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.
That reference says this:"When the collective nouns couple and pair refer to people, they are usually treated as plurals" Using 'was' is umgrammatical. Read your own reference! CanOfWorms (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been a pleasure working with you on the article. If you could use a hand with anything at some point, don't hesitate to call on me. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it a look. Would you like to try to give it a go? You are very objective in your writing, and I would prefer not to have reverts. Igor Berger (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I must say in the meantime though, the narrative as it is, along with the horrific pictures, must already be stirring up critical thoughts in the minds of many readers (and I'd say, those who don't have critical thoughts would likely not be swayed by a criticism section). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently you reverted an edit of mine to the Hummus article stating that "homos" "is not a supported spelling".
I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing and it'd be nice if I could get some guidelines on how determine whether or not something is "supported" etc... as I've seen the "homos" spelling numerous times in the past.
Hi! Thanks for asking about this. "Support" means a verifiable source which is also reliable. If you can find a verifiable and reliable source which asserts that homos is a noted, alternate spelling of hummus, we can put it in the article. You may not find this support though. Hummus has an alternate spelling hommos (Greek) which is often mis-spelled as homos, so the spelling does show up in Google searches. A hint as to whether this spelling has any meaningful, notable support is to look at dictionary entries for homos. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't become an edit warrior on something that clearly violates policy. The link provided is NOT a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Have you even bothered to read the material the site is referencing? It can be found here: http://www.public.asu.edu/~bruce/Taylor84.txt Regardless, this is an unsolved murder. In accordance with WP:NPOV we should not be providing reader's with "our conclusion". Your own source clearly states there is no motive or evidence. This is speculation and theory - nothing more. We should be presenting FACTS, not opinions. Cleo123 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your reading of the sources, your interpretations of WP:V/WP:RS and your use of the phrase edit warrior. Moreover, your remark Have you even bothered to read the material the site is referencing? doesn't seem civil to me (to answer you though, I have thoroughly read the referenced sources, many times). I reverted your first edit because it was clearly a wide misreading of the sources. I reverted your second edit (your revert) because you had wholly ignored both my request that you take your concerns to the talk page, along with the mistake you made in referring to one of the sources.
As for Your own source, it is not "my own" source. As for clearly states there is no motive or evidence, the source also says Gibson probably did murder Taylor. As to your wording This is speculation and theory, I'm not aware of any speculation or theory in the article narrative, which describes what reliable sources say about what happened, the suspects, Gibson's later dying confession and the officially unsolved state of the murder.
As to your use of the phrase calm down (your original title for this section), please do not try to speculate on or characterize my emotional state, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to take it to the article's talk page. I was in the middle of making a post to the talk page when you reverted my edit. The fact that you could not wait a couple of minutes so that I could post an explaination on the article's talk page tells me that you are behaving in a somewhat impulsive and emotional manner. As for my alleged "wide misreading of the sources" - I'd appreciate an explaination for that bold and melodramatic statement. (civility?) I have not "misread" anything. Indeed, in my initial edit, I quoted YOUR source which states there is "no motive and zero evidence" to suggest that she murdered Taylor. Moreover, she was never even a suspect in the police investigation. Why are you trying to label someone a murderer in the opening paragraph of an article about an UNSOLVED murder?
As for the "source" - it IS your source since you are the one reinserting this information into the article with THAT source. The source, in question, is by its own admission a summary of information contained in the Taylorology newsletter. Since when are private newletters and self identified "fanzines" considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? She "PROBABLY did kill Taylor"??? You don't see that as speculation and theory? Are you kidding?
Please take the time to read the link to the original material that is "summarized" in the circular unreliable source you've provided more carefully. Although Bruce Long's site may be a good repository for transcripts of original newspaper articles on Taylor, his personal opinions and speculation should not be quoted as "fact". If you can provide reliable NPOV sources for this material, I am completely open to its inclusion in the article. However, I think it is reckless and irresponsible to label someone a "murderer" based on speculation found in a newsletter. This person may be dead and unable to defend herself against allegations made 30 years after her passing; but Wikipedia does not give you free license to trash her memory. This lady has a daughter and grandchildren, who should not be victimized by your carelessness!
Provide sources - reliable sources - or I will delete it all. And BTW - this theory is not at all "widely held". the majority of books on the subject point to Shelby and/or Minter. Cleo123 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think it would have been more helpful if you had done this on the article's talk page before making edits to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Honestly, I didn't think the edit I made was so "bold" as to predicate a talk page discussion. To my mind, I was removing inadequately sourced potential libel. I am glad, however, that there is an open discussion now. My appologies for any miscommunication on my part. I do not object to the information's inclusion in the article as long as it is properly sourced and presented in a neutral manner. Honestly, I'm a little bit concerned that Wikipedia may have been misused to promote "Taylorology" and Bruce Long's theories on the murder. My own research indicates that Long may be trying to promote a book, that contradicts King Vidor's research as presented in A Cast of Killers. I'm sincerely worried that Long and/or his supporters may be hijaking Wikipedia for promotional purposes - ie. to establish credibility. We can't allow someone to do that at the expense of someone who is dead and unable to defend herself. It just strikes me as unethical and wrong.
I will continue to try and research this. Please, understand that my only wish is that the articles on this subject matter be balanced, neutral and fair. Cleo123 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While your edits are clearly in good faith, your posts seem to show a lack of understanding and knowledge of the sources. I think it would be more helpful if you would revert your edits, do a lot of reading and then bring any suggestions to the article talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The "sources" in question are a private individual's online newsletter and another site which claims to summarize the aforementioned newsletter. What is there to understand? Either they meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, or they don't. Regardless, as previously presented the article appeared to be pushing a point of view regarding the identity of the murderer. Clearly, that is improper - particularly when it is opinion, not estabished fact.
As for the subject matter, I have done a significant amount of research on Taylor's murder over the course of several years. The majority of experts seem to disagree with Long's theorized "solution" for the murder. Cleo123 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Herodotus was already using the name Palaistinê in the 5th century BCE. The modern political state of Israel lies within the geographic area called Palestine. I see no reason to go back and forth about this in a food article. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right Palestine#Boundaries_and_name. I was not disputing with you or trying to change the article. I just found that info while reading the revolt article, but I should have cross referenced to Palestine article. Thanks for heads up! Igor Berger (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen. The above report doesn't seem to be getting much traction at AIV and may soon be removed. I think it isn't obvious enough - it wasn't to me, but I know little about image policy details. You may have to find another venue if you need this resolved. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone with a sharper eye than me just indef'd the editor. I guess it was just a case of waiting until the right sysop happened along! Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have taken an interest in resolving and mollifying issues and have contributed significantly to lowering the volume in a number of contentious cases. Good on 'ya (Canadianism).
Kim is a troublemaker, he is! :) You're welcome to leave a line on my talk page whenever you'd like. If you come onto IRC, let me know when you're generally on and I can swing by the MedCab room. Anything in particular on your mind? Be well! Vassyana (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Would be interested in your opinion. If you do not mind and have time to look through, please respond on the article's talk page, Igor Berger (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I am just trying to help them out and guide them to neutrality. You forgot to sign your comments on the title change. They may think the comments are by anon IP vandal..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I always ask my NPOV editor friends to contribute. Makes life easier, so we do not have to waste time reasoning in circles. But I feel like a traveling editor..:) I go from article to article to find a mess and try to bring some commonsense to the thing! Once you clear the problem up there is always good faith editors who know about the article well, they can go back to what they like doing - editing the topic. I think this is a very important part of Wikipedia, to work as a community, not as individuals. We all have certain skills, but non of us have all the skills, so joining hands we become very productive for the project. Anyway will geve a hallo if need a helping hand and visa versa. Igor Berger (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to take you up on your offer to help out with the RFC. I get the technical details of how to start one. It's just that the more I look at the issue, the less it looks like a content dispute. The details being changed are minor; the issue is that I and others are editing the article, and SPAs are blindly reverting with no discussion. At the moment I'm leaning towards an RFC/user rather than a content RFC. i understand that it's sort of an obscure subject, so I appreciate your taking the time to look into this. // Chris(complaints)•(contribs)04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a conduct RfC citing low level edit warring with utter lack of discussion is likely the way to go. The RfC should be written with as much neutrality as possible, noting mostly the reversions and absence of input on talk pages. Be pithy, don't dwell on details of the content dispute and don't characterize your opinion of the editors' agenda or politics in any way. Hopefully, this would gain enough input for a clear consensus on how to deal with these editors. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We should be realistick about this. Well, it looks like mere crapk to me, but then perhaps I've been blinded by extended immersion in the merely photographick. -- Hoaryk23:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And as a connoisseur of AfDs, you may wish to look at Christian Polak. Some seriously screwy stuff has been going on: I really can't decide what I think. (One thing's for sure: he's more substantial than our littlk magickal chumk.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this comment on the metal discussion on ANI:
I've interacted with you a number of times in the past and had grown to respect you, your opinions and your judgment. I feel your comment was completely disrespectful and frankly out of character.
I didn't go to ANI to be a "tattle tale". I had issued two warnings over the past month and a half and discussed on User talk: Riverpeopleinvasion, User talk:ElisaEXPLOSiON and my talk page before coming to ANI. Rather than being a "tattle tale", I went to ANI seeking guidance/consensus from more experienced admins.
Frankly, I didn't come to Wikipedia to explain to 15 year old kids why suggesting strangers get sodomized with metal is inappropriate. If the admins feel that suggesting such is fine, so be it. I strongly disagree, but we'll leave it there. This place is built on consensus, and this certainly isn't the first thing about Wikipedia I disagree with.
I'm a fairly new admin, and as was noted earlier this week, I have made at least one mistake. You seem to feel bringing my interpretation of common decency to ANI was my second, but I don't expect to be insulted by experienced admins in the process.
