to edit on en.WP. I'm talking gnashing of teeth, maybe not even worth the time of many volunteer editors. I think misessus, a fairly new editor, is the one who is being bullied and baited. However, if he breaches 1rr anytime soon, I will block him. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Yeah. I guess it's ok to try things, even if the outcome's not what one was going for. Meanwhile that latest flurry of back and forth got the page edit protected (which I was hoping need not happen but would have done myself today had I seen it first). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I see that people are keeping you informed. The latest from AN3 is WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Protected). In fact, closing with a block of Misessus was clearly a possibility. But even on the talk page, there are many complaints of people reverting without discussion. I see that as the most important thing which admins need to address. An article should not remain in turmoil for months; at some point admins should try to fix the situation. If the editors on talk would start using RfCs and respecting their results, that would be the preferred way to solve the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ed. You beat me to protecting the page. As you know by now, I did block misessus anyway. The 1rr restrictions of misessus and DC were only my first wee step into trying to tamp down the edit warring there. I was hoping all the others, many of whom are wantonly gaming the policies without end, would get the hint. They didn't (so to speak). I'd already been thinking a few days ago that content RFCs, along with a page-wide warning about slow edit wars there, might be needed next. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, Austrian School economics is far enough off of the mainstream that it is rarely covered in economics curricula and additionally the topic itself gets fairly technical, so these factors tend to result in RfCs rarely attracting much outside input. Similarly, WT:ECON discussions pertaining to the Austrian School generally attract the same tiny handful of long-time experienced editors and, only if lucky, a new editor. BigK HeX (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Austrian School is becoming more widely known by the day, which is why all the edit warring. It is becoming a political topic and more editors are bound to show up. The pith of the bickering has mostly to do with sourcing and weight, gaming of such towards a given PoV that AS is "fringe," which I dare say, it is not (though it would be very ok to cite sources in the article claiming that it is, that's politics, readers aren't as dumb as some editors seem to think). RFCs are the next step anyway and even fresh input from one or two more editors will help. This is not to say the outcome won't be a flawed article, it likely still will be flawed, maybe even more flawed, like many core en.WP humanities articles, but the only hope lies in a stop to the edit warring first. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a little unfair. Remember, Wikipedia uses the word "fringe" differently than in everyday language. Specifically, Wikipedia defines fringe as follows: "we use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" (from WP:FRINGE). A lot of us studied some economics in school, and Austrian economics isn't discussed at all, and school's teachings run opposite to what you'd learn in an economics text book. I know--like you said before--Hayek won the nobel prize, but remember he won it jointly with Gunnar Myrdal a socialist (an economic position that is also WP:FRINGE). And Paul Krugman won the prize too, and I'm sure you can find some comments of his that indicate that the Austrian School is fringe (at least using WIkipedia's definition of fringe). You can disagree with my argument, but it's simply unfair to declare by fiat that everybody that thinks differently is just PoV.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's ok by me if Krugman's mistaken notion that AS is fringe gets quoted and cited in the article. My only meaningful worry has had to do with the edit warring and policy gaming by folks with a COI as to Keynesian economics. By the way, I thought the edit warring over AS not being a science was lame. Mises never said economics was a science. It's not even a slur to say AS is not science. Nobody can write a meaningful equation better at finding prices than the free market does on its own. Nobody can gather all the data needed to plug into any equation having to do with the "planning" of human action (economics), which renders Keynesian economics into pseudo-science (so to speak). Keynesian economics are widely taught in state funded schools because Keynesian economics have been a boon to those who live through and by the state for over seven decades. However, Keynesian manipulations are what cause the booms and busts. There's a likelihood of implosion, given these manipulations can be alikened at their core to Ponzi economics. Austrian School is not science, doesn't claim otherwise, other than perhaps as a kind of anthropology, that's the pith, not a weakness. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
RE: "Nobody can write a meaningful equation better at finding prices than the free market does on its own"
That's a pretty odd statement. Even ignoring the fact that the "free market" misprices things all of the time (credit default swaps being a recent glaring example) .. who is trying to write an equation to "find prices"? BigK HeX (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
RE: "Nobody can gather all the data needed to plug into any equation having to do with the "planning" of human action, which renders Keynesian economics into pseudo-science"
RE: "Keynesian economics are widely taught in state funded schools because Keynesian economics have been a boon"
I find it somewhat ironic that people who put so much faith in the market (because of it's "survival of the fittest" mechanism) are some of the same people who refuse to accept the distinct possibility that certain ideas (such as Keynesian economics) have survived because they are the most fit ideas found so far, with a corollary that any marginalized Austrian School ideas may have been discarded in the marketplace of knowledge because they rightly should be. BigK HeX (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
RE: "Keynesian manipulations are what cause the booms and busts."
Odd that there were so many booms and busts long before Keynes, and even in the US when there were zero central banks. BigK HeX (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Keynes only codified sundry monetary shenanigans and thefts that have gone on for a very long time. Anyway, once you said "survival of the fittest," you showed that your understanding of the sources on Austrian School is lacking and rather, perhaps rooted in political polemics. As I've said before, the topic has become political, an utter bane on en.WP. Either way, please take this to the talk page, I didn't mind saying something about it but there is no need to bring all the back and forth about AS here. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This isn't really a conversation for any article talk page.
And as an aside, my understanding of sources on the Austrian School is not lacking in any way. And, certainly, my reference the "survival of the fittest mechanisms of markets" would suggest no such misunderstanding of AS (particularly, since I didn't even reference the AS in that statement).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Gwen Gale,
I'm writing this because I disagree with your call on imposing a topic ban on Adam4267. I'm a completely uninvolved editor but as far as I can see due process has not first been followed and it would have been much more suitable to follow the dispute resolution procedure before imposing a ban on the user. They appear to be acting in good faith and make some very useful contributions to the encyclopedia. There is evidence that they have tried to engage in discussions with users in the past which have been ignored. There is evidence of disruptive editing on both sides and this whole topic ban issue on the ANI seems to be a personal vendetta of some of the users involved. This user is a useful contributer to our collaborative project. Wikipedians should not be marginalising this user but instead should engage in polite and collaborative discussions in order to resolve any disputes. Since standard dispute resolution procedures have not been followed in this case I recommend you reverse the topic ban that you imposed on the user and instead use the ANI discussion to begin a real fair dispute resolution process. Thanks Polyamorph (talk)21:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Going by the ANI thread I see a strong consensus for the topic ban as such (that being Celtic FC supporters, not football topics). Hence, this is more than a straightforward content spat. Meanwhile, although I don't see a consensus to shorten the length, I don't see a consensus on the length at all. This is likely a hint that the underlying consensus is for a shorter topic ban, say three months, with the understanding that it can be lifted sooner if Adam is willing to deal with the sourcing, editorial consensus, edit warring, PoV flogging and civility worries (the latter not being all that meaningful on their own). As for Adam's clean block log, the pith of the narrow topic ban on Celtic FC supporters is to keep it that way, there is wide acknowledgement that his overall contributions are very helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have lost a little faith in the community's ability here to negotiate and collaborate with it's fellow users. I don't see that due dispute resolution procedural policy was carried out here and that is my only real bone of contention. I'm glad that you acknowledge Adam's helpful contributions. I feel that with a little more patience, a bit less lecturing about the rights and wrongs of editing practice and more genuine collaboration and this would not have happened. Ultimately what I'm saying is that Adam is not the only one in the wrong. Ultimately the articles in question are not the most important articles on wikipedia and as for the dodgy edits, I have seen a lot worse on more important articles. Patience, diplomacy and general civility is the answer here, not sanctions. So I really hope that users can use this as an opportunity to engage in useful, supportive and collaborative discussion with Adam, instead of warring, lecturing, warning and sanctions. It just doesn't warrant that kind of escalation, in my opinion. Cheers Polyamorph (talk)07:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Polyamorph. WP:DR here spins up in fuzzy, sundry ways, as do the outcomes, like in any bureaucracy, I'm sorry to say. It may be helpful to keep in mind, WP:Consensus on en.WP, both as to editorial content and editor behaviour woes (be they meaningful or not), often shows up as a fly swatter when tweezers might do, being the quickest, highest yield path to keep the project trundling along. Most experienced editors soon learn how to keep away from the fly swatter, or even how to spot it hovering over their heads and scurry away before it swats down. As to what you call "important" articles, the core articles in many topic areas (mostly the wide swath of humanities) are drawn from often flawed secondary sources and watched by flocks of editors who for whatever reasons (and there are many) will not abide editorial outlooks which don't match their own. So, those core articles are very often flawed and the higher their traffic, the more flawed they will tend to be. However, all encyclopedias have these weaknesses. As knowledge (and the outlook on it) grows and shifts, it can take a long time to filter through the primary and secondary sources, then settle into a groggy tertiary source like this one. The thing is, lots of editors put up with all this, because of the broad outcomes: en.WP is by far the handiest general reference tool ever, often a great first stop for a thinking reader to launch into learning about something. In truth there's a lot more to what makes Wikipedia tick than that (and it would startle many editors), but understanding this is a first step towards getting by here. The second step is, when one runs into a bunch of editors who are saying "stop that!" the wisest thing to do is, stop it. Even more so when you know in your heart of hearts they're dead wrong, which they often are. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. You make some good points. Ultimately I hope that he and the other editors involved can now work together to resolve this, rather than those on the otherside of the fence seeing this as a "victory" and having nothing more to do with trying to resolve the problem. Some of the comments of the editors during the dispute that led to this ban were less than diplomatic and their protestations that they did attempt due WP:DR process are invalid because their comments were hostile towards Adam from the onset. Regardless of what you think of someone's edits there's no reason not to discuss things in a diplomatic, collaborative and non-demanding manner. Some of the edits Adam was trying to make were not wrong. For example, the dispute about the photo of the green brigade raising a banner. This was not dealt with properly and I'm not surprised with Adam's response following the unecessary hostility from Mattun0211. That doesn't condone his behaviour of course but it does go someway into explaining it. I'm sure that if the opposing editors had been less hostile in the first place it would never have led to this. In the ANI discussion, I felt that Adam deserved a defence as many editors were unecessarily harsh towards him, in my opinion. I've said it before but I'll say it again, it takes two to edit war. Cheers Polyamorph (talk)06:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Gwen--I hope I'm not moving too fast, but I'd like to see the topic ban section for Adam (the Celtic fan) wrapped up. I think there is a consensus for a three-month ban; would you mind evaluating the discussion and possibly changing the entry on the Editing restrictions page? If you disagree and want to keep it as it is, that is fine with me: I don't feel a pressing need to quarrel over the time period, but I would like to see that thread closed since nothing new or productive is coming up. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha! Thanks. I glanced at it in preview but didn't scroll down far enough. That's me, bumpkin. Guess I had the word close too much on me mind. Reckon I should delete the whole page? Erm, too bad, I think only a developer can zap a page with that many revisions. Maybe AfD. It'd be close. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on Gwen, and this was a nice touch, even although I argued for a longer ban. In practice I hope the experience of working only in the areas where he can be productive will turn the behavior around, and maybe 3 months will be enough. These things have a way of working themselves out. Anyway, thanks and good work. --John (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome and yes, they do. I don't think the length of a block or ban gauged in months matters all that much and WP:Standard offer can trump anything more than six months. I hope Adam stays. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for working this issue and taking some undeserved heat. There's argument for both lengths, and I don't think the answer is really clear. The issue was WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, and there's irony that he didn't hear that discussion in the beginning of August. I hope he's cured soon. Glrx (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:DIDTHEARTHAT is a bahavioural guideline, not policy. As for being cured, he will only be cured if people stop directing so much hostility towards him. Back someone into a corner and human instinct is to lash out. Polyamorph (talk)06:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again Again
Hi Gwen, Just a quick one
I just wanted to check something on the above recent case. The wording that was originally agreed upon was "User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed, including talk pages" [15]. This was changed to three months, which I agree with. The text that appeared on Adam's Talk page said "you have been topic banned for one year from editing articles and article talk pages related to Celtic F.C. supporters, Green Brigade among them, broadly construed." [16] (again changed to three months) so mentioned the Celtic fc supporters and Green Brigade rather than Celtic in general. The reason I bring this up is that he has been making changes at Neil Lennon which I think could be falling foul of Wiki guidelines (doesn't 'despite the fact' fall foul of WP:W2W and WP:synthesis? and I think we may have a case of WP:WEIGHT). In any case, I wanted to clarify this as I thought the ban was as said on the ANI page, albeit changed to three months, but his talk page says differently? thanks for your help in all this BTW. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As you and others have said, the only true worry was at Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade and after reading through everything, that's how I closed it, a topic ban on writing about CFC supporters. Nobody so far has since said that the topic ban should have been Celtic F.C. overall. So long as he doesn't write or post about Celtic supporters, he's heeding the ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, a quick reminder, when I'm asked what I think about someone's edits, whatever it is, moreover if this is done towards the notion that it could have something to do with wielding the admin bit, I more or less always need diffs (a wikilink to an article isn't enough). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen - sorry I wasn't asking for any action on anything, that's why I didn't provide any diffs. I was waffling explaining why I was asking. It was just that the agreed wording on the ANI and the talk page differed. Again, not asking for any action and I'm not directly involved in any of it, but the same patterns may be emerging there and elsewhere, so I though I'd check (although I suggested those two pages I actually thought it was wider).Mattun0211 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So far as I know, the wordings from the latest ANI thread match those on his talk page. Hard for them not to match, since I copy pasted them both times. So, I don't know what you're seeing. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just that the proposed wording section from the ANI [17] ended up being different from what was logged [18] but not to worry. I'm not surprised there was confusion! Best left as is. Mattun0211 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen--Zhand is using his talk page effectively as a space for drafting the same unencyclopedic version of the Cincinnati Zoo article all over again. Is that OK? Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I asked him to stop doing that yesterday. It could be ok, but there seem to be too many things awry with that account and so far as I can tell, he is bent only on getting his text onto en.WP his way. So, for him, for now, I don't think it's all that ok, at least until he shows a willingness to learn and abide by at least a bare outline of the policies. Now I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
hi Gwen, i noticed that you blocked this user in past but this time this user is currently using his account for promotional and campaigning purposes. You must look at this Ravidassia (caste) and Ramdasia article the reverts and editing done by this user and same by user CiscoManager are seriously adding a controversial items and generating conflict of interest and edit wars. This is generally a bad Ethnocentrism
1. Not following consensus
2. Not adding any inline citations
3. Reverting edits without any proper reasons.
I have informed at [19] which you can look at. Thanks Sehmeet singh Talk 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sehmeet, COI (conflict of interest) is allowed. en.WP is awash in COI because more or less all editors have some kind of COI. The pith is, how does an editor deal with their own COI? WP:COI has to do only with the most very blatant kinds of COI, as when someone writes in a glaringly unencyclopedic, promotional way about themselves, their business or organization and so on. What I see there is not COI as such, I see a few good faith edits in an editorial/PoV dispute. Meanwhile, Indian castes are a dispute-ridden topic area on Wikipedia. Even the sources often don't agree and a lot of the sources to be had are not reliable to begin with. So far, I don't see much of anything for an admin to do here, other than to say, for now, try asking User:Bal537, in a polite way, to talk about the sources on the talk page. Also please keep in mind, if there is a dispute about a topic in the wide world, that dispute should likely be noted, somehow, in the Wikipedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Come hang out with us online!
Hi! I wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap if that subject interests you. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk about Wiki, brainstorming, women in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sarah, thanks for letting me know about this. I don't hang out much on IRC, but please feel free to keep me posted about what y'all are up to, if you want! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I need help
I need a good editor to look at a short story which erupted out of me last night. It's by far the best writing I've ever done. You'd be the ideal person. Would you be willing to look at it? BusterD (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen Gale. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
We have a new editor who wrote Arthur C. Morgan, and has put some good work, but needs the expert eye ... if you have a moment. The ref's are a real mess, and reads more like a pure bio than an article, but I'll keep slowly plugging away too. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but dead guys whose artwork appears in important places draw booster groups (sadly, I don't) ... someone's actually been drafting an article on one of his pieces (so I saw in "what links here"). Not sure it's a "most wanted article", but it was at least "lightly desired" (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me Morgan was one of those sculpters who could do "classical" style memorial and award work to the market expectations of government and other groups who paid for that kind of thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, if he is not in "that area of the world" (not sure how geolocating to a rather large city is a problem, but I'll follow your lead), then this and the other 2+ IP's he's used that also geo-locate to the same country would have to be open proxies, right? There are technical ways to tell this, I think. This isn't a rhetorical question, my technical understanding of all this is pathetic. But if you have reason to think this is an open proxy, there's a way to check, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Ok by me. I was going to say, so far, going only by behaviour, I think it's likely it could be an open proxy (or at the end of a chain of them). A CU could help, if need be, but I don't think there's a need. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If the only evidence for jumping to that conclusion was behavioural, then mentioning geolocation information (even as imprecise as it was) was doubly unwise. Problematic child editors are much more likely to jump from one story or issue or difficulty to another, not spend weeks arranging and maintaining a consistent trail back to some supposed aspect of their persona that they didn't emphasise in their interactions and that no-one gave them any attention for. Of course, it's entirely possible that your conjecture about the location being fake is correct, but it would still have been more sensible not to throw around what might have been the correct information just for the sake of it. Anyway, as you say, it's immaterial apart from curiosity, now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you have not understood what happened and are mistaken. Since this has to do with an editor who claimed to be underage I'm not going to get into all the whys and wherefores here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Being careful with information about (allegedly) underage editors was exactly my point, so if there's awareness of that then my concerns are assuaged. Regardless of who has "not understood" :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't say this, I mean, here, 'cuz on its own, it doesn't mean that much and it's not meant to, but I've been doin' this for an awful long time. <Throws fistful of daisies> :D Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen. Could you let the user know that you've removed them from WikiProject Porn? Thank you, Swarmu / t18:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Already done. Legalities and consensus aside (those are other topics/worries), claiming to be 13 and then putting up topic badges like those was wholly disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
At WP:VPP there is currently universal opposition to any age limit for porn-related editing or for joining the WikiProject itself. If it remains that way, I don't really see any grounds for continuing to restrict their involvement in that area. What do you think? Swarmu / t20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, saw it. I strongly agree with what looks like the overwhelming consensus (oppose). Age-linked topic boundaries, age verification and such legal worries or woes, be they civil or criminal (if indeed there are any within an educational project) can only be dealt with by the WmF, after talking to lawyers. As an aside, I've been in places worldwide where laws having to do with that kind of thing run, roughly, from "wholly forbidden for anyone at any age" to, "ain't something for the courts or cops to say much about unless something else untowards is going on, too."