Hi. Thanks so much for letting me know about this. I should have been more clear. When I wrote that, I was speaking generally and should have carefully qualified what I said. Only so you know, if I had meant to criticize your behaviour, I would have done, directly. This was not what I meant to do and I'm sorry it happened. I'll put a clarifying note[1][2] on the project page. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think their greeting was thoughtless and shan't say what it brought to my mind at first glance (ew). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Erm, dude? Hmm, on second thought, reading that wlink, at least it wasn't dudette I guess. Haha! Cheers and a good weekend back then! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh! Stop that! :) Anyway, I'll have a look this evening (real life is calling) and if it looks like I can wade into it without causing too many waves, I shall. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there is a ssp problem there, and the more involved editors we can bring the less it will be "he does not like me" the ssp edit warred with an established article admin. We just reverted to pre sock #1, and I adviced to lock it if there is revert-battle. I know you are good in mediation, so maybe you can find a way to talk to the editor, irrelevent of ssp, agf! The editor to consern wants to debate everything, no debate he reverts. I adviced we are not a debate but consensus. "what is consesus you talking about." Well I let you decide. You can find SSP and WQA once you get there. Judge for yourself. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you now the answer could likely be in sourcing every shred of the text as independent commentary even down to quotes for the most controversial bits if need be but as I said, I'll have a look. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything is souced, been sourced, the admin been working on the article for many years. the editor, keeps saying this is no good, delete, this no encyclopidic, delete, this or delete, this not vr, delete, this pov, delete. In the past few month the article shrunk to 20% of original. it became just a dictionary definition not an article. sock #1 nominated aa for afd as dictionary definition it failed with a keep. ssp hacked the article to dictionary definition. ducks quak! there is more! Igor Berger (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, what I am really conserned about is wikipedia, what this editor doing is furmenting such hatred that it is beyond all resonable thinking. I am not doing this for myself, but for other editors including User:Durova who get constantly abused and harrassed for their postive contribution to wikipedia. this is a problem of systematic bias towards wikipedia articles anf npov editors who work so hard to maintain controversial topics. this is an attack on aall that we as a community stand for. everything that is ggood about wikipedia is being assailed to contaminate with trash. I am not the first one to get such treatment. Igor Berger (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to think about not trashing other users (and following them around) but sticking to making helpful, sourced edits. If someone disagrees with you, the last thing that'll make them reconsider is comparing their edits to industrial genocide. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I do appreciate your point raised, but before you criticize me in such light you need to familiarize yourself with the issue at hand. I can show you to the evidence, but it will be pyling mud on top of mud. So, if you are interested in understanding what is involved here, please investigate, I am sure you will be able to come to your own objective neutral interpertation of what is transpiring here. I am trying not preinfluence the outcome but let you make your own enlighted decision. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk)
The pith isn't what stirred you to do it, but that you make these trashy characterizations of editors and goings-on as if you're plugged into some "higher notion" as to what Wikipedia is all about. Stop the sweeping, hurtful commentaries, is all and stop following editors around. If they're truly as unhelpful as you think, they'll canny trip up on their own without any need for you to nettle them. Ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments here. I cannot explain the level of the pain when I see or hear racism, but especially anti-Semitism. I think we here on Wikipedia try to equate racist comments to uncivil comments, but racism is a whole different level of uncivility, and the reaction back is not deserving of good faith or civility in return. In my company, I terminate an employee for cause whenever I hear uncivil comments. HalfShadow's comments to you and here are hardly helpful. He's obsessing over my battles with anti-Semitism. His stalking is quite amusing, actually. Anyways, thanks for your support and empathy. It is appreciated.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fan mail
Hey Gwen,
I'll admit, I've been snooping. Keeping track of who is who is not a strong suit of mine, so I don't remember seeing your name before. In the last week, for some reason, you've commented on half a dozen topics in various places that I've been watching/participating in. I've been uniformly impressed with your comments and demeanor, so I thought I'd check and see who this relative newcomer was, and discover you've been here way longer than me, have made way more contributions, and have spent orders of magnitude more time in Wiki-space than me. I don't know why the name sounded so new; have you recently increased your project space participation or something? Humbling, and slightly embarrassing; perhaps extremely poor name regognition should be an officially designated disability.
Anyway, at the time I thought you were an extremely clueful up-and-comer, and I was just looking thru your talk page archives, surprised that no one has suggested you try an RfA, when I finally thought to check and saw you actually had one in January (completely missed that one). Just a quick note to say that the concerns raised by the opposers seem, to me, to have been substantially addressed since that RfA (if they hadn't been already before the RfA), and when/if you decide to try again, you've got at least one more in the "support" column than you had last time. The magical "3 month rule" has been passed, so I wonder if it's going to be soon? There are many much-more-established people around to nominate you when you decide to try, but if you ever feel you're short one nominator, let me know.
Also, thanks in advance for any further suggestions you have about talking to Igor. I don't think it's quite the lost cause that others do. I could very easily be wrong.
Ta! Soon maybe. By the bye, I think your willingness to work with Igor is wonderful (and way beyond the call). Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Smile!
Here's some rainbow obsidian for you! Obsidian somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't revert you, but what's happening here is wrong. No way around it, it's just plain wrong. This kind of gaming the system is how the deletion was carried out in the first place. Some admin comes along and forces a close or deletion, which forces other users to take it to DRV as the only way to challenge that action, and the user who starts the DRV is labeled as disruptive. It's a way to shut up the community when the community wasn't doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think of this in two ways, content and process. As content, Brandt's biography is not an encyclopedic topic and BLP rather much trumps any redirect for me. As to process, I understand there are editors who want to keep this open, but a) given it was Thatcher who closed the RfD for process reasons, this carries a lot of weight with me, b) the admin who closed the last AfD didn't leave much of an opening for a redirect to begin with, c) the topic itself is thinly sourced and can't sustain an article without endless bickering and d) although the consensus is not overwhelming, I see support for both closes. Lastly, another editor undid your edit before I did. All told, I may be thick about the whole Brandt thing (and I'm sorry if this is so) but I don't see the pith in going on about him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of soliciting your opinion
I've recently commented (I thought mildly) at this thread on photography at meetups. You may not choose to get involved, but as someone who has experienced the first-hand discomfort of possible unwelcome personal contact, I'm wondering if you have useful insight. No hard feelings if you choose not. BusterD (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Truth be told I was kinda happy to hear from you :) If you're worried about a snap of you slipping into the wild, don't go, because it will likely happen (either ten hours or ten years after the shutter winks). In the end it's you who must take heed and do what's needed here so you might want to think about which you want more, meeting and socializing with these friendly, wonderful, camera wielding folks (sounds cool to me!), or not being snapped. I mean, I think you already know it comes down to this kind of a hard core take. Understandably, you're looking for a way to skirt this but there's no way anyone can (and still have fun and make friends at the meetup, anyway). :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your view. In this post to User:Pharos, I believe I outlined my concern, which is not so much about myself as it is about meetup sustainability. I'm thinking that when you and I are are the old-time mop-holders around here, say six months from now, we'll look back on the years in which the world become an entirely public place (the last few). I don't have any skeletons in my closet, but I have seen the vitriol of online hate (and its real-world corollaries). I'm not going to risk my children or my friends or my employer or my pets until I choose to do so. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Along that line, my thoughts on privacy both online and off have slowly but wholly swayed since I made my first wide-eyed posts to the Usenet with my legal and true name when I was in college. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
While I've got your eyes, I see we have old movies in common as interests (though I rarely edit in that space). How would you like to double-team a worthy movie stub and build it to B-class some predetermined afternoon or evening. I could use the exercise outside my normal editing cluster. I'd buy popcorn. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we shop for one. So many good movies; so few Featured Articles. Today's bad for me, but let's get back to each other in a day or two with ideas. We can spend a week or so gathering sources (maybe just putting the cites on the stub), and then kinda cram. Sound fun? I'm into pre-code right now, thanks to TCM. I'd love to see "Judge Priest" get attention. Will Rogers, Hattie McDaniel and Stepin Fetchit. Ever seen it? Barbara Stanwyck's a fave, and there's a new broadway musical based on "The Catered Affair." What movies do you just love? BusterD (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Stanwyck, I recently downloaded The Strange Love of Martha Ivers from the Internet Archive, mostly for Lizabeth Scott though (Blake Edwards has an uncredited bit part). Truth be told my film tastes are so picky. Noir I can almost always like something about, especially if it was shot on location in LA, even more so in the late 1940s or early 1950s. I also like Hitchcock (Vertigo!), Kubrick (anything he did), lots of Lynch, some Fellini, Antonioni (L'Avventura may be my "trapped on a desert island with only one thing to watch" film). I have movies like Mulholland Drive, Pulp Fiction and DOA on hard drive (yep, legally) so I can watch them like, whenever! I'm mostly bored to tears by war movies or action and adventure but I like the first Star Wars, Blade Runner, 2001, Terminator. Oh and the English Patient, where my interests in archaeology, the desert, airplanes (when flying was cool), Kristin Scott Thomas, the 1940s and a fit, tear jerking soap opera all come together haha! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We went to all the Pink Panther sequels at the theater. Ditto Kubrick and Mel Brooks movies. Big fan of John Patrick Shanley. Would be an awesome (and perhaps unavoidable, given the political situ in the US) task to build Frankenheimer's Manchurian Candidate up to FA. Skidoo (film) would be fun. Likewise The Comic or Cold Turkey (film). Jackie Gleason's best work, Gigot (film), could do with some coverage. BusterD (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, Gleason was an interesting man. Most of the Americans I know are aware of him mostly through that comedy TV thing he did. We may have one though... I have the DVD of the Manchurian Candidate, can navigate reliable sources about the Sinatras with much ease and can also suggest Suddenly, which for me has the added appeal of having been shot in a small town in California during the 1950s. 14:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hayden is so interesting to watch. The Killing, could be possibility, but I don't remember seeing it. I didn't know he hated acting, but I can sense the disdain. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been told the camera loved his face and mannerisms, he did it for the easy money and the lifestyle. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I should add that while I watchlisted your talk page (beginning when and for reasons which are clear), I continue to enjoy watching your talk because of the wonderfully comic edit summaries. I can't find it now, but at one point I read something like, "your immediate attention needed on hummos". I find it amazing that Middle Eastern food articles are so controversial, but take great joy in watching the good humor you and others employ keeping it real, so to speak. Any, my talk door is always open. And you've been very good lately, so it's almost time for you to seek the mop. I promise to be less dickish than last time. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the valulable info. I need to make an article about my business, but it seems to keep on getting deleted for "blatant advertising". I do not see it as advertising, just as ebay or paypal or any other companies listed as an article on wikipedia is not advertising and not getting deleted. Could you please tell me what is wrong with this article:
JD Legends
J.D. Legends and Strike Zone Lanes comprise a state-of-the-art award-winning Restaurant and Family Fun Center focused on providing smaller communities an entertainment option for the whole family. The environment is clean, vibrant and fun.
J.D. Legends offers glow-in-the-dark bowling, with music and video projectors that come down above the lanes. There is a redemption arcade, a full-service restaurant and bar with many televisions. J.D. Legends also has karaoke, live entertainment, a patio/deck. There location in Ohio has three sand volleyball courts with a tiki bar and has hosted many National Music Acts. J.D. Legends and Strike Zone Lanes are where food and family fun come together under one roof.
History
Beginnings
In 1997 brothers Eli and Wasfi Samaan agreed to keep open a failed bowling center at the request of a local bank in Jessamine County, Kentucky. At the time, none of them even knew how to keep a bowling score. After a few months of operating the facility, they fell in love with this new source of entertainment. Wasfi and Eli also realized that something was missing in this small town--namely, a casual dining restaurant, sports bar and family entertainment center. They remodeled the facility to add a full-service restaurant, sports bar and family entertainment center called J.D. Legends and Strike Zone Lanes. Their goal was to give smaller towns a place where customers can enjoy a great meal, beverages and entertainment under one roof.
The Samaans have created a fun, clean and vibrant facility that everyone can enjoy. The finished product has been a success with Jessamine County residents in Kentucky. In 2003, the same approach was applied to a very similar area in Franklin, Ohio and coming soon to Lebanon, Ohio in summer of 2008.
Present
Recognition
J.D. Legends and Strike Zone Lanes have received national and international recognition in the bowling industry, especially for best practices for food and beverage in a bowling center in 2001 for the Kentucky location and in 2004 for the Ohio location. They also have won business of the year by each respective local Chamber of Commerce.
Thanks for bringing your question here. First, I like bowling! I first bowled in the states and there's a modern bowling centre in the European city where I live!