The pith with user C&J is quite otherwise, having to do with an editor claiming to be underage and then flaunting yet another claim, keeness on such a topic, with both a userbox (This user is a hard-core member of WikiProject Pornography - and I did catch how that's written to muddle the adjective hard core with the descriptive noun) and moreover a listing as a "member" of the wikiproject. It was highly disruptive because it quite understandably stirred up flurries of sundry worry. It also read like a tweak in the nose, so to speak.
Whether C&J is underage or an adult, it's very likely they knew spot on what they were doing. Disruption and/or underage worries should be dealt with editor-by-editor, as they've been more or less since the beginning here. One can't write a policy for everything and as for the media, seems to me this got swatted down quick (and by the bye, I'm not aware of C&J having even made any edits on that topic, upon a quick scan of their contribs I saw mostly wrestling edits). C&J has been disruptive before. Disruptive editors are topic-banned here all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, generally speaking. This was a disruption to the project. C&J had not done anything specifically wrong to be removed from the topic, but it was necessary due to the inevitable disruption. I would personally be unwilling to work with a minor on article work in that topic, for fear of legal issues. If people won't work with him, justifiably, there's too much disruption and he has to go from that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. Just looking at the situation - since C&J is willing to keep away from porn whilst being mentored, I'm personally willing to give him some WP:ROPE, and keep an eye on him. If he chooses a mentorship plan, do you have any problems with me unblocking? WormTT· (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and unblocked on the condition he follows the mentorship advice. I'll be watching carefully and may well help out with the mentorship, and will summarily re-block if he steps out of line. Do let me know if you have any issues with my decision or any advice regarding the user. WormTT· (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually going to take the adoption course directly from Worm, so while I can't attest to its 'EZ'ness, I'm completely confident that it's of a reasonable and appropriate difficulty. One must also keep in mind that this is just the beginning of the guidance this user needs; it certainly isn't going to comprise the entirety of this mentorship. Swarmu / t02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Laugh it up. I know you were fully anticipating this. Though I'd have a hard time believing even you anticipated it to take less than 24 hours. ;) Swarmu / t04:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I reckoned the top of the ol' bell curve on this was maybe two days. I've seen dozens and dozens of these. It's why I jumped in on the userboxen straight off after seeing it flash by on Jimmy's page (I had the time, which I don't anymore). Happily, way less than 1% of registered accounts come anywhere near that level of nettle. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you only beat me to the unblock, which I'd said could be worked out with Swarm. So I would've done, never mind having seen how fleeting unblocks of the already-mentored can be and most often are (and that swift reblocks tend to be much stickier). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a tendency to unblock a lot more easily if someone is mentored... which doesn't so much mean that mentoring is ineffective, just that in some of these cases the mentoring is offered more in a hopeful optimistic frame of mind than an unshakeable belief the particular individual will go through with it. In the end, some do and some don't (surprisingly, the actual numbers say that most do). This particular one I'd been aware of for a while and had resisted the temptation to offer mentoring myself, as there were obviously serious problems and I already had more mentees-with-past-issues than I could easily handle. Although now one of them's unexpectedly disappeared for a while, who knows what that may portend :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
As I've long said, I think mentoring is worthwhile mostly because the mentor tends to learn way more than the mentored, quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, Thanks for putting that pic back in! I had been trying to establish a dialog with the editor who removed it and was getting no where. And the fact is that I can be a little gun shy about revedits and such even when I feel it is justified. Your action will encourage me to trust my instinct and bit more then my urge to avoid conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BespokeFM (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What the editor said was true enough, wide snaps like that are indeed awkward to handle within flowing text here. I've put in a caption and tweaked the thumb size and placement. I do think the photo is helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is helpful, the photo is actually taken very near where the backpacker express rip tends to originate on the southern third of the beach looking north. That same rip is referred to in the content above the picture. Thanks for your work.BespokeFM (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Editor possibly socket puppet
Hi Gwen, I have serious suspicion that the unregistered user that edited this [20] is the user B-Machine in diguise making disruptive edits. Hope you are having a good week.Mcelite (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did. First, I don't think many (if any) folks truly mistake TT's talk page for something in the mainspace. So for most editors it's most likely not misleading, thus harmless. Second, it's TT's talk space, you should have first brought it up with TT. Third, following an indef block of someone who's been editing here for almost five years, one doesn't swoop in straight off and tinker with their user space lacking something meaningfully disruptive. This is not, it's more like "slightly nettlesome" which, so far as I'm aware, is allowed. Fourth, if one thinks WP:User page is fuzzy on this, one might bring it up on the talk page there or at WP:Village pump. Fifth, your edit has no consensus that I can see and you began edit warring over it, to the edge of WP:3rr. Sixth, you might have a look at Editing of other editors' ... talk pages if you haven't already. Lastly, saying in an edit summary that you might or might not allow something seems to hint you may not yet quite grok how things are done here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
For the record, my list of proposed content on the talk page for Men's Rights was put on the talk page for a reason. It's a suggestion for additional content which can be added if others can help me with sources and a request for other people to suggest other areas which need expansion or addition. If they can't source it reliably, it won't be added and I did not propose that it would be. Please do not assume that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies in this regard. If you look at my editing history you will see a large number of places where I have removed or corrected content on articles about football players who have had their articles changed based on gossip. Hermiod (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Your post didn't say anything about sources, so it looked like a "shopping list" having to do with your own outlook on the topic. Lots of en.WP articles (moreover in the humanities) don't mesh with some folks' thoughts about them. Sometimes this has to do with the sources to be had (or lack), or with clashing sources, along with sundry systemic bias both on the website and in the sources, the outcome being WP:Undue. Meanwhile, one can't undo slant in an article by edit warring and not paying heed to citations. It can take a shift in thinking to learn how things are done here and even then, an editor won't always get the editorial outcome for which they might be hoping. You might use the article talk page to gather sources and talk about how to echo them in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear in the comment. I do not wish to engage in original research or anything like that. The list is only a suggestion and is open to criticism. Thanks. Hermiod (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, please do feel free to ask me questions about sourcing and handling the thickets of editorial crackups here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Zhand38
I tried, really I tried, to instruct Zhand38 on how to request an unblock. Even money says you never actually see one, but I tried. Dayewalker (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, they weren't logged on to their user account, only posting on its talk page from the now blocked IP. IPs indeed can't see the email link (for starters, the system wouldn't know what return email address to use). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Another editor brought this page to my attention - it seems like a clear G11 speedy, but an editor on the talk page mentioned you cleared the page. Just thought I'd get your input. Thanks, m.o.p06:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was scratchin' me head trying to understand how I could have posted a non-free img (or let one stay) in my user space and lo, I didn't. I'd already deleted the image and posted a link to the then-empty image page, trying to help the editor understand what was happening. Then this month, over two years later, the same editor uploaded it again and bam!, a non-free image shows up in my archive. Next time I post a link to a deleted img, I'll cmt it out :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just notifying you of this; not a criticism of you per se but an honest answer to what appeared to be a genuine question. There may be more to that particular situation that I don't know about, of course. More discussion at my talk page. Thanks, Black Kite (t)02:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ban in spite of consensus?
I asked at RFC: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiqity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948? this was the response: Palestine:
1. GHcool: "The correct term is "Palestine." I don't remember exactly when it began being called by that name, but it ceased being called by that name in 1948. I agree with Chesdovi.
2. Oncenawhile: "I agree with Chesdovi too. It would save everyone a lot of unnecessary debate if we could solve this once and for all. The articles Time periods in the Palestine region and History of the name Palestine show well that Palestine is the only name used consistently throughout history pre-1948."
3. Wiki_Khalil: "If your talking about 1000-586 BCE or after 1948 May 14-15, call it Israel. Otherwise I would refrain from calling it Israel."
4. Pudge MclameO: "I would have to agree that the most commonly used name would appear to be Palestine or small variations thereof. Might as well just use Palestine then."
5. Dweller: "For much of recorded history (ie post biblical, until 1948), the correct term must be "Palestine"."
6. Macrakis: "What's wrong with "Akiva ben Joseph was a Jewish sage in Roman Palestine"?
7. In ictu oculi: "there's no reason why 70CE-1948 Category:Rabbis from Palestine couldn't be used."
8. FormerIP: "Use of "Palestine" should be consistent with the use of any other geographic description. That means, in general, that the OP is correct that "Palestine" is the correct term from the Hellenic era onwards."
9. Cerejota: "Depends on the time period, as noted by Chesdovi's own list, so I am inclined to take a case-by-case view."
10. Chesdovi: Palestine.
RS
CarolMooreDC: "Generally speaking for all historical articles, doesn't it depend on what the various WP:RS for the various historical periods call it? "
Land of Israel
Debresser: But the term "Land of Israel" has one reason to be preferred in articles about Jews, and that is that it has been the term by which they have traditionally referred to this area themselves. Jews, through all ages, have called this area "Eretz Israel".
Not at all. You have been both topic and interaction banned owing to your behaviour (which I dare say, having reviewed it and being mostly unaware of you before you were blocked, has been awful), moreover given that you were already topic banned under ARBPI. You have not been topic banned for your editorial outlook, but for how you dealt (mostly) with the other editor and yes, as such, I do see a consensus for the bans. Let other editors handle this for six months and when the ban is up, gather consensus for what you want to do and if another editor tries to stir things up, follow WP:DR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I went to DR twice. Here is what was stated the second time:
"Hi there, and sorry for the delay in responding to this. If this discussion was limited to the original article in the complaint, then I would attempt to find a compromise here, but there seems to be a history of dispute between the two editors involved, and the general issues seem to span a wide range of articles. For these reasons I think this dispute is likely outside the scope of this noticeboard. I agree with EdJohnston and T. Canens' comments over at the arbitration enforcement thread that the articles Chezdovi is editing don't appear to be directly related to his topic ban, but I think that carrying on these two discussions in parallel would not be very efficient."
So DR is not an option. In six months time, when consensus is gained to add Palestine to a rabbinical bio and Debresser removes it, please advise me what action I shall take. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Very little, maybe nothing. If he does anything like that again, even after the ban, he'll most likely wind up blocked, perhaps indefinitely. Meanwhile, please learn from all these bans: It takes two to tango (wlink given only to stir thought). You've been dusting up way too much kerfluffle, making everything much worse, by the way you've handled disagreements in this topic area. The disagreements in themselves and moreover your editorial outlooks on them had aught to do with these outcomes (the bans). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I will indeed learn a lot from this ban: If an editor reverts a consensus backed edit – do “very little”, actually, do “nothing.” What then is likely to happen? Nothing. If I do pluck up the courage to alert ANI instead of attempting to implement the consensus (code for “edit warring”), I run the risk of being accused of wasting Admin time, of having behavioural problems, and be blocked because of it. So what have I learnt form the past 6 months of wrangling? Don’t try and be bold. Don’t rely on reliable sources. Don’t try and build consensus. Don’t try and resolve disputes. Don’t use offending words (P*******e). Don’t waste Admin time. Frankly, don’t bother editing Wikipedia. Thanks for all you effort here in resolving the issue (for 6 months). I understand it would have just been too much for you or any other Admin to even contemplate commenting at the Rfc instead. Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I watched the discussion at AN/I after I'd walked away from it due to the immediate negative tone established by the first respondent, and of course the topic of your 0RR restriction from November 2010 came up. I'm not contesting the 1RR, since, as you've pointed out, one only needs to revert once, and then discussion should begin. However, I can't see how a 0RR restriction would allow someone like myself, who basically does "gnome" work around here, to function effectively. If I can't revert anything other than vandalism, that means I can't revert, for example, inappropriate changes to national varieties of English or date formats, since these are not vandalism - they're generally "good faith" edits by editors who are unaware of spelling differences or of WP:TIES.
I also wonder why my reverting of genres has come up so many times. These edits are likewise not vandalism (and I have never called them that in an edit summary), but they are frowned upon since they're arbitrary and not backed-up by sources. There are talk page warning templates, including this one, so obviously there's consensus for not making unsourced/undiscussed genre changes. And BTW, if an IP (and it usually is) genre wars and is reverted by multiple editors, I now just request semi-protection rather than keep reverting.
That thread got archived after I asked for input on 0RR-1RR (and got none, so far as I know). Taken altogether and speaking as the admin who put it forth to begin with, I would still think the 0RR has indeed gone stale but there's still a consensus that you stick to 1RR (which, as I said earlier, I believe one should do anyway, by far most of the time). Also, like I said before, music genres are very prone to GF back and forths, very often unsourced as you know.
Yes, short semi-protection is quite often (but not always) a handy and helpful way to stop spates of IP edit warring. It seems to me that what I've been hearing from you is that your outlook these days is along the lines of WP:BRD. Sounds like cool beans to me. So, stick to 1RR, maybe even don't revert at all sometimes but bring it up on the talk page with sources instead and things should go much more smoothly for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know much about the phonetic pronunciation guides. When Ms. Evancho says her name, she says: ee-vayng-ko. She definitely uses an ng sound; for example here at 0:13. Do you think the pronunciation guide is expressing it correctly? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Guess I'm destined to stay. A month off has really improved my willingness. Still focusing on my own personal writing, but I miss having my work mercilessly changed by people I don't know. Going to complete James A. McDougall, then move onto more historical subjects. Lots to do; lots of low hanging fruit still out there. Always got new dead folks... BusterD (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yo! Would you, as somebody unrelated (I think), care to close this one way or another? (I'm entirely unrelated too, but I suppose that somebody might claim that my recent utterances within it have somehow related me. Of course, you should feel free to say that my own comments have been utterly wrongheaded, etc etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Tell me your number, and I'll fax you the bung. ¶ What, you didn't mean that kind of compensation? Oops, sorry! Tell me how I may be of assistance. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There were at least two separate requests for comments. This is a question of content for Wikipedia not commons. You may be interested in knowing that commons admin state clearly that content at commons is not always within Wikipedia guidelines. They also state clearly that Wikipedia content disputes are not commons related and not reason for a discussion. Please restore the RFC to run a minimum of 7 days.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, what we keep as content has nothing to do with consensus at Commons. That's a matter of consensus for the contributing editors of the article. Please open that discussion back up for the full 7 days.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You are writing on the talk page of Gwen Gale. You are, I think, writing about Talk:Occupy Wall Street. The string "gwen gale" appears a grand total of one (1) time within that page. Gwen Gale has contributed once: to close a single RfC. The request itself starts by bringing up a putative copyright issue, conceding that this is a non-issue, and asking for "Any and all comments are appreciated regarding the inclusion of this image". It then got a lot of comments. You were a frequent contributor. Your own comments kept harping on issues (as you saw them) of copyright. You failed to persuade others. The considered comment of DGG, an experienced contributor who's among the most patient, affable and polite I know, was that this was One of the most ridiculous series of objections I've [ever] seen. He concluded I'd close this discussion myself, except Shankbone is a friend of mine. Shankbone is not a particular friend of mine, so I had no such qualms. I was about to close it myself but decided to argue instead. (With hindsight, I should just have closed it.) Your responses there to what I wrote were about copyright. Above, you hint that it's not a copyright matter but a "content dispute"; however, you don't hint at what this might be about. If you were to proffer a coherent, plausible objection, the RfC should indeed be allowed to run on. But you're proffering no such thing. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Featured article review for Sunset Boulevard (film)
I have nominated Sunset Boulevard (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You're receiving this message because you've been identified as one of the top four editors of the article by edit count. Brad (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I do like that film. Now, I've nothing against the featuretude of, say, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), but the low/no-brow emphasis of en:WP does get a little dispiriting at times, no? I hope to put a bit of effort into improving this thing, which actually has some good (if hazily sourced) content as well as the disposable excrescences. Care to join me? -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I like the film a lot, I'd even dare say it's in my own "top forty." Any hope we could get rid of that awful, way overly red poster snap at the top? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the BLP issue I don't think you were sufficiently mindful of your duty not only to protect the encyclopedia but also to help other editors contribute positively in this examples. The editor did clearly try to include sources, probably a reliable source too (it looks reliable to me), and she was never warned or given an explanation of why this was a BLP issue or indeed what a BLP issue is. I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The quoted summary of the book doesn't contain some of the quoted informations, eg. when Hanna Reitsch' family died. Is the text of the reference precize?Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely so (the citation is to the book, not the summary) and it all does seem verifiable. If one had the time, some of the book's text might (or might not) be had at Google books. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
RFA thank you
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
With your contrib history, you should be very, very careful when trying to edit high profile, current event articles. Moreover, you were trying to add Kim Jong Il to the atheist category and given the past warnings you've gotten about trying to PoV push and soapbox with that category, this alone could have been blockable. From now on, given your background on this topic, if you would like to see a bio put in the atheist category, bring it to the article's talk page for editor input first (and wait for input). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
99.177.241.54 added Pat Benatar and Kiss to this section; you zapped Pat Benatar but left Kiss. I could not find a citation for Kiss and so zapped it too.