Ebay and Paypal are highly notable companies which represent encyclopedic topics. Unhappily, J.D. Legends and Strike Zone Lanes do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for businesses and companies. There is no way I can see that an article about this business would get through both the speedy deletion and articles for deletion processes. This wholly aside, even if this were an encyclopedic topic, the copy you have written (above) is not sourced encyclopedic content, but advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or free advertising site. Sorry about this, but there is very likely nothing you can do to get an article like this onto Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hummus
Gwen, I don't understand you. I thought we agreed on the Hummus Talk page that we were looking for better-sourced material to replace the random Web pages we were relying on. And when I find such material, and incorporate it, replacing the speculation, you not only restore the lightweight stuff (including the pure fantasy of ancient Egyptian hummus), but remove the sourced material. You also restore the material that belongs in the chick pea article. What's that all about??? --Macrakis (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on the article talk page. Meanwhile you have reverted the article after I asked you to discuss major changes to the article on the talk page first. Please revert the article back to its previous state so that we can discuss your source and your interpretations of it, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not revert the article. You were the one who reverted my entire edit. What I did was merge the new material into the old stuff (which I still consider rubbish), as a courtesy during the discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, it helps, but I don't think a single source will do for such a sweeping assertion. Meanwhile... rubbish? You call endless food sources rubbish whilst spanning a single source to make the leaping assertion that hummus has existed for less than 300 years? Let's carry on talking about this on the talk page, please, where other editors can have their say too. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thnx for uploading my picture, i wonder, can i remove the picture of hummus with pine nuts, it really doesnt look like any hummus i have seen and is misleading--Beyrouthhh (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have ofcourse seen hummus with pinenuts aswell, but the dish itself, the paste doesnt look like hummus at all on that picture. But well well..--Beyrouthhh (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hummus :) You know though, this only shows how many variations in preparation there are with this food. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone is removing the picture i added which i believe is much better than the previous one. Im lebanese and my picture is exactly how lebanese hummus is served, that guy is american i think--Beyrouthhh (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Both images are now in the article. I don't think either is "better" than the other, both have fit contrast, colour, focus and cropping. Moreover, though with all due respect to your good faith opinion, your assertion that the photo you advocate "is exactly how lebanese hummus is served" is original research. I hope this settles it... cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Movies for discussion
Here are a list of possibles. Some are more than stubs.
I glark we'll find something! I know The Bridge on the River Kwai and I must say, though I like the casting and some of the dialogue ("Madness! Madness!" comes to mind), the overall outlook is far too cleaned up and misleading for me. A true portayal of the Burma railroad thing would look more like an un-ending Texas Chainsaw Massacre, talk about culture clash. I haven't seen any of the others! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You've never seen Breakfast at Tiffany's? You poor, culturally impoverished thing. Pick a day you want to see the world differently, rent the dvd, setup a box of tissues, and prepare to have your heart stolen. Few films deserve an awesome article more than does BaT's. What I like about Kwai is that it's not about war so much (almost no combat scenes), it's actually about human motivation and capability, what causes people to choose what they do and the legacy they leave behind. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kwai does have its redeeming side, yes, but the historical misses chavel it for me. As for Breakfast at Tiffany's, I know, I know. It drives me bats I've never seen it. Whenever I've looked for that one, I couldn't find it. I was in a huge DVD store the other day (I'd ordered The High and the Mighty, one of my nan's favourite movies, I like it too... flying, character development, the Pacific and so on and the restoration is stunning, though I think the extras on the disc are rather botched) and could have looked. Meanwhile, I forgot to mention my holy grail of DVDs: The Kremlin Letter. Most amazing and true spy flick ever done, makes Bond look like a canny punter (though I like From Russia with Love). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooooooh! Never seen it. Looks groovy. Love the cast and crew. Must have been a legendary film shoot with all those egos pressed together. Also a Duke fan, Jim Hutton too. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My dad had it on a dodgy VHS tape when I was growing up, I must have watched it 20, 30 times, never got over it :) Alas, the tape died and got pitched donkeys' years ago and I've never been able to find a DVD of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can remember to keep an eye open, cool! I've heard rumours there was a small DVD run in PAL but the thing is, it may have been bootleg, dunno. Huston was very unhappy when the film bombed (much like what happened to Hitch and Vertigo) and who can blame him? No way it can even get a critical revival unless there are copies for reviewers to see (and so on). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A more controversial newer film might be Executive Decision, a guilty pleasure of mine because of the excellent cast. I remember when Steven Segal's hero character was sucked out of the plane, the opening night movie audience cheered. And then there's all the "nobody could have imagined" stuff associated. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen it, though the notion of any character played by Steven Segal being sucked through a plane window at high altitude sounds meed to me haha! Saw Bobby (film) last night. A bit politically overblown in bits but more or less spot on in other ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've got some stuff to do but feel free to keep up the suggestions. The Manchurian Candidate might make a nice Featured topic, if all three articles followed a similar structure. Might be a valuable addition to the pedia, especially since Ann Coulter uncorked that bottle in American popular culture last week. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha I hadn't seen that until I youtubed it a few minutes ago! Maybe MC would be a worthy task then, after all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to this discussion I watched The Asphalt Jungle again last night. Enjoyed it immensely once again. Perhaps it was my effervescent mood; I'd returned home after watching a Queens high school production of High School Musical. I haven't laughed so hard in a while; the kids were, as always, adorable in their youth and hopefulness. I had come expecting something altogether different, something like the movie. What I got was more like what we experienced with Godspell in the 70's, a more personal musical which had resonance because of the unavoidable ties to popular culture and the context of the actual high school and social culture hosting the production. Sorry for rambling into chat. I had fun, a healing feeling. And the movie was good too. BusterD (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The Manchurian Candidate it is then, starting with the Frankenheimer version. This will take some work. Why don't we dredge up sources this week, and start attaching them to the talk page (or the main page if they're definitely going in). We can read each other's sources during the week, and pick out a specific time window we'll commence the cleanup, perhaps stir some interest in page talk, set an outline we think might work for all three articles, and then see how fast we can accomplish B-quality with each. Once we've established a framework, we can build the B-class articles up together into a featured topic grouping. Any part of that sound fun? Might take all year, in drips and drabs; the serious work wouldn't take but a week or so. BusterD (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok! Let's do it as time allows, though I have time for bits of editing here and there throughout the day, real life is tuggin' at me for now :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Zero hurry for me as well. This week is crazy. Let's take our time building sources; we'll know when there's a critical mass. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Four sources to look at straight off, to make starting easier, when there's time.
Haha ok! What's so funny is, that film is loaded with Abraham Lincoln imagry, which I hadn't even remembered and yes, I went back through this thread cuz I couldn't remember who first brought it up, but so thankfully, you did lol! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping you take it as a good-natured gesture of wiki-understanding, civility, and closure. Has ironic symmetry going for it too. BusterD (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I do, spot on, which is why I cracked up :) First step for me is to watch the film again, which I haven't done since I don't know when. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember, when people start calling this effort related to US political season, shout: "I'm Swiss! That other guy's a New Yorker, and it was his idea anyway! (diff)" BusterD (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Stanley Theatre
Actually, I live just down the street from it (well, about a dozen blocks). The dear old Stanley -- I think the first film I ever went to there was "The Exorcist" in its first run, which rather dates me; it used to run "blockbuster" films. These days, it's used for stage productions of fairly large-scale musicals and the like; if they have to drop a helicopter (Miss Saigon) or a chandelier (Phantom), the Stanley is where they seem to do it. I haven't been there in quite a while. Is there something I can help you with, in respect to it? I'm actually going to a Vancouver meet-up on Monday night so if I can't give you what you require, someone will probably be just as happy to help as I would be. Accounting4Taste:talk03:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Helpful to hear the Exorcist indeed played there (it's in the article)! So it's been used in film shoots? I can look for sources on that. Anything you might pick up could point myself and the other editors working on it to citations. Anything about the current management and the theatre's current place in the community would also be interesting to hear. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about film shoots -- although nearly everything in Vancouver has been used in one film shoot or another. The references I made were to musical plays of which I was aware. I'll see if I can find you an expert at the meet-up on Monday (my own tastes are for film over live theatre). Accounting4Taste:talk15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Mine as well (film over live theatre) but I have a thing for old showbiz buildings, something about my overlapping interests. The reason I got into this article was that someone posted to ANI about an IP deleting all the financial information about the place, which made me want to look closer. Let me know if you hear anything helpful and thanks again! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Yes, thanks for leaving this note. If you can point us to any sources about the theatre's current management, their goals/plans, current fund raising and finances, current state of the facility (always an interesting topic) and so on, it would help bring the article up to date in a big way. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And you know about Carlisle and Franklin Ohio how?
Your fifth edit was vandalism and your edit summaries are unhelpful, hence I worry about any unsourced edit you might make. By the way, your assertion of familiarty with the region is original research and not an acceptable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just like your vandalism revert on Family Feud, correct? Get bent lady. And I at least have proof on my edit, which is better than your vandalism. Consider yourself reported.
I was going to have a discussion with this user and soon learned that he's been identified as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, User:Hdayejr, so I doubt you'll have further involvement. If you have any encounters with similarly impolite users, feel free to let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. Thank you for offering to help informally mediate the situation with User:Yorkshirian, User:Jza84, User:MRSC and User:Harkey Lodger. We would definitely appreciate some more outside assistance, whether administrative or just with mediation. The situation has grown beyond what I'm able to handle myself.
I think the best way to help at the moment would be if you could review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian and add any comments there. As of right now, Yorkshirian has posted a response there and has agreed to tone down his interactions with other editors, on the condition that they also treat him more civilly. I think that's a reasonable request on his part, and it's a good first step toward getting all this hashed out. I also think that the articles in question need a third opinion or request for comment to address the content dispute.
Thanks again, and thanks for taking a look at the ANI report. I was getting really tired of seeing stuff go unanswered there - this is far from the first time I've had that happen with incidents I've been involved in. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if he can tone things way down now. Could you give me a list of key articles you'd like me to look at? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the disputes have mainly occurred on the following pages and/or talks:
All are now on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on them and offer input whenever I think it might help. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to lock my user page from edits. The reason I ask is that someone placed a banner on my page which an admin later removed, yet the user continues to replace the banner. I have asked him to leave me alone. Libro0 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen Gale, as I explained to NawlinWiki on his talk page, I restored those questions because they are perfectly legitimate. They are not offensive or rude, homework questions, legal or medial, or starting debates. Please give a rational for the removal of those questions or restore them. Thank you. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, can you still manage to show (or feign) any interest in this kind of thing? I'd really rather devote all my attention to other matters, not least because I have awful memories of watching the first twenty minutes or so (all I could take) of two highly reputed films by Monroe: Bus Stop and The Misfits. Although her acting wasn't the problem, and the beautiful cinematography of the latter does go a very little way toward redeeming the Deep Meaningfulness [zzz] of the leadenly paced proceedings. (Groundhog Day and Being John Malkovich are more my style; for the fifties, then The Sweet Smell of Success and Touch of Evil.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) .... PS I now notice that my sparring partner has just been permablocked. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That does sound as if it ought to be good. I'd forgotten all about its existence, and had been wondering if Don't Bother to Knock might be worth a look; I think I'll switch my next DVD order according to your tip. Decades ago I enjoyed Niagara, must give that another look some time. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I presume from before that you are supposed to be my mediator or mentor or something, which is fine. As long as your whole consuming mission is not to follow me an agitate me when I'm attempting to improve sections of an article, then I'm fine with this. If you are going to be my mentor, please can you at least make sure you follow a background understanding of the topics I edit before making changes?
An example already was the Spurn Point which you presumed was numerous cylical shapes instead of just one, also the whole county of Yorkshire is nicknamed "God's Own County" not just the countryside. Another thing, I tend to make a lot of mini edits when I'm improving a section, rather than one big one: this can be kinda confusing I know but its just how I edit. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not your mentor. I'm not following you about at all, only watching the previously named pages for changes. In the future I'll wait awhile after you're done before making any edits (if I see any need at all), lots of little edits are ok. Landscapes don't "earn" anything but in idiom, which can be misleading for encyclopedia articles. It's easy to misread wording changes (such as the Spurn Point description). Please try to avoid using negative adjectives when describing good faith edits: Even if a wording is indeed lame as can be, use a neutral term, like flow or wording or cleanup. Please try, as much as you can, not to revert edits, but if you don't like something, to try yet another alternative. This is a collaborative project. Now and then we must put up with nettlesome stuff to get the overwhelming benefits of that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
US House vandal
Per your AN/I posting, I've seen nothing but vandal edits from that particular address. They entered my radar by vandalizing Rich Rodriguez. Your tax dollars at work, I guess. DarkAudit (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Edit Warring
I was trying to take matters to the Talk Page with R Tabor but it did not work, and he set himself to blanking the Suzanne Olsson page. All I did was to undo his vandalism and report him to Admin/Vandalism page. And I got myself blocked in the process. I have just managed, since becoming unblocked, to justify my position and to demonstrate that it was R Tabor who was being unco-operative. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I broke the 3RR but within the context of undoing vandalism. I am not an administrator and that was why I reported the matter further. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You were not "guilty" of vandalism. R Tabor was not "guilty" of vandalism. You had a content dispute. Both of you were blocked only for breaking the three revert rule, not for vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried taking things to the Talk Page to avoing breaking 3RR, but without success. R Tabor just kept indiscriminately deleting content and eventually blanking pages. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't avoid the three revert rule by using the article talk page. R Tabor was not blanking pages. You were not reverting WP:Vandalism. You had a content dispute with R Tabor, broke 3rr and were both blocked for it. Content disputes cannot be resolved by edit warring, ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
19:25, 14 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Suzanne Olsson (←Blanked the page)
19:24, 14 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Suzanne Olsson (←Blanked the page)
So how to deal with folks who continuously delete content they do not like if you are not an administrator? Is there a quick fix? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You were not blocked for reverting blanked pages. Rather, you were blocked for these seven reverts:
None of these above edits by you were reverts of page blanking. You broke the three revert rule.
First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it. Second, the quick fix is to never edit war but instead, stay cool and build a consensus with other editors based on article building policies like WP:V and WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That would not have stopped R. Tabor. He was only stopped by being blocked through Administrator's intervention that I reported to the Administrator's Board. I sent out a message for help. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are folks out there who are oblivious to things like facts and primary sources. There are folks whose sole mission in life is to justify their agendas by hook or by crook, and something like historical facts will not stand in their way. That was R. Tabor's attitude yesterday. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but there are many ways to deal with that without edit warring. You were blocked only because you broke 3rr. Had you shown understanding of why you were blocked and said you wouldn't break 3rr again, you likely would have been unblocked within minutes. Don't break 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First, who are I? And that bad grammar is intended. Taker of the picture of hummus in the Yemeni bowl. Now, I have downloaded the material in the Peter Cohen sandbox, and the 'History' section of the hummus article, and am in the process of combining into one piece on said history. When done, what is the procedure? My thought is to put it in the article, hidden, so that it can be looked at and maybe commented or such before it replaces [possibly] the current material, but guidance desired. And you have a lot to say about history of hummus, especially references. --Dumarest (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'd either announce a link to the sandbox on the article talk page or put the proposed text there, then ask for discussion. Please don't hide the text in the article, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
problem with an edit summary
Hate to bother you but you know some of the background. Please see [12], an edit summary by wfgh66 making an attack on me. I have no idea who the editor is whose reference I removed because it is an unreliable source (and I've provided some better recent references on the talk page of the article), but I do recognise a pattern in Paul Smith's use of the phrase 'personal vendetta'. I'm raising this now because of some past experiences. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect Doug, you started attacking me today on the basis of things that happened outside of Wikipedia, and now you're trying to put the bite on me over this.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to give Suzanne (who I disagree with but I think doesn't have a clue about Wikipedia) some sympathy. I think she's been given a hard time. I don't think I overstepped any boundaries so far as Wikipedia goes but if I did and am told I did I'll do what I can to repair it. But if you are going to stop using them this way, I'll drop this. The thing with Suzanne Olsson has been unnecessarily unpleasant, but hopefully that will stop now. And you're wrong, I'm not, as you wrote, on the side of anyone so long as they are against you, as should be obvious from the way I edited the Suzanne Olson article. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of your comments. Likewise if I overstepped some of the boundaries on WP I will do everything I can to follow the Rules and Guidelines. But you did give me a Bad Press in relation to something outside the context of Wikipedia. And I repeat yet again that what I was doing was engaging in working on the "Claimants" section on the Jesus bloodline article and not on some 'personal vendetta' against Suzanne Olsson, who I did not know was Kashmir2 until today. If you follow my edits you will see that if I introduce something new into one article, I will usually follow on into a similar article and supplement it with the same, or similar information. That was how I went to the Suzanne Olsson article, to add there what was included in the Jesus bloodline article. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Wfgh66, please comment on the edits, not the editors. Saying someone is on a vendetta is hardly the way to build consensus in a collaborative project and it's also outside the bounds of Wikipedia's civility policies. If edits have been swayed by an unencyclopedic agenda, they can be easily handled through policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities"
was used as a source for the "Claimants" category for the Jesus bloodline article.
Loremaster's final edit read as follows:
Suzanne Olsson, an American author (who retracted her claim, and is actively seeking DNA from several ancient tombs to aid in clarification of such claims).
LOL. Gwen, I have to say something that's been bugging me for a while now. I'm sorry for having opposed you in your last RFA: I see now that my judgement was mistaken in this case; you've been an exemplary Wikipedian in every way, and seeing you active in many areas, I've been impressed with your work in them all. If there's one oppose !vote I've ever made I could retract, it would be that one. When (if) you decide to go for RFA again, not only will I support you enthusiastically but I'll mention that my previous oppose was ill-advised. (I'm admittedly oversensitive about attack sites, since they have actively attempted to harm me in real life.) Really, having watched the noticeboards for a long time, I put you in the top tiny percentile for integrity and well-articulated common sense. Best regards, Antandrus (talk)16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Acalamari would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Acalamari to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
There's a lot of mud being currently thrown at me by parties who now dispute what they claimed about themselves in the past and are targetting me for that reason. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a considered, substantive reply to User:Kingturtle'squestion in (tentative) opposition. I believe User:Dihydrogen Monoxide and User:Dlohcierekim were both disappointed you didn't choose to be more specific and revealing. IMHO, a well thought out rationale/explanation of what some in this process considered your inappropriate reactions in the Talk:Abraham Lincoln discussion would do much to calm fears you hadn't learned the right lessons from that discussion (and the last RfA, especially your first closing comments on talk). I look forward to reading about what has changed, if you choose to enter this arena. You've been presented unique opportunity to tell us about one human being we'd like to know better. Best of luck to you. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks BusterD. I've replied in the thread of q7. As for the aftermath of my first RfA, I think my last comments on the discussion page back then summed up everything and still do. As for our Manchurian Candidate project, I hope to re-watch the first film soon (I haven't done in a long time), last night I had some time but got stirred up about watching Professione:Reporter instead. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Supporting your RfA
GG, I rarely support anyone at the RfA, because I consider my votes to be valuable, unlike those whose whole editing life at Wikipedia appears to be "voting" at RfA's and RfB's. I think you are a good person, and I appreciate your reasoned support when I was dealing with the anti-semitic GSTS. However, I observed a number of your edits at the time, and along with a lot of admins, which seems to state that Civility trumps a lot of other issues, like racism. Racism itself is about as uncivil as one can get short of physical violence. Civility works within the context of rational discussions, especially in articles where all editors have a common goal of an improved article. These are just my opinions, and not a condemnation of you. Anti-semitism, for me, is an emotional issue, because so many of my family are not alive today because of anti-Semitism. In my mind, if we allow it here, we will allow it everywhere, and my family will be running again in the future. That touches a core of the psyche. Anyways, my vote hardly mattered at your RfA, I just wanted you to know how much I think of you. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheeky blighter, OM, condescending to spend a few minutes of your busy day blethering! Admit it, you're just here because you wanted to say hello to Gwen, and nothing wrong with that. Glad to see it's going in the right direction, Gwen, looks like well deserved support and I'm confident that you'll treat civility in due proportion, as a means to improving content and not just an end in itself :) All the best, dave souza, talk17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Orangemarlin and cheers Dave souza for all the kind words! It's true, on Wikipedia I see racism as frenzied disruption and I support indef blocking for it after only one or two warnings. Orangemarlin, I do understand your emotional take on anti-Semitism and I think many other editors do too. Dave souza gets to the pith of it. On Wikipedia I see racist edits as a content worry, in a professional kind of way. So if my words in dealing with it seem careful, know that when I see some racist upchuck of an edit, I'm thinking deep inside, "Ick, ick, ick, bleh. So how soon will we block this clueless, hateful and woesome being?"
By the bye Orangemarlin, I've always liked your sig's layout and colours! I may swipe it yet :) though I'm torn cuz I very much like the clean-text four tilde thing. GwenGale(talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I like my sig too, but I'm at the limit of what I think is readable and useful. There was an RfA about a year ago, and a lot of opposes were because of his annoying multi-color, multi-font sig. I opposed because I didn't think he was worthy of an RfA. Steal away if you so wish. Oh, BTW, I tend to ignore anything Dave souza says. ;) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry...
... I've handled the interaction with BobTheTomato so badly. I can only hope that this drama comes too late to significantly disrupt your RfA. I'm going to stay away from it from now on, in the hope that, having got "the last word", he will stop. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll thank you to refer to me by other than my RL name, as I have had a username change for RL reasons. Other than that, feel free to be snarky all you want. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And that's a very classy way for wikipedians to deal with each other. This puts a big smile on my face. I hope we're not done with the good vibes and extension of good faith. BusterD (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Stanley
Hi Gwen, how are you? I hope all is well and again, good luck on your RFA!
About the Stanley article, I was wondering whether I could have your opinion about something: Well, my goal is to make it a Good Article and I was wondering whether you think it is close to being that level or whether it still has a ways to go. I kind of wanted to wait until it's really ready before I try to get it nominated. But sometime quite soon I have to cut down on my Wikipedia time and attend to some other priorities. So, if it is close to being ready, I want to give one last little push before I slow down on it. Even if it does become a Good Article of course I still want to make it better, but then I can tinker away at it leisurely rather than obsessing about it. Or, if it still has ways to go, then I can change my mindset and see my Good Article goal as being a more long-term plan, and again, work on it more leisurely.
Comparing it to some theatre Good Articles, it seems to me to be about in the same league as Chicago Theatre and Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois) but maybe not as developed as 5th Avenue Theatre. The first sections seem to me to be pretty well-developed, but the "Live Stage" section less so. But I'm really not sure what else to put in there. On the discussion section I put out some ideas for feedback but nobody responded. There is quite a bit of information on the Arts Club website, but as I mentioned a lot of it is related to the company as a whole and not specifically to the Stanley. As you may have seen, right now I am in the middle of revamping the Productions part, but that is really just a minor detail that is more aesthetic than anything.