Then I found an AllMusic citation for Pat Benatar and have restored her (in much expanded form).
It occurs to me that you may have found a citation for Kiss (and that was why you did not zap it). If so, please could you undo my edit which deleted Kiss and add your citation.
Hey Peter. I should have taken Kiss out too, but didn't see it (saw only the IP's last edit flit by on my watchlist and truth be told, I only watch Quatro for wanton text-rot and so on, the IP's edit looked way GF so I didn't dig further). I skived Benatar only because that was unsourced, lots of girl singers took cues from Quatro in the 70s and early 80s. Likewise Kiss: Quatro had close links to UK metal bands in the early 70s, so Kiss, being kinda glitter in their own way, may indeed have taken some heed of her. However, "influence" and "genre" in band articles are so prone to good faith and eager (but often mistaken or muddled) OR on en.WP, I tend to think readers are more helped if short shrift is given to unsourced edits on those topics. Thanks for taking the time to dig up a cite on Benatar! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Kontoreg#Editing style. The user Kontoreg is more active on the Danish wiki but has been a bit of a WP:DBAD here on the English wiki (silly tagging, no edit summaries but not a single revert). Thanks! I hope you enjoyed the Winter Solstice and wish you a Merry Xmas! jmcw (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, so far, I'd say wait a day or so and see if he pops up on his talk page and/or stops. He hasn't made all that many edits so it could be fleeting. In the meantime, merry Christmas back! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you: will pass on your greeting to my five children and their partners, my eight grand-children (two partners) and one great-grand child. I said I was ancient!--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Dunno. Likely not all too many, I reckon. But there are more slang synonyms in English for that word than I can think of (or want to). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw it stated somewhere that in the English language there were 68 slang or synonym terms for "penis". And Gwen, so as not to give the impression that I am editing in a sexist way, the same article suggested 59 synonyms for "vagina". Clearly I do not know, or indeed need to know, all of them. Anyone who does should think very carefully before admitting to it!!!--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to take forward some improvements on the above article. I am looking to do so by concensus have requested on numerous occasions. The response I am being hit with largely seems to be to ignore the comments I am making on the talk and instead blindly undo the edits that I make. is it possible you could take a look please?
Hi. That's a high profile, fairly high traffic article (thousands of page views a day and on the watchlists of almost 200 editors). It's one of the core topics of punk music. The first thing is, don't do anything that even hints of edit warring. That said, I think you tried to make too many changes all at once to the article, which is more or less why they were undone. Now that you've gotten this kind of feedback on your sweeping edits, try dealing with one thing at a time, gathering consensus on the talk page for each step, before making a meaningful layout or structural edit. Perhaps the influences section could be tidied up some, so maybe you could begin with that on the talk page. Put forth the reasons why you think it needs sub headings and so on. Also, if you want to add sourced content, that's ok, but don't do it along with other stuff in one big edit, do things in small steps, giving other editors time to take them in without being overhwelmed. Merry Christmas and season's best to you and yours! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I still have a soft spot in my heart for that one :) Happily, it's not a controversial topic and doesn't get brought up much in pop culture outlets, can't recall even one kerfluffle there! Oh and I bet the prices on those menus look startlingly low, wish the snaps were big enough for one to read 'em! Merry Christmas! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have re-accepted your nomination
I believe the discussion was sidetracked. Before I had any chance to respond to "charges", I was given a turd burger and suggestions were made I eat it. I will not. I have answered each charge in a substantive way. I have made a new acceptance statement which might provoke a reasonable consideration. Even if I'm not the person who the pedia wants, I'm not going to be shy about being the person my friends nominated. Thanks for standing with me. I will not be beaten. Losing is no sin. BusterD (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for telling me. I teaked the diff you had posted, leading to that cmt of mine, since it does fix a meaningful typo (although most editors would likely read it as a typo and know what I meant). The only thing I would say about your description of my long-ago block of Malleus is that I blocked him for a long pattern of incivility (not for that lone, offhand "sycophant" barb about admins), then indeed quickly took it back when I saw there was no consensus. My comment of a few weeks back, which you linked to on the evidence page, does tell how my outlook on civility blocks shifted after that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be prepared to take a look at what has become a dispute with this article. I will be guided entirely by your opinion as I certainly don’t want an edit war. Many thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think one should be wary of most "musicological analysis," however "reliably" sourced, moreover of 20th century pop songs, moreover when they were written by L&M, given so many writers have coatracked onto them. That said, it's ok to put sourced stuff like that in an article as such, but there must be a consensus for it nonetheless. The biggest worry I see is that you two have been edit warring over it, so please do stop the back and forth, take it to the talk page instead and if need be, wait for input from others. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. No need to worry - I’m not going to continue removing this section. For my part, I have tried to appeal to the other party to wait for consensus, as you have suggested, but each time they have simply put it back in. There has been some discussion between us on the talk page - and I don’t know if you looked there - but to no avail. I obviously can’t do much more with this, but perhaps you could. What bothers me is: who is going to verify all this stuff? and there is a lot of it as this person has been going through many Beatles songs adding it, it’s getting like Japanese knotweed. It needs checking for errors, and most editors won’t know how. So it’s not just this article. Personally, I think it’s best kept for text books unless, as I mention on the talk page, it’s used sparingly to illustrate a point. --Patthedog (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So, just so I know where we are on this. Is it: that this new section should have been proposed first on the talk page? In which case it should be removed in the meantime awaiting consensus. Or: as above, but the section now stays in the article during the interim period. I believe it ought to be taken out, unsurprisingly, but I cannot do this of course without being accused of edit warring. You could - or give me permission. Or I could just remove the article from my watchlist and live in blissful ignorance, which, now that I see it in print, is beginning to settle on me like a long lost love. Anyway, your advice would be welcomed, and I can then leave you in peace. --Patthedog (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it's not a policy or guideline, but the essay is often cited by experienced editors as a helpful way to go since when followed, edit warring doesn't happen and it's easier to gauge consensus (which may or may not go the way one would like). So, yeah, ok to to put the content in once without discussion, ok to undo it once, but then no more, discussion on the talk page should be next. So, what happens if the cycle is broken, there is more back and forth and only when editors become wary of edit warring further (or the page is protected), it winds up in what an editor might say is the "wrong" version (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version)? It may be stuck there for the time being, but that may or may not last very long, or even matter, given how consensus might go. As for the cited source, The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles, like I hinted above and speaking only for myself now, one might, or even should, be highly wary of someone's Schenkerian analysis of a Beatles song (or any beloved/popular musical work). Chord progressions are a big deal, but they're not everything (think of stuff from that same era like 96 Tears, Gloria as first done by the Them and so on). Chord inversions, the melody under which the chords weave, melodic harmonies, many and sundry rhythms, tempo, time signature, phrasing and a sprawling slew of performance and production "variables" along with packaging and marketing have lots to do with how both a recording and its overlying song get to be a "hit," a "flop" or something in between. Put another way, yes, musical theory can be very meaningful as a means to talk about some of the harmonic/acoustical underpinnings (or science) of a given work. It's also a very handy tool for some, but not all, songwriters and players. However, there are still meaningful bounds to any understanding of how folks' brains tend to be wired, to hear some noises as music (and environment also has a lot to do with it) and how it all might sound pleasing or otherwise to some. Not to say it's wholly subjective, I don't think it is at all, but big swaths are "learned," too. Hence, putting forth a chord analysis alone can easily mislead some readers. As a very first step, I'd be kind of neutral about citing a source like Pedler. I'd ask, is he widely cited elsewhere in published Beatles crit? Do these edits, as put forth, put undue weight (WP:UNDUE) on one writer's take as to the song's chord structure? That said, my biggest worry would be that the text as written in All My Loving puts the analysis in the narrative voice of the English Wikipedia, rather than attributing it to Pedler in the article text. I think an editor could easily fix that now, without any fear of edit warring, pending more discussion on the talk page. I hope this helps, sorry it was so long. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. SalvioLet's talk about it!13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I think the mumbling about "...an augmented (C#m(maj7)/B#) chord..." is way over the top in sundry ways (please don't get me started). The other stuff, like the swapped ii chord being a wonted take on the steadfast I IV V IV and PM's often cited knack for throwing in melody-aware bass lines (moreover when the melody came from him to begin with) might be mildly helpful for a budding songwriter or "musically literate" reader to stumble across and think about. As I hinted earlier, nifty chord progressions don't mean much without catchy melodies and hooks, fit arrangement, register, performance, production and lots more, so I think there's WP:UNDUE going on there. Hence the text is still so lopsided with Schenker analysis, which although handy, like most tools can only be taken so far (never mind bungled in, say, a source), many readers could be easily misled into muddled notions as to why that song got so widely known. Meanwhile, last time I looked at the talk page, I didn't see any consensus for it, quite otherwise. As ever, I hope this helps. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Suspected resurrected sock
Hello Gwen, as someone who had been involved in resolving the case of GeordieWikiEditor and their multiple socks, I wanted to bring it to your attention that this individual seems again at it, having created a new account from which they are currently on a spree of edits, for example, on Germans, Adolf Hitler, Austria, and others. These edits show the same POV pattern and multiple problems of introducing bad grammar into articles and edit warring as with the previous accounts (e.g., 14Adrian). I would be much obliged if you could look into this or else if you could let me know on how to resolve this. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. On 31 July 2010 you left a message on a Talk page asking a User to behave in a more civil manner. See your diff.