I think it's getting close. I like the article and what you've done with it! The only lacks I see (and these aren't much) are on local culutural impact and current management/finances. You could nominate it now, the feedback could be helpful and whatever it noted might be handled quickly enough to get GA. If you're willing to wait a few more days, when I have more time I can go through the article and some of the sources, putting in (if I can) only a few more bits? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm really glad you think it is getting close and like what I have done with it—thank you. Also, thank you for offering to have a look at it when you have time, that would be wonderful! I don't mind waiting several days to nominate it, or even a little bit longer now that I know it's getting close. OK, in the coming days I will also take a stab at adding information in the areas you suggested. Maybe between the two of us we can flesh it out that extra little bit to hopefully clinch a GA rating! Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hummus
Hummus history has been quiet for a while. I have followed your instruction, there is a new note on the hummus history page, but there has been NO commentin re the [my] rewriting of that history section. What now? put it up, or wait for a few more days?? --Dumarest (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This happens and much of my availble Wikipedia time has been taken up by my RfA. I think it's helpful. Put it up and see what the feedback is? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, last month you offered some advice on how to deal with edit warring at this article. The most serious violators ended up being ID'ed as socks and indef blocked. There's another editor now Tom davy (talk·contribs) who is continuing in the same pattern - not a single talk page posting, edit summaries such as db-vandalism, etc. However, checkuser says he is unrelated to the main sockfarm. I and another editor have tried to engage him in discussion, with no results. We're ready to start an RFC on his conduct, but the account has only been around for a month. Your advice on whether to go ahead with the RFC or seek some other means of dispute resolution would be appreciated. Thanks! // Chris(complaints)•(contribs)17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for letting me know. I'll put it on my watchlist along with the user's page. You know not to break 3rr or anything but I think you're ok in steadily reverting those unsupported edits (for example, I find little or no support for the odd term antifundamentalist Islam) and yes, the lack of any discussion is always a looming worry. The user hasn't edited in a couple of days. If he comes back, maybe a warning from someone uninvolved will help lay the path for an RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wednesday Next can fill-in the footnotes for the Berenger Sauniere article. I have provided a list of books that the article is based upon. It's high time that Wednesday Next started reading history. I am not going to do it for him. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is evident that Wednesday Next knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject matter of Berenger Sauniere and his shallow pomposity is a big laughing stock. I will not be providing any citations to the Berenger Sauniere article just to amuse him. His ignorance is shocking. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
... Instead of plastering fact tags - why not try and find some sources? I am well aware that WP:V states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I would like to see Wfgh66 try harder about his citing - page numbers - using in line cites, .... I would like to see Wednesday next not sitting picking on the side lines but say more specifically why he disagrees, one issue at a time, and maybe try to add material with sources.
Yes, I saw that yesterday. Hopefully they've both listened to you, given neither of them had made a shred of effort to bring the cites up to where they should be. :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson
This is getting confusing. Kashmir2 was being used by both Suzanne Olsson and her granddaughter Alexis. Then we got User:NewYork10021 who certainly seemed to be one of them, and now we have user:SuzanneOllson who is evidently also still Kashmir2. And she wanted the article deleted and now wants the recreation kept. Which was recreated by User:Katchu2. I find it hard to believe these 4 users are 4 different people.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gale, No, everyone is not the same. It's just that they didn't get their own names right away. The page is gone. Did you delete it? AlexisKashmir2 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
'Dear Gwen,
I wrote this today in response to a case being made against me by two users. I was not aware that you had written to me. In any case here it is:
Many thanks,
TomBold text''Italic text
Dear all,
I believe that some users such as Mr Dchall( Chris) and his friend Bougaloui are misusing this wikipedia by constantly making biased edits on the PMOI. For example the whole paragraphs about several resolutions or recent court victories of this group in the European Court of First Instance and the UK court have been deleted by the above gentlemen. I do not wish to accuse either of them of any thing, but this is rather un-believable of how they are so keen to repeat the allegations made by the current theocracy and by deleting such facts which are good for users to know when they want to make a study about PMOI.
I hope I have not offended any one but I am really suspicious of the motives of the above.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Davy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom davy (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. As I suggested on your talk page, now that you may seem willing to discuss this, please take these thoughts to the article talk page and work with the editors there. Moreover (as I also suggested) please don't call good faith edits vandalism. It also looks like you have been adding unsupported terms to the article, which I think would be most helpfully talked about on the article talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Use of "Palestine"
Hi Gwen. Please try to avoid using the term "Palestine" in articles unless you are referring to pre-1948. As I noted in the edit summary, modern day usage of the term can be seen as POV, as it suggests recognition of the State of Palestine. Plus, even if it wasn't POV, the area described in the term Palestine includes Israel which is featured in a separate section in the article, so we need to be specific about which part of the region we're referring to (i.e. the territories). Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ5713:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for writing me about this. I do understand. I think it's all PoV and rather daunting unless we find a way to decribe this in some neutral way: Palestine is not a country, but a geographical region. My take on State of Palestine is that it doesn't have enough diplomatic recognition to be used freely (all controversy implied). Occupied Palestinian Territories is too narrow, since the article clearly refers to wider geographical usage (regional Palestine). Palestinian territories leads to an article which looks to me like a fork of Israeli-occupied Territories. What can we do? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem with Palestinian territories - it's not seen as a POV term except by the extremes (Israelis who claim it's all Israel and Palestinians who claim the State exists or like to emphasise the "occupied" part) and it is probably the most commonly used term for the area. It's also one of the major links on {{Palestinians}}, which suggests that it's the recognised geopolitical entity for them. пﮟოьεԻ5713:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My worry is that the article refers to cultural use of this food. I would like to skirt any political PoVs here, of any kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As a regular listener to the BBC World Service I often hear "Palestine" used to mean "Palestinian territories". I personally don't see any problem, but my view should be tempered by the fact I don't edit in that area of the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos05:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I happened to be following the actions of User:Eurovisionman and his clones, which are most amusing to me, even if annoying and downright disruptive to Wikipedia.
In case you have excessive spare time, I invite you to explore the wonderful world of Isis Gee vandalism :D
Indeed, borderline delete, borderline keep. The version i tagged contained no external source at all, and the wording was promotional, but i agree, even then it was borderline. Seeing the AFD was a G12 it does not really matter now, as it seems the article was rewritten. Personally i believe it needs some external sources and a little less promotional wording, but i think it is good for now. I have seen worse, and i have also seen what over agressive tagging can cause to potentially good articles. Seeing the improvement, i fully support your decline decision now :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Iranian opposition movement PMOI :
Dear Gwen,
With all respect, instead of locking the version favourable to those "users" who are hostile to this group, you should have left the previous versions which included the court verdicts which have annulled the terrorist designation of PMOI. This would have been more balanced. Now "they" are quite happy.
This is also a dispute which can not be resolved like this because the Iranian government is very active and focused on this group and internet, including this Wikipedia, is a useful tool to attack and spread misinformation.
Sincerely,
Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom davy (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No version is favoured. I protected the page in the version I found it in. Also, that information is in the article, here. So far as I can gather, the disagreement has been over whether to put it in into the article header. Since you have been unwilling to discuss this on the article talk page, I would like to suggest that you please start doing so now and find a way to resolve this. It may be that you've been putting too much about this in the header. Hopefully you can talk about it on the talk page and agree to some wording. Meanwhile the page has been protected to stop all of you from reverting back and forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry! I was so tired and had lately interacted with Matilda! Thanks for trying to put the icon up, I do like it overlapped with the heart :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
lucky bucket
i feel that my article "Lucky bucket" was unfairly deleted, if you are not used to bucketing it is not fair to deny the rest of the world information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubbylover (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has removed a speedy tag from the article No Harm Day several times. He created the article himself and I have restored the tag. However, I don't know if I can revert it again, as I may possibly violate WP:3RR. Could you take a look? Thanks! TN‑X-Man02:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, another editor just deleted the article. However, I'm still curious. Could I still revert his edit to replace the speedy tag or is that a no-go according to WP:3RR? TN‑X-Man02:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My page was deleted for some obvious reasons. Is there anyone who can help me post a page, I've been reading about the wikipedia instructions all day and I haven't gotten very far understanding the process.
Hi Kataan, I've put some helpful links on your page. Please feel free to ask me questions though. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your admin promotion. One quick heads up. You deleted Mark Hanau as a A1 speedy today. It was blanked by the creator and thus had no context, but it has been edited significantly by others and has a good deal of content. The situation is a mess with a whole slew issues sock puppets, autobiography and off site vendettas spilling over. I don't know anything about the subject, but have been monitoring it. You might want to bring this up at WP:ANI and the article should probably be undeleted as it didn't fit an speedy deletion categories. Let me know if you need any help. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep it is ugly, I almost didn't mention it to you as I thought it might be better off deleted. I have seen a lot of articles on marginally notable figures devolve into battles between the subject and his or her online enemies. It can be tough because there might not be anyone here with any knowledge on the subject who can step in and source this train wreck out. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I know a bit about the Relfs. However, if there are socks, BLP and COI all wrapped up together, those'll have to be sorted out first, what a tangle. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This is best. I have fought the vendetta people but they will never give up (they have hounded me for years now). The article was being changed into something that in no way reflected my life and the whole thing was just upsetting me. If Wikipedia editors had been fair, these one topic editors would have been blocked but that never happened. It is great to have it over with. Aimulti (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Article deletion
Why did you delete the Pop-tarts hide and seek article. Make that MY article! Do you know how much time I spent on that?
Ok, I've retrieved a copy of the last version but you'll either need to enable email for your account or email me (see menu at left) and I'll send it on to you. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, the mail server for my email is down this morning. You'll have to enable email, or wait until I get yours (could be a few hours). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean my AFD as a complaint -- I respect that as an admin, you made a call. That's why I didn't come complain about the decision. I just moved on to the next step. I did think it was relevant to explain that speedy was declined and to be persuasive in my statement as to why I thought the article merited deletion. Thanks for what you do for the project. Erechtheus (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I knew you were ok about going along with it. I thought the article was so borderline when I declined the speedy, but it was the most notable sounding band I'd seen in the batch so far. When one is going through a backlog deleting dozens of tagged pages, one wants to be fair as can be and save what one can, ray of hope. Your later comments on the AfD nudged me to rethink the lacks, is all, no worries in the least. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was already speedy-deleted as blatant advertising, then it was reposted with virtually no changes. Why does it not qualify for speedy-deletion again? I think your action was in error. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I was actually hoping that someone would not notice that it was the name of the base. I'm trying to move a page into it's spot and I didn't feel like last night going through all the beaurucratic details first. Good call. Kevin Rutherford 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen - I restored this article and was working on it when you re-deleted it. The fim does exist; the original stub for it was just pathetically written. Grutness...wha?02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
ahh - skip that. I've just discovered an article on it already exists with a different capitalisation, so i've turned it into a redirect. Grutness...wha?02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That fits, I believe I deleted two spellings of that, both with short, shredded text. Thanks for letting me know you straightened it out! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, again. I hope you are enjoying your new tools. You recently declined a CSD A7 {{db-band}}[13] added by User:Eastlaw and I'm not sure why. A SPA, User:Empyreandreams created the article, and it does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. It contains nothing but a spam link to a personal website for an unknown band. In fact, the content of the article is at odds with the subject, and appears to be nonsense/OR. Perhaps Eastlaw used the wrong tag, but if you read the content and visit the link, you'll see that this clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Viriditas! Sextronica is not a band, it's a genre or style. There is no speedy deletion category for this kind of topic. If there is spam in the article, you can rm it. My decline of a speedy deletion shouldn't be seen as my take on whether or not the article should be kept, only the means by which it might be deleted. If you think the topic isn't notable, please send it through either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. If you like, I'll do either for you. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it is confusing, but read the article again, Gwen. It's not about the genre, but about a band named "Sextronica". The author is hiding behind an alleged "genre" and appears to be having fun at your expense, as the infobox field "Years active 1992–present" seems to indicate his birth date! Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sextronica is a form of electronic music that combines electronica with a sensual overton... Various electronica artists have produced songs that would fall into this subgenre of electronica category. That says genre, tag said band, I declined. However, a quick Google search and follow up on what you're saying makes me think this should have been tagged as a hoax (genre). Also, I know it's daunting to think of, but some editors have been known to put misleading speedy tags on articles, so they can skirt an AfD or prod which is bound to be a keep (see below). Anyway, thanks for nudgin' me ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
I recently tried to put up a page for the music band Sextronica. It does exist and is really not a hoax, I really do link to real websites of the artist with real music on them. I think my site was initially deleted on a fallacy that Sextronica does not exist, when it does. I recreated the page and once again, it is deleted as if I am trying to play a hoax. Can you please reconsider so the page can be accessed again as it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empyreandreams (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for asking about this. Please let me try and explain what has happened. I know it can be a bit daunting to understand how things work here. An article on Wikipedia is not your site, but an encyclopedia article and Wikipedia has rather high standards for the inclusion of bands in its article space. The article was not deleted because anyone thinks Sextronica the band is a hoax. However, the deleted article text had been crafted in a way which could lead one to think the article was about a musical genre, yet the article linked to a musical project by the same name. It's rather clear this was a hoax (or ploy, no need to dwell on that, there are no hard feelings) to skirt Wikipedia's notability guidelines for bands. This is to say, since the article was indeed about an exisiting band (not a genre) it has now been deleted thrice and protected from recreation.
The only way Sextronica could have an article here (under any name), put pithily, would be if the project gets wide and independent coverage from reliable, independent sources, or a record deal with a major label (this can be a big, verifiable independent record comapny with notable artists), or if a notable musician joins the band. Please keep in mind, any of these things would have to be reported by verifiable independent sources, not the band or an editor of the article and would be subject to consensus of Wikipedia editors. In other words, you have to get "famous" first. Wikipedia, as a tertiary reference source (an encyclopedia), can't help you become famous. Lastly, there is a worry about conflict of interest. If you are part of the project, you shouldn't be editing an article about it here, but wait for others to find sources on it and do it for you (one can still edit an article about oneself but some editors don't welcome this at all and either way, Wikipedia policies must be very closely followed).
This also means if your project grows more notable and there are independent sources to cite, there will be nothing to stop putting an article about it here, editors will be more than happy to support it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Teutonic takeover of Danzig
Regarding your remark at Teutonic takeover of Danzig"(speedy declined, this is a helpful redirect, try RfD)": This is not only a "helpful redirect", it is the original and proper article title, which is "salted" after move wars, done in violation of the Gdansk/Danzig vote policy ("use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945"). See Talk:Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk, and especially its history. The article needs to be restored at its original title, Teutonic takeover of Danzig. Thanks in advance -- Matthead Discuß 08:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Please compare this remark before to that taunting remark after the two users in question have succeeded to push the article where they like it to have. Is that the way to do it? BTW; the events took place in 1308, and Poland was barely involved: The Polish King called in the Teutonic Knights to solve the matter. Which they did. The city was also known as Danzig, or variants thereof (Danceke, Dantzike), well before 1308, so the part "use the name Gdańsk before 1308" is doubtful (especially with the diacritic), yet current policy. Anyway, this is about 1308 and later, and out policy was (and currently is) violated by the moves. Please restore the article name. And move protect it, also, just in case. -- Matthead Discuß 09:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.
The Danzig vote ruled that from the foundation of the city to the Teutonic takeover in 1308 the city will be referred to as "Gdańsk". From that point up to the end of WW II (even for the periods of time when the city was a part of Poland again 1466 - 1792) it will be referred to as "Danzig". The vote itself has only a date "1308" and that's the only base of my prestigious colleague's argumentation. Here we can't go by the letter, we have to go by the spirit and common sense. Teutonic Knights invaded GDAŃSK and from then on it is known as Danzig. What he proposes is like calling the city Gdańsk on January 1st 1945, while it returned to Poland in March 1945. We have to use common sense on this one. Sincerely, Space Cadet (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No diff needed, we have a whole Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice as added above, hard to miss. Gdansk only before(!) 1308, while the article is about events in 1308. No brainer for Danzig according vote policy. Anyway, this in not a simple German-Polish conflict, it had at least two parties within the city (the city proper with German merchants had already German Lübeck law for decades, and the castle with the Pommeranian administration), and three outside, Brandenburg, Polish Crown, Teutonic Knights. Besides, the Knights did not invade, they were called in by local administration and the Polish King, and repelled the Brandenburgers who laid siege to it. As they were not paid for their services, they stayed, and suppressed the German merchants, which were competitors. So, Gwen, please judge for yourself who is mistating facts, both Wiki policy and history.-- Matthead Discuß 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The language looks rather straightforward to me: VOTE: Period from 1308 to 1454 (with the previous period clearly stated as Period before 1308), Votes for Danzig: 54-7. 1308, as far as I know, started on 1 Jan, the article describes something which happened on 13 November 1308 and unless we're forgetting about the vote, we've been calling the town Danzig for over 10 months, so are there any comments (flames, threats of RfARs, questions about my intelligence/reading skills/sanity, hints of barnstars, heavy foreboding silence) before I go all WP:IAR-WP:BOLD and change this to Danzig as an uninvolved admin? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Before 1308 clearly means before the Teutonic takeover of GDAŃSK, as it used to be called before the invasion. How could it not have been an invasion if almost entire population was slaughtered? Space Cadet (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The vote says it's Danzig from (implicitly 1 Jan) 1308 and says nothing that I can see about before the Teutonic takeover. Going by the vote, Wikipedia articles call this city Danzig during every month in 1308. Are you asking that the vote be ignored? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Then please be consistent and adjust all articles that call the city "Gdańsk" after March 1945 and before January 1st 1946, if you want to go by the letter rather than by the spirit of the law. It will lack common sense, but what the hey. Space Cadet (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping in mind we can't cite worries found in other articles to support content in this one, ok, you're saying that it'd be lacking common sense to follow the guideline given by the vote. I think though, since 54 editors made themselves very clear back then, that it would be Danzig for all of 1308, one might also say it's common sense to follow the vote, since it was taken to deal with disagreements like this (and given all the edit warring which has gone on over these names). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be interesting to you to review the discussions associated with the vote, so that you can clearly understand the reasons behind picking the date 1308 (I don't see January 1st mentioned in the vote either). Also you might want to contact the Vote manger and creator User:Chris 73. See, the date 1308 wasn't just picked by random but clearly as the date of the Teutonic takeover of the city. The Order didn't invade Danzig but Gdańsk, which henceforth has been known as Danzig. I was one of the voters, I remember their comments and discussion and 1308 meant not January 1st but "a certain date in 1308". What date? The date of the takeover. Truth, Logic and Common Sense. Space Cadet (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, are you easily impressed by relentless filibustering? The article was created at Teutonic takeover of Danzig, with very good reasons, according to the vote policy, and according to history, as the city was also known as Danzig (Danceke, Dantzike, etc.) decades before 1308. After controversial moves, Status quo ante has to be restored, either by a move back by an admin, or by deletion of the salted redirect, after which any user can move the article there again. SpaceCadet and Piotrus pushed through their POV by moving the article to double names and finally to the current, single Polish name which contradicts policy and history (that is covered in the article, I'm sick of witnessing false claims being repeated everywhere). Gwen, thank you for not denying outright that my request is in good faith - please assess the faith of the two users who pushed the article around. Anyway, the cheap redirects are the ones containing Gdansk, and they need to (WP:)point to the proper title, Teutonic takeover of Danzig. Thank you for investing too much time already. -- Matthead Discuß 10:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
After getting more feedback on the history of this I've moved the article to Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk). The vote overwhelmingly supports the name Danzig in 1308 and the reason for putting (Gdańsk) in the title along with it should also be clear. I've move protected the page. I did not move the talk pages, pending suggestions. I can take care of those either later today, or any admin is welcome to handle it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Islamofascism
Please reconsider your rejection [of a request for speedy deletion] of the article Islamofascism
I'm sorry but the article doesn't fall into any available category of speedy deletion. Please stop adding the tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and congratulations on your recent addition to the ranks of tool users. Welcome to the world of endless backlog. :D I just wanted to drop a note to let you know in case you didn't that WP:CSD#G4 only applies to material that has been deleted following deletion debate; it would not apply articles that have been speedily deleted or PRODdes, although of course the original conditions that led to deletion might. I note that you've tagged a couple that way: Most Reverend Jeffrey Driver, Populaire Group and Sextronica and just wanted to point it out, as I don't see any sign that they have been deleted following deletion debate. :) Again, congratulations. As overwhelming as deletion backlog can be, we need all the help we can get! --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked around, but I couldn't find anything that would establish notability or meet the requirements at WP:BAND. Guess that one's a lost cause, sadly. As a side note, the stuff about the appearance on MTV's Battle for Ozzfest is only about a single former member of the band and not the whole thing. Anyways, thanks for sending it to me. Happy admin-ing! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mike Hiratzka has been linked in a few other wikipedia articles and I was simply trying to put more information out there. He is linked to Kristy Thirsk and D:Fuse as he collaborates musically with both of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terramichelle1221 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's ok if he's listed in other articles but this article was speedy deleted because it didn't assert the topic's notability to Wikipedia's standards for music projects. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And where might I find more information about Wikipedia's standard for music projects?