Unfortunately, that User has not taken adequate notice of your sage advice, and has continued to taunt others, including newbies, with uncivil comments. For example, see this diff.
In recent times there have been more messages on this User's Talk page, and a couple of approaches to Wikiquette Assistance, and finally a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino. In this RfC, you are mentioned by name, and your message from 31 July 2010 is among those cited as evidence of other Users having tried unsuccessfully to influence this User's behaviour. If you wish, you are entitled to endorse this RfC as a User who has tried to solve the problem. Regards. Dolphin(t)22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I’m sorry that this keeps cropping up, but with regards to All My Loving user NimbusWeb has now reverted twice against consensus, and I feel there is nothing more that I can do or say on the matter. I think it has reached the point where an administrator has to rule on this, and I hope you can assist. Thanks --Patthedog (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked but after looking through the edits, it seems like the user did make attempts to create encyclopedic edits. While it seems like the user had issues with image copvio warnings, it doesn't seem to match the block message. Some of the articles the user started are still there.
Having read it, the words "sour" and "grapes" come to mind, followed closely by "shotgun" and approach", and finally "immature". Not sure about anyone else (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
For me, the words "admin tool abuse" and "protected admin" come to mind. It's amazing what some admins can lose their tools over while others go untouched for years. But hey, that's just sour grapes. Actually, that's not sour grapes, but it seems to fit in-line with your apparent definition of the term. Accurately speaking, it would be closer to the opposite of sour grapes. Lara19:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
One plus about being an occasional malcontent is that one tends to have quite a few folks quietly watching one's talk page. We regulars might yell at each other sometimes, but paradoxically we also often watch out for each other. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
All things considered, it's just as well Hermann Göring snuffed it using cyanide. His hanging would have been difficult to carry out, as the War had caused a shortage of industrial-strength rope. To make up for it, the bonfire resulting from his cremation created enough energy to heat Berlin for a week. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This can be very helpful
Dear M. Gale, Here is a on the spot self survey for active Editors, without turning to look at your histories, try to answer the following from your gut reaction.
What percentage of your work on wiki is: adding content? editing content? revediting others content? Deleting? blocking/unblocking? making warnings?
Now jot down your answers, and then check your histories, how accurate were your gutguesses?
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
In light of my findings here, I think you'd have compelling evidence to at least file an WP:OTRS complain against that "RFC" page and perhaps to pursue other venues of redress as well with respect to the material on non-WMF wikis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what happened on the talk page three years ago. I've long said that editors here can and do go (way) too far with WP:UNDUE and at the time, I didn't cite that policy to Messer-Kruse, someone else did. I did remind him about WP:RS, the sourcing policy, given he was citing a blog. Three years ago, for sundry reasons, cites to blogs of any kind were even harder to get into an article here than they are today. In the meantime, he got his research published. When this did come up again on the talk page the other day, I thought the IP who linked to the Chronicle article was being helpful (still do) and said what I thought about how UNDUE can easily skew what an article carries. Through all this, please keep in mind that Haymarket is still a highly PoV topic. Messer-Kruse himself has shown how flawed the sources on this are. As an aside, I looked into the topic quite deeply years ago (before there was a Wikipedia) and came away thinking that both the Chicago business/government "side" and the so-called "anarchists" wrought awful, deadly wrongs throughout the whole sad tale of the strikes, the bombing and the trial. I dare say, there are still meaningful things we don't know about the bombing and we may never know. Chicago still has one of the most corrupt city governments in North America and this has often and long been tangled up with corruption within the labor unions which sprang up in that era. In putting volunteer time into building a tertiary source article on the topic, one does what one can with flawed sources and the sometimes daunting ways of open editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Gwen, the past is the past so let's move forward. However, let's clear up a few things. Messer-Kruse was an expert when he first came to Wikipedia, and he already had published articles on the subject. As he has said, "I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own peer-reviewed articles."[24] So, he included a solid primary and secondary source, which is acceptable. I also think that in this particular instance, the minority or undue clause applies weakly to Messer-Kruse, as we are not just dealing with more current sources, but Messer-Kruse has said that scholars have been publishing these ideas for over a 100 years. Interestingly, it appears the undue clause applies strongly to Wikipedia editors, because they are the ones who picked a small number of sources from the 1500 sources available on the subject. Messer-Kruse has made a very good argument for a much needed sea change. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Gwen, there needs to be a bit more flexibility and understanding when we are dealing with new users. There are too many editors and admins engaging in strict, literal interpretations, and it is causing many problems. In this case, the user correctly, appropriately, and accurately used the talk page before making their changes. In 2009, it was entirely acceptable to provide reasons (and sources) on the talk page for changes in an article, and that's what the user did at 16:13[25] and at 16:34.[26] Then, from 16:37-16:42 the user began making their edits.[27][28] Let's keep in mind that this was a new user and had just registered an account, and that this was one of his first attempts at editing; they were good edits and he went out of his way to support them on the talk page before he made them. I think that as experienced users, we have to do more than template and throw alphabet soup policies at new users. We need to work with them directly, and attempt to help them the best way we can. Unfortunately, as myself and others have noticed, not everyone is up to the task, nor is everyone working with the same set of social skills. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what you're getting at. As for what happened back then, I didn't "template and throw alphabet soup policies" at that editor. I didn't tell him that what he wanted to do, couldn't be done owing to WP:UNDUE, my outlook back then, as now, was quite otherwise. His edits were good faith, as was noted in the edit log, but as the talk page history shows, there were straightforward worries about the sourcing and moreover, the edits he made to the article did lack citations, at a time when the article was already carrying eighty of them. As I look at this more, I don't think his claims in the Chronicle article quite match up with the article and talk page history (this is very understandable, though, three years is a long time and I do strongly agree with what he has to say about the UNDUE policy, I thought about it much the same way even back then). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have some good ideas as to how we can improve the situation, I would like to hear them. And I know you have good ideas. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You're asking for my two pence then? WP:UNDUE as a slice of the NPoV policy is ok I guess so far as it goes, but is often wielded here, both carelessly and sometimes with wanton aforethought, as a means to keep verifiable and reliable sources out of this encylopedia. See Abraham Lincoln, a train wreck if I ever saw one on en.WP, for such outcome on a high traffic "core" humantiies article here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading it, thanks (and for the kitty, too). It sounds like the article may be brought at least a bit more up to date with some later sources which hopefully have less spin on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As Nbauman wrote today, So all MesserKruse did was leave two dozen edits and messages. That's a pretty low frustration tolerance. He spent less time on this than he would marking an undergraduate paper. Conversely, he didn't learn the Wikipedia style of comments, citation, etc. So Wikipedia's response wasn't that ridiculous after all. I'm happy the sources have been brought up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to take forward some improvements on the above article. I am looking to do so by concensus have requested on numerous occasions. The response I am being hit with largely seems to be to ignore the comments I am making on the talk and instead blindly undo the edits that I make. is it possible you could take a look please?
Any help is much appreciated.
Very best wishes of the festive season, Socheid (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. That's a high profile, fairly high traffic article (thousands of page views a day and on the watchlists of almost 200 editors). It's one of the core topics of punk music. The first thing is, don't do anything that even hints of edit warring. That said, I think you tried to make too many changes all at once to the article, which is more or less why they were undone. Now that you've gotten this kind of feedback on your sweeping edits, try dealing with one thing at a time, gathering consensus on the talk page for each step, before making a meaningful layout or structural edit. Perhaps the influences section could be tidied up some, so maybe you could begin with that on the talk page. Put forth the reasons why you think it needs sub headings and so on. Also, if you want to add sourced content, that's ok, but don't do it along with other stuff in one big edit, do things in small steps, giving other editors time to take them in without being overhwelmed. Merry Christmas and season's best to you and yours! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi again,
Thanks for your response above and I hope its OK that I have pasted it in here again to allow ease of recall on your part.
Can you advise on this again please? There's another editor who dogmatic undoes the change that I am trying to make. The change consists only of structuring a section of a page from the a long ramble into 3 subsections with the content added to the subsections in question. At presrnt I have consensus support (by a mighty 2 votes to 1). Going by the comments on the talk page, the other editor appears to think he is perfect and owns the page in question. Also any questions I ask to try to ascertain what is wrong with the edit I have proposed is met with a dismissive generalised point of view response.