Uh, Gwen, I recently put up an article entitled "tasty space" explaining a very valid point and scientific knowledge. I had no sources because the theory was newly devolped (Like, last thursday)but the article made plenty of sense in the opinions of my advisory and I. Then, you deleted the article in less than a minute. And for this reason, i request that you put it back up (if you can)
--Flipman jones (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah, editors here are rather keen at spotting codswallop pranks like that one. Have fun, but please stop adding unhelpful content to Wikipedia. Would you like a copy of it? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - you keep deleting my entry "before" it is posted, as there is not enough "context". Please read my post, as I think there may be enough context in the entry? Thanks (Rrr.lewis (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
May I ask why you deleted the article on Meriol Trevor? You did so while I was actually writing it, in fact. Something about a 'real person'? Sorry, but I really don't understand why you did this. Roger Pearse 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It can be daunting to understand how things work here sometimes. Someone tagged it for speedy deletion, indicating it had no assertion of notability and I saw none. Seeing the finished stub, I don't think being a prolific author is notable in itself and the cited work looks very thin so far but let's see what other editors think. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I see you have become pretty delete-happy. You may want to review WP:CSD. "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (My emphasis) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input but truly, the texts of the articles I've deleted haven't indicated their significance following our notability standards (nor, do I think, did the one below and at least one editor agrees with me). I've declined quite a few of these speedies so I don't think I agree with your take, but I understand how you might feel that way when an article you're interested in gets redlinked so fast. I was happy to restore it following your request (I was about to do so when I noticed you'd already posted a dreview) and I do hope it can be made into an encyclopedic article. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I only had a look at this one (Meriol Trevor), so I could get a sense of other articles you'd deleted, and because the discussion was right above the discussion of the one that I'd written. And I was certainly surprised you'd deleted it. But no, I haven't reviewed all your deletions, nor do I feel the need to do so! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and you know, the only stuff you'll see here are articles all kinds of editors are understandably asking after but still a tiny fraction, so it's hardly a meaningful sample. I don't think Meriol Trevor asserts notability ("prolific" is not enough), nor did the editor who tagged the article. However, the assertion was close enough to borderline that following a polite request (which shows some willingness from an editor to keep working on it) I had no worries about restoring the article, hoping that it might soon show itself as encyclopedic. If Meriol Trevor doesn't grow, it will very likely be tagged again by yet another editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that I entirely understand, I have to say. Are we saying that pages on obscure subjects are now being deleted because the page has only got a small amount of info? That sounds rather strange -- surely something rather than nothing is good? Or do we not want pages created unless they are essays?
Meriol Trevor: I don't actually know much about her! I discovered that she wrote oodles of stuff, and that I'd read as a child one of her novels. Naturally I wondered who she was, and found she was apparently well-known in at least some circles of English Roman Catholicism. Having found out that little, I digested it and stuffed it into Wikipedia. With luck others will know more and add more, or so I thought.
Isn't any published author worth giving some info about? My motivation was that I wanted to know something; I presumed, ignorantly, that I wouldn't be alone in that. I contributed what I had. I'm sorry if it didn't meet some minimum standard, below which any page will be deleted. Can anyone tell me where that standard is laid out? You see, I don't want to waste time writing stuff that will just vanish. (Perhaps these rules should be displayed when you try to create a new page?) Roger Pearse 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very surprised you chose to speedy-delete this article. I hope you reconsider. It clearly wasn't a candidate for a speedy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the proposal for speedy deletion on VSTEP, yet you say that an AfD might be fitting.
Would you mind telling me what is exactly the problem there seems to be with this article?
There are no independent sources to support the article's content and if these can't be found, it'll be an AfD candidate. However, it was never a speedy, the tag was good faith but mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely right, says the dummy who tagged it in the first place. It was in good faith, but I think I must have just overlooked the fairly obvious assertion of notability, and I'm delighted that you and your brand new mop caught it where I didn't. I didn't care to take the article through AfD, probably out of lingering guilt <grin> but I agree with you, there's no reliable sources. Thanks for your scrupulous eagle eye! Accounting4Taste:talk20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Partially can't blame you, since serious games is not really that well-known to the public, but in it's context, it's quite well-known.
Being what it is -one of Europe's biggest serious game developers- there'll be plenty of reliable sources. While I did not specifically notice that statement in the media, it's good faith on their own statement for now, the company's gotten plenty of media attention (here in the Netherlands). Just give me/other editors some time to expand the article.
Why was my Article on Heart Hope Help deleted, it seamed to fulfill the criteria for an article for me. It is a British Chiarty which works hard to improve the lives of others. it is a regested charity and the article was to inform not to selfpromote. I am independent as I have not and am not working for or with the charity .
Hi. Not all charity organizations are encyclopedic topics. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which explains Wikipedia's notability standards. For example, if the organization hasn't gotten wide, independent coverage on its activities, editors will likely not support keeping it. Please do feel free to ask me questions as needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
i was finding more information when it got deleted for example [14] showing the Notability of the organization, the problem is that the Charity does not spend its money on publicity but it is mentioned in conjunction with other Chernobyl charities and the work it does is notable so could it be restored? thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBAY (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that URL doesn't show evidence of signficant, wide and independent coverage from reliable sources as described here. You can try recreating the article with a simple assertion that this charity is notable and significant, but without independent sources to support this, an editor will likely nominate the article for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
okay i will do that setup a Sandbox [[15]] could you possibly put the article you deleted there, and i will rewrite and would it be okay to ask you once i have rewritten if you think it is Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBAY (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind, it's not up to me. I'm only one among many here. However, I'll be happy to look at it for you. I'll userfy the deleted text now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete my page of Park Center Marching Band? I didn't have time to make it "significant" because you deleted it so fast. Please explain why it was deleted, I am new to wikipedia, and I just am trying to learn. Tell me what i did wrong.
I was basing the page off of this page. Park Center Marching Band is on the same level as this band, why do they get an article but I cannot?
Hi. I know this can be a bit bewildering. However, the article didn't contain anything about the significance or encyclopedic importance of this band. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for information about Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As for other articles, please see this help page called WP:WAX. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How do I create a page and make it significant before its deleted? I mean, it was deleted within five seconds of being created...
I'm not sure why you have deleted my page. I had references to sources crediting his work. There are other pages with much less information and far less creditable people that are floating around out there. I'm not sure what else you want. I've read all your pages on creating a page and don't see that there was any reason for deleting mine. Someone put that it was blatent advertising... How is that?? I'm trying to get recognition for some talent that isn't only US based. I was basing my page on one I saw of Wayne Bergeron that contains nothing but two website listings. Mine has far more information.
Melissaamberko (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)melissaamberko
I speedy deleted it first, then another editor speedy deleted the article after you recreated it. It's also been tagged for speedy deletion by one or two other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for some help on learning why this article was likely deleted. Moreover, if you are the topic of the article, you should have a look at our conflict of interest policy. Lastly, the help page WP:WAX might help you understand why we can't compare this article to other articles you may have seen. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please email me a copy please. And, I am NOT the topic of this article. I just thought that of the millions of pages (a lot that seem to be junk) that someone might take the time to not delete articles even before they are finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissaamberko (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
New articles attract much more attention. Editors will eventually stumble across the older ones though. Please check your email in a few minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
u suck
u deleted my article that describes what a knucklehead is i used good grammer and vocab just lyke my teecher teels me i do and then u delete my artilce. u suck.... poop. get a reel liffe enstad of patroling wikipedia all day long you nerd freak. GET A JOB U HIPPY
I noticed that you're embarking on a lot of new page patrol -- which is what occupies most of my own work here. It occurred to me that you would find something useful that I recently found that has cut back on more than half the "why did you delete my page?" notes that I used to get -- check out the link at the top of my talk page that starts with "Wait!". If you use it, which I recommend, you may want to contact the individual who's named at the bottom of User:Accounting4Taste/CSD and ask permission, which I have no doubt will be freely and immediately given. Hope you find this useful. Accounting4Taste:talk00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And in the same spirit, I "borrowed" the cute file box I found at the top of your page. If there's someone I should thank, by all means let me know. Now I'm going to deal with your less-than-charming correspondent immediately above (I've left the less-than-charming note for you to savour before you delete it). Accounting4Taste:talk00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your speedy deletion of Portland Armory was an edit conflict with an expansion I was working on. I undeleted and pasted my expanded text in. Let me know if you have further concerns. -Pete (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
hello I am contesting the deletion of Diego Archer. It is notable as the "ownership of conflict" doctrine created by Mr.Archer was the principle unto which International Law was able to link Ciminal Entriprise to head of State leaders. The doctrine was applied to Slodoban Milosevic case in the ICTY, Milan Maertic in the ICTY and Charles Toylor in the Sierra Leone Special Court. Also it was used for the Saddam Hussein Traial in summary judgement. Being such an important legal doctrine as specified ion the article why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiaguru (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Gwen. After talking with the dedicated and knowledgeable user who created it (Katr67), I'm here to politely request a restoration of Monastery of Our Lady of Jordan, Oregon, which you speedied as an organization not asserting enough importance or notability. The monastery is a historic piece of notable architecture in Oregon, and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (from which the article is derived) is a fairly venerated public domain source academically. Katr67 is not in the habit of making frivolous articles of no importance, and does great work. I think we should give her the chance to build out the article more. Whatcha think? VanTucky03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey! When I saw 100-year old text and no assertion of significance I was thinking it wasn't likely to be of interest to anyone but a local historian. Happy to put it back, trusting there's something encyclopedic coming our way! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taken off the wolf hunter page I put up, In fact it was not a advertisement as you claimed and in fact a cult character to many here in Ohio and beyond. So before you jump and do something like this maybe you should look into it.
Well I wish that you would put it back on please It's something I wrote cause I think as do may others that its a very important character to Ohio film. I do want you to know that I hope you can and will put it back on.
So far, I guess that would be me. Do you understand what notability means here at Wikipedia? By the way, there is no need to start new section with each reply. Also, please sign your notes with four tildes (~~~~), thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
ok sorry so what and how can I prove this should be on here?
thank you what do you suggest? And does this mean The Wolf Hunter will be back on?
--bloodline video 03:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you put something about the Wolf Hunter in A. Ghastlee Ghoul, that would likely work because you Bob Hinton does seem to have some notability as a local TV host and film maker. The Wolf Hunter doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But Bob (The Ghoul) has nothing two do with with wolf hunter! In fact I just updated the ghouls profile cause no one has and he is as well from the same area as me..I am a fan of his work as am i of Matt Hoffman who played the wolf hunter. I do think the wolf hunter should have his own page cause he does have a huge fan base and even has fan films and a comic book being based on him. Truly if this is a encyclopedia for the people then why take off something that does mean something to people.
I read the guidelines, and I certainly can certainly respect them. The one question I have is with things that fall into the arts realm (film, related material, etc) that aren't as widely known but ought to be preserved/written about in a wide forum -- just because many people haven't written about it, does that somehow make it worth less/less deserving of being part of a compendium of knowledge? I know it's kind of an abstract question, but perhaps it's this exact question that's causing our disconnect?
--bloodline video 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank You Gwen, You are a true lover of the arts. As far as sources what would you suggest to use to keep this on?
--bloodline video 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything independent and verifiable that you can find, reliable websites are likely ok for this kind of thing (but no YouTube or MySpace). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks One last thing are the links I have on the page good for that? They all talk about the film and show that its around.