Hi again. Happy to see you were unblocked so quickly today and that someone has stepped in to help you with this. As I had said back in December, "The first thing is, don't do anything that even hints of edit warring." Now, hopefully, you know what edit warring is! It's easy to fall into and even easier to get blocked over. I took a quick look and I don't think another editor is trying to WP:OWN the article. When I have more time in the next day or two I'll try to have a closer look and let you know what I think. In the meantime, you might read WP:Consensus, to get a further understanding of what that's all about on this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You posted a "Neutral admin comment" on the KUMM AfD with a question, which I think was directed to me. I have answered it there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and yes, as to the latter, I had already thought that was likely, see also. However, broadcast outlet topics on en.WP tend to be riddled with wanton COI to begin with, so I think it would be far more helpful to everyone if the discussion stays on straight notability. The article has some weakness (as to assertion of notability) which does seem easily fixable but given that lack, I can't quite bring myself to do a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I always bring COI and student problems up when discussing college radio stations or college anything. As for KUMM, I have contacted WP:WPRS's resident researcher User:Dravecky and asked him to give the page a once-over. He is a really good researcher and digs up information from I-have-no-idea-where. I will also give the page a look-see and update the infobox, links and other information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
COI is allowed. It becomes a worry (and something to heed) only when other policies are being breached. As an aside, updating the info box with the sign-on year of 1972, cited, might, I think, be enough for a straightforward keep. 40 years is an "established" broadcast history. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I just updated the page, but just noticed your above post. I can cite the 1972 sign-on, so I will do that posthaste. I also updated the programming section with sourced information. Dravecky can (and will) do more (probably much more) when he updates the page later on today or tomorrow. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Dravecky updated the page earlier today and it looks pretty darn good. :) Many more referenced pieces of information, more information in general, a clearer, more detailed history, and other cool stuff. Give a look-see at KUMM. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy to see it. One wee nitpick, the school has made ongoing claims the station first went on the air in 1972. The broadcasting yearbook cited in the infobox says 1970. Online FCC records don't seem to go back that far. As to sourcing, I take the reliability of each date as more or less the same. Could be a typo in the industry yearbook (they happen), or some kind of oral tradition at the school got muddled years back (perhaps a new faculty member was assigned to the project in 1972 and stirred things up in some fondly remembered way, or a higher-wattage transmitter was licenced and installed, allowing listeners off-campus to clearly hear its broadcasts for the first time, something along those lines). Checking an earlier broadcast industry yearbook might not help, since a typo could have cropped up very early on. If I were in Morris, my first step would be at the university library or student union, asking to look at the school's 1971, 1972 and 1973 yearbooks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the online FCC records go back to 1978. Not sure why they never put those back further of the years, but that's the ol' Federal Government for ya. I will check back in the broadcasting yearbooks, there is a website that has all of them going back to the late 20s, so I can search and see what I can find. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Simply a connection
Apologies for coming here, you are very busy. But I want to thank you for your work for Wiki - I have seen your work in a number of places over the years and recognize the value of that. So, just a thank you. (Dumarest (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Hi. Ok. You may make one single comment there but please think about it carefully before doing so and please, please, don't post anything whatsoever about any other editor. Write only about the topic at hand along with any sources you might want to cite, because if I see anything that even hints at a personal attack, I will block you from editing for a month. Also keep in mind, the administrative sanction is not otherwise lifted but is set to end, wholly, with no further input from anyone, in only 2 months, on 5 May and editorially settling any notion about an outlook as to whether Christ was Palestinian in 21st century terms is hardly an encyclopedic emergency. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I tried years ago to create a page for now former KTVU anchorwoman Gasia Mikaelian. I apparently did not succeed in making a significant-enough article. I felt that she was significant, as she is Armenian, which is somewhat unusual for an American anchorperson. AmericanLeMans (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not to say you couldn't dig up three or four reliable sources about her which could be cited in an article about her, but following this quick look, I didn't see any.
The worry is not so much, "Is she notable?" Rather, the worry is, "Are there enough verifiable sources to be had which could be cited in a WP:BLP?"
Hello, my name is Rob and I am a student at Michigan State University working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I have been given your username as one of the people I am expected to interview. The interview is for a class that Jonathon Obar is teaching and who is the principal investigator for the project. If we could setup the email interview for this week that would be great. How would you like to exchange email addresses? As a reminder none of the questions or responses will be posted on Wikipedia. Thank you and I look forward to the interaction. Murph146 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Gwen Gale. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Could I ask you to look in at this article? Moni Aizik It is a troublesome article because it is BLP and the persons notability is based (among other things) on an assessment by the UK Advertising Standards Authority. A new user User:Kamil.tomer has been removing the references. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a rather worrisome BLP to me with some kind of unhelpful COI (breaching other policies) going on and I foresee nothing but woe with it. Moreover, I can't see that it carries any meaningful, sourced assertions of notability. In ways it's almost an A7 speedy, but isn't quite. Please tread carefully. Handling something like this, without stirring up a big nettlesome mess, or worse, takes consensus. Hence, I think the first step would be, take it to WP:AFD, quick (fails WP:BIO, perhaps also Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
As the article stands, it would be AFD ripe. The version before Kamil.tomer [29] had a good magazine reference and a ruling from the UK ASA: more than enough to survive AFD. BLP articles where the subject is famous for 'bad' reasons need these good references. I have been 'baby sitting' this article among the POI warriors since 2008: Kamil.tomer is just the latest. Thanks for looking! jmcw (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as it stands, I'd think the article shouldn't be there at all. For what its worth, I don't think that ASA ruling (that they were given no evidence he was indeed whom some ad said he was) brings the topic any closer to the threshold of WP:BIO. I'm willing to full protect the article if need be (and asked to do so), otherwise, big BLP worries loom throughout this and for sundry reasons which I think are meaningful, I do think anything done further should be through straightforward consensus. An AFD, whatever the outcome, would at least settle for now whether or not there is a consensus for even having this BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If the outcome is keep, the thread will likely show there's consensus for keeping those sources, too and hopefully, get the article on more watchlists. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni_Aizik_(3rd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Having looked over the history after this latest flurry, I've semi-protected that BLP for a few months. I also took out those stale header tags, since they may have been stirring up more kerfluffle than help (given someone might have been seeing them more or less only as "badges of shame" which they are not meant to be). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I've also done some NPoV tweaking. The outcome of that ASA review didn't prove any falsehoods as such, but only noted a lack of evidence to be had, evidence which they noted was needed to back up some advertising claims under UK trading rules: Going by what sources there are, Mr A all along has said he could give such evidence, whilst putting forth a reason why he would not do so. Hence, whether or not there is any such evidence, I have yet to read of any proof either way and I've edited the text to note only that there has indeed been some (sourced) controversy about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with editing so here is a submission on Amelia Earhart from the FBI FOIF(freedom of imformation files)
""""Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims""""
FBI FOIA FILES
The files at the link below clearly show and state that many radio operators intercepted Earhart's radio transmissions. These files on pages 49 thru to 54 establish that Earhart landed in the Marshall Islands and was taken prisoner by the Japanese. After reading the files it is obvious that Earhart and Noonan were both alive and had landed safely, however into or near a secret Japanese base. Due to the planes altitude the radio transmissions misled those waiting to intercept Earhart as planned. Off course far north of Howland Island, Earhart is said to have actually landed on Knox Island nearer to the Marshall Islands. This is outlined by the FBI files. The files document often repeated and frantic requests by radio operators to get FBI assistance in finding Earhart, even many years after her disappearance. Here is the FBI link: http://vault.fbi.gov/amelia-mary-earhart/amelia-mary-earhart-part-01-of-01/view
"new as of this writing"
The file contents merit including on the Earhart page as credible -(posted 07:50, 1 June 2012 by User:Atomic49er)
A solitary editor has made massive undiscussed changes to the US/North American Beatles' album articles, removing sourced content and introducing formatting errors. I reverted; he reverted. I posted to his talk page and got no response. I asked an editor with a lot of time spent at Beatles articles for his opinion, which is here. Please take a look and see what you think. The articles are at the user's contribs link below:
FTR, IMO, some of PJtP's contributions do constitute article improvement. It's the deletion of sourced material and the wholesale restructuring that involves deletions and additions that may require consensus that concern me, and mostly that they made no attempt to resolve this with Radiopathy, a trusted guardian of many articles. — GabeMc (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I see it as a wholesale radical improvement of disconnected facts and bad syntax that scans poorly. The American Beatles catalogue articles are loaded with superfluous discussions of minor details, such as edit and mix differences between both their British counterparts and mono and stereo. The articles need to discuss what these albums are better than they do, and there needs to be better conformity and consistency among them both in formatting and content. My edits should obviously not be the final word (hopefully people will still be editing and adding to these articles decades from now when none of us are around anymore) but these articles need to be improved. Also, the idea that someone is a "trusted guardian" of any article or series of articles sounds like gatekeeping of the "none shall pass" variety and is exactly what I always assumed Wikipedia is supposedly not about at all. No one "owns" any article - anyone can edit, remember? My edits are done with care and thought, and if anyone is starting an edit war here, it is Radiopathy, not me. Simply reverting another contributor's edits apparently without even taking a look at them, or bothering to discern if at least some of the changes merit inclusion, doesn't sound like the Wikipedia project I've known for years. PJtP (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That's one of the highest traffic article/topic areas on en.WP and while with any article, one can be quite bold with a flurry of new edits (see WP:BRD), if it's a very high traffic topic area like that, one must be ready for swift reverts (fitting or not) and be willing to take the time needed for building consensus on the talk page(s), see WP:Consensus for the policy. It can be highly daunting, it can take scads of time, WP:OWN worries can and do crop up even while good faith abounds among all. Only when reverts begin slipping into the dreaded back and forth are the bounds of policy breached. Talk page consensus is the only way to get through it and with any high traffic topic area, the article outcomes may be uneven and not thoroughly please anyone. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nickadamsrebel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone tried to swap it out with a copyrighted image they found on ebay and mistakenly claimed as "free," the above image is not orphaned anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Nickadamsmars.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Nickadamsmars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone tried to swap it out with a copyrighted image they found on ebay and mistakenly claimed as "free," the above image is not orphaned anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Mary Pinchot Meyer
As the primary contributor to Mary Pinchot Meyer, I was wondering what you thought about this pic. Is it really her? I ask, because 1) the article doesn't have an image, and 2) a photograph of her taken three years later looks different. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I understand why you've asked me to have a look! Here is Mary in 1963. I've never seen a snap of her with plucked eyebrows, but the lighting (in the image you linked to) may only make them seem plucked, likewise a 40-year-old looking closer to twenty-five in 1960, which does fit descriptions I've read about her. Eye color is the same (light brown), hair and skin tones are close enough (given color swings in old photos). Nose shape also could be the same. Forehead seems a bit too short but that could be the angle and lens. So, I tend to think it's her, but would be wary about saying so in a published caption without further verification. Meanwhile, I asked the housekeeper here to look at these images and she said it's not the same person :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It is. You know, looking at it again, I do think it's Mary. The wide-set and high cheekbones in the 1963 photo also look like a match to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It might get through with a keenly done fair use rationale. This blog page carries it (with the date "ca 1963" which, going by the '63 photo I linked to above, seems off by a few years - the wardrobe and hair could be very late 50s or very early 60s) and going by the text there, the image could be from Nina Burleigh's book about her and if so, there would likely be a photo credit inside. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wholly confirmed, the photo is a grab of Gretchen Mol in An American Affair which so far looks like a dud of a flick :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Argh! In the photo you linked to, her eyes do look light brown but watching a close-up in the movie, they're hazel. Shoulda known, that forehead was too short and she looked too young. Happy that neither of us wasted time on verification, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I stopped watching the movie after 18 minutes, it sucks, boring, only hints at Pinchot Meyer and not handily at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor B-machine continues to makes edits for his own personal agenda or opinion even when things are cited from reliabe sources see here [30] as he did in the James Brown article.Mcelite (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The mobileretailmagazine link came back "not found" but I would go ahead and cite the other two sources as they are. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, there is a dispute on The Beatles that has recently taken a nasty turn for the worse. I’m involved, as is Andreasedge (who has now been banned) and also GabeMc along with a cast of thousands. Perhaps you would take a look at administrator Coren 's page to begin with, as your opinion is needed. Thank you.--Patthedog (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree: one editor's quest to change the capital 'T' in "The Beatles" to lower case at all cost has created a firestorm of disruption and ill-will that desperately needs to be addressed. I have copied some of the examples I posted at User talk:Coren; there are plenty more if you care to do some digging:
Adding me to "the list" - "Mafia-esque"? What do we mean here?
Starting a thread on Jimbo's talk page to report an admin for a 3RR that didn't go his way and then continuing to bring questionable difs to the discussion after several editors had sussed him out and told him to stop. (I agree, BTW, that the comment 'grow the fuck up' was out of line, but not the sentiment behind it).
Any one who disagrees with Gabe is "disrupting" something , is "harassing" him or is "childish": here, and here - please read my post that he felt was "harassment".
Encouraged one of his cronies to file an SPI against me, since, as you'll see from the discussion, I favour the capital 'T', and after all, I got "caught" socking before (which I have never acknowledged). This way he could silence both myself and the IP, since we have both objected to GabeMc's behaviour.
I also wish to hell someone would reopen this SPI so that we could all know for sure who the sock is not.
Hey Rp. I've only taken a half hour or so to look at this, but here goes:
First, please be aware that I have a deep and lengthy background writing (never mind reading) both UK and US English and moreover, blush when I think about how much I've read on the Beatles through the years, which I didn't mean to do :) I must say, even with all the flawed and way overdone sources (I'd say some of the "musicology" I've read about their songs is so over the top), it can be a fun topic, that half-century-old tale of four highly talented, very appealing young blokes from Liverpool who way lucked out by getting along together and believing in what they were doing long enough to meet such a string of helpful, talented folks at fitting times to become one of the greatest "pop-culture" flukes of the twentieth century. I recall, some years back, strolling down a cobblestone street in a small French town and seeing this brightly lit shop window which bore a heaping stack of their 1 boxed set, shaking my head in amazement, doing quick sums and thinking something like, "Ok, this has been going on for how long? Like, forty years now?" Wonderful songs, great recordings and all but, I mean, I'm a bit startled by how some folks (more wontedly men, it seems to me) still get so stirred up by them.
Second, I've long had an overwhelming conflict of interest, let's call it, having to do with any musical topic. I should also say that since my late teens at least, I've found that many secondary sources about music tend to carry meaningful flaws, as do so many sources on politics and political histories. This doesn't mean I couldn't edit in that topic area in an NPoV, rule abiding way, only that doing so could sometimes be such a drag and time sink for me that, since my very first days of editing en.WP (so long ago and far away) until now, I've tended to shy away from any topic having to do with music or music history.
Third, like any ubber-high traffic area here, Beatles is a black hole of woe, beware to any volunteer editor who dares wade into the pull of its time-warping back-and-forth: WP:Consensus will often be flawed but it's the only way to get by. If one can't put up with that, I say, don't bother wasting your time and do something else.
Fourth, I think the answer is easy and straightforward: Capitalize the the in the Beatles only at the beginning of a sentence or in a title. My outlook on this is very strong, as near to unswayable as can be about this kind of thing. It's not happenstance that en.WP's MoS agrees with me, as do most sources (flawed as some may be) and the RfC seems headed that way, too.
Hence, speaking only for myself, I'm highly wary of taking an admin action in this topic area, other than perhaps a look at something way straightforward, like vandalism, "bright-line" 3rr and so on.
That said, here's my humble two pence: I'm not aware of any editing sanctions in the Beatles topic area, so the topic ban of User:Andreasegde seems have been done in good faith, but mostly through WP:IAR. I think Andreasedge should, in a level-headed way, unabashedly appeal the ban and say they'll let consensus have sway before going on any more syntax-fixing sprees. Please understand, I would quite agree with such a spree if consensus backs it up. Likewise, I think you two should back off, too. Aside from my thinking that you guys are more or less wholly mistaken as to use of the only definite article in English, it seems to me there's too much WP:Battle going on, which is not only boring, but an utter waste of time which only drives away other volunteer editors. I hope this helps somehow. Meanwhile, welcome to the open editing of high traffic topic areas on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I really do appreciate your lengthy, well thought-out comments. I have already agreed to not change any 'T's during the mediation process.
My concern is User:GabeMc and some of the tactics he has used over the past several weeks, some of which are in the links in my post above. The amount of admin invovlment (an interaction ban between Gabe and andreasegde) and the amount of disruption are quite lopsided at this time. The constant filing of AN/Is, the sniping back and forth, the contradictory "straw polls" and the meddling with the mediation process itself are a real, serious problem. I understand your position that this is a content dispute, but what about WP:CANVASS, WP:NPA, WP:OWN and WP:AFG, just to name a few? I don't understand how any one could look at Gabe's contribs and not see that he has gone well beyond a simple content dispute, even where The Beatles are concerned. Radiopathy•talk•23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand, meanwhile, I don't feel ok about doing anything that might be taken as an admin action or warning in topic areas dealing with music. Other than dealing with straightforward stuff like 3rr and vandalism, I recuse at least for now. Moreover, my editorial (not admin) outlook on this kerfluffle is that anyone who wants to capitalize the definite article within a sentence written in English, outside of quotation marks followed by [SIC], is wholly mistaken. Please don't do that (speaking as an editor) and please (now speaking as an admin to anyone reading this), don't edit war. I'm willing to block over 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