--bloodline video 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
With low budget films like this it will mostly depend on what interested editors think about them, along with their overall take on the topic's notability. Find as many as you can (online and on paper) and put them in! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Request regarding a move
I'd ask you to revert your move of the Teutonic takeover article and start a proper WP:RM, as I have suggested on talk. It is simply illogical to have the article named Danzig (since the name was introduced after the takeover of a city with the name of Gdansk) and the double naming X (Y) is discouraged by our naming conventions. If there will be a RM consensus to move the article to Danzig or Danzig (Gdansk) or anything similar, fine, but a RM should be held - one user should not decide what the name should be, in light of objection on talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, stop it! It was already very friendly by Gwen to propose this double naming compromise when only "of Danzig" is appropriate. As you reject it, it now needs to be moved to Teutonic takeover of Danzig again, status quo ante, according to policy and history. You and SC did not dare to start the WP:RM you hard requested initially, but simply move warred on the page, and then after the deeds were done, taunted me to "try WP:RM". Also, I warn you not to use any adminpowers in content disputes, as you already did. And stop to repeat those false claims about the German name version being introduced in 1308 when the city definitely used German names decades earlier - and had German Lübeck law, too. See als Duke Zwantepolc de Danceke. -- Matthead Discuß 12:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Double naming should be skirted with most articles but since editors have been bickering over this for years (never mind the historical name dispute) I see no reason why this wouldn't be the most helpful outcome for those we should care about most, the readers. I think most uninvolved editors will see this as a reasonable compromise. Meanwhile, there would be nothing untowards about holding an RM with the article under this title. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The only editor who has been bickering over this for years was Matthead, who was going against the near consensus on the talk pages. We proposed RM to Matthead several times, but he never started it on the talk page, likely knowing that it would not succeed. In any case - why not Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk (Danzig)? It makes more sense to have the old name first, and the newer name later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the language of the earlier vote shows overwhelming consensus for calling the city Danzig in 1308 and I've followed that consensus as an uninvolved admin. If there had been worries about how to handle 1308 when the vote was taken, I'd think editors would have worded the vote itself to show this. Acknowledging the name dispute with (Gdansk) in the title will do nothing but help alert readers to it in context straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Plus ça change
You might wish to keep an eye out for 3RR and other misdemeanors at [wait for it!] Sollog.
Incidentally, I'm sorry that I didn't notice AfD/Sollog (2nd nomination) at the time. It ended "Keep (no consensus)", allowing for the possibility of a 3rd nomination and consignment of this person to the oblivion that (I think) he richly deserves. -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Stohl is an academic important to the study of terrorism, and is cited as such on two of our articles on the topic (Special:WhatLinksHere/Michael_Stohl). I would appreciate a prod notice next time, but if you can move was you deleted to my user space, I'll see what I can do to make that more clear. -- Kendrick7talk17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kendrick7, done. Two things to bear in mind, a person may be cited in many Wikipedia articles but still not be widely notable enough for a biographical article. If you do wish to recreate this in the article space, please put something in the lead which clearly asserts the wide significance of the topic (the utter lack of this is why the article was tagged and subsequently speedy deleted). It's not hard to skirt a speedy if you believe in the article: Make a strong good faith claim of notability/significance for the topic which you can back up with sources (however, you need not list these sources straight off). If there are worries about your sources, this can be sorted out later either on the talk page or if need be, AfD. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Right, I can see now that the lead was pretty weak; I'll dig a little deeper. If the extent to which he's a talking head on TV and radio is as evident from another source as the UCSB's page on him suggests, I'll make that clear in the lead which I would hope would put him over the top. -- Kendrick7talk18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Heya, I'll try to keep this brief, since I rather dislike notes regarding deletions myself. I noticed, while investigating a WP:SSP case, that you had deleted Final Drive under G5 ("Creation by a banned user"). I'd like to take a moment, to point out, that User:Finaldrive, near as I can tell, is blocked, not banned. There's a bit of difference between the two, and, just before you deleted it, someone else declined another speedy on it. I don't think in this case, it's right, to throw away a possibly decent article, just because the creator got blocked. If it's alright with you, I'd like to go ahead and restore it. SQLQuery me!18:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It was also an A7. Before I restore it, can you please tell me anything about this topic which might hint that it meets WP:Notability (bands)? From what I gather, the only notable bit, that MTV appearance, wasn't made by the band, but by only a single member. Thanks for putting up with me (all I need is something to get by A7 ;). Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't quite understand that second post until now :D Ok, then, I'll forget all about it unless you bring it up again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Manly Man Town
The article Manly Man Town was created as a joke, and will be searched by someone soon.
After they search Manly Man Town and notice it's there, I was going to delete the article
I've got someone saying libel on my talk page against me. I'm an admin, but I don't want to be heavy handed. Do you think you can give the guys doing this the appropriate warnings. Thanks.--BedfordPray02:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You can if you like, though it's thought to be more admin-like and trustworthy to ask another admin to ward the scythe mop when this happens, which is spot on what you did :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, did you really mean username block? I don't get it. I agree this guy was up to no good, but he's been warned and that was a few hours ago. I don't disagree with a block perhaps, but I don't see why it would be a username block. Friday(talk)04:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Friday. Ok... Jimboss69? Along with commentary like this? Get it? The name and the posts are meant as disruption. I'll unblock if you like though. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I wouldn't necessarily unblock. If it's for disruption, I won't argue- he was certainly disruptive. I just don't like seeing a block go down with a reason in the log that doesn't reflect the real reason. The overall behavior seems trollish- I think we both agree on that. Friday(talk)04:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him for his disruptive username. Maybe some editors won't get it but many will. If you would like me to swap it for a 24 hour block for disruption I'll do that, let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This was an obvious troublemaker so it's probably not worth spending time to change it now. I just think it's best to be as accurate as possible in block logs, that's all. If we stretch assuming good faith to the limits.. maybe his name is Jimbo and he drives a '69 chevelleSuper Sport :) Friday(talk)04:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Reverting done by pro Iranian regime users Creazysuit and BoogaLouie
Dear Gwen,
The problem we have about the PMOI page where some pro regime users like BoogaLouie keep inserting their biased materials is being extended now to the "Massoud Rajavi" and "NCRI" pages. You see that a supposed Iranian "CreazySuit" has reverted to versions dating back to April.
Regards,
Tom
suggestion for the opening page of PMOI
Dear Gwen,
About the PMOI opening page, since the present version has deleted all their court victories, one gets a very negative impression about this group which is not fair. I suggest we add this sentence :
"On 7 May 2008, the UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, against a decision by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to remove the PMOI from the list of groups banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was no evidence that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was currently involved in terrorism. [6][7]"
This is a fact and is nothing to be disputed and is quite balanced. For your information the British Government has implemented the verdict by lodging a written order with the British parliament , seeking to remove the PMOI from the terrorist list.
Best wishes,
Tom Davy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom davy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Tom, please don't duplicate your posts on multiple talk pages, but put a single post on the relevant article talk page. Also, there is no need to address these to me. You should be discussing this with the other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations from me, Gwen Gale! I am very happy that you passed your RfA. Good luck with your new tools. Contact me, Antandrus, or any other admin if you need any help. Best wishes. Acalamari23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Congratulations!!! I was going to participate, but I guess I was too late. I had read through the RfA earlier and was going to look through your contribs. I had regretful feelings about my participation in your previous RfA and was hoping to support you this time. I loved the image you sent around with your RfA Thanks last time. I didn't realize it was so close to the time for your RfA to close or I would have hurried more! Anyway, I'm glad you succeeded! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! As I said in your RfA, I have no doubt that you will be an excellent administrator! Feel free to give me a yell if you ever have any questions about your shiney new buttons. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done! And thank the goddesses it wasn't unanimous - that should be a clear indication (to anyone that would doubt it) that you're for real! All the best! Pinkville (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The Urge Overkill version is pleasantly artful '70s cheese, but the original Neil Diamond is so very... creepy. Either way, it fits my image of LA, too. :~) Pinkville (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! If you can spare the time, see if you can pick up a used copy of Wikipedia Administration for Dummies (any old edition will do). But it's easy really. Just try not to screw up and press the wrong button. And for hours of mindless and inoffensive amusement (in the short term), check people's lists of deleted contributions. (In the longer term, not so cheery: you'll gain a new insight into the depths of human vanity.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha! Why does that always come up? So I was telling someone about this and to be pithy, told her that mossy one and she comes back with, "C'est qui Jimbo Wales?" Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, only there was this brief worry about the sky fallin' in on me or something the first few times I hit the delete button ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good news ... I just now got back from my trip, and this was the first thing I checked, and all is well. :) I'm quite certain you will be not only competent at adminning but superb at it, and frankly I was honored to be able to co-nominate you. All the best! Antandrus (talk)03:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the wonderful nominating words! Now I have to live up to them, but you knew that! ;) Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
oops I think I'm a bit late to say congrats. Anyway, I'm really delighted, though unsurprised, at your promotion. Hope your adminship life is getting off to a good start. Happy mopping! --PeaceNT (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations?
Hi Gwen Gale, I've been watching the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roleplay_Online. Having done some other edits on pages which come up as needing citation, I was hoping for some advice on reliable citations. For example, I did a tiny bit of editing on the small bilgeboard article. The entry could likely be cleaned up, and an illustration would be great, but I'm unsure how or where a citation should be gotten for something like this. It's one of those things that, if you know boating or boat design, you likely know what it is, but here, with a big stack of boat design textbooks on my desk and Google at my fingertips, I cannot find a source which actually defines it. The whole field is very small and somewhat esoteric; while it doesn't mean that people who deal with these things don't know what this item is, it does mean that they've very rarely set it down specifically in a textbook as "here is what this thing is and what it's for". Nevertheles, it is a real thing with a purpose and definition agreed upon by those who deal with these things, and something which might be useful for others to be able to look up somewhere. (And I find some parallels here with those trying to find adequate citation for the Roleplay Online article.) I realize you must be very busy, but I was hoping you could help me with some practical advice on properly citing articles when Google is simply inadequate to the task due to the nature of the things being discussed, or at least point me in the right direction. cruinne (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I know how daunting this can seem for a good faith editor. First thing to keep in mind, Wikipedia is a tertiary reference source. As such, it's meant to carry only verifiable content. Sometimes, stuff one would like to share with the world will simply not be appropriate here because there aren't enough reliable sources on it to set an article upon. Also, we sometimes lean on Google (and other) searches too hard. There are lots of sources which simply haven't been digitized yet and the only way one can get to them is by cracking the books (get all the author/publishing information and write down the page numbers!). If you can't source an article, it may be because the topic isn't ready for Wikipedia, or it may be only because you can't find reliable secondary and primary sources online yet and a trip to a main library in a big city or at a large college may be the thing :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? I would like that notice to stand as my personal view on what happened. I don't appreciate you using the fact that you're an admin to try and silence my viewpoints. 137.195.250.2 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was only trying to help you in the long term. I've unprotected the page, please ask any admin (including me) to help with any other changes, including protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I was the one undoing the redirect. I've readded the message, and reprotected the page. And, as your edit summary wisely said, let it fade away...Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I thought Naerii's redirect was kindest, maybe Prim will ask someone to revert it back later but I'm ok with whatever he wants. Cheers back! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to take him up on his invitation for other opinions, only his pages are blocked, which is probably just as well. I was going to tell him that after 3 years on here, he should know better than to create a second account whose only apparent activity is casting votes on RFA's, and he should be smarter than to admit to such a gross violation of the rules, and that he's lucky he wasn't banned altogether for it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It does two things. There's an autoblock which blocks any IP recently used by the account for only 24 hours, along with an account creation block, which will prevent any new account creation from that IP. My understanding of the current configuration is that other existing accounts logging in from that IP won't be blocked. Let's see what it stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Due respect, Gwen, but I think that your block in this situation was a bit hasty and not warranted. It doesn't look like the activity of the account Prima Facist rose to the level of violating policy, particularly with the confirmation of Thatcher in the thread at AN/I. Additionally, an indef hardblock is seemingly unnecessary and problematic (I'm told the individual edits from a dynamic pool assigned to a university). Avruch T 01:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Avruch. Several admins and editors have strongly supported this block, the user clearly violated both the letter and spirit of WP:SOCK by not disclosing the main account, along with voting in RfAs and was sufficiently disruptive to attract attention at ANI before he had even made a few dozen edits. On the other hand, in my blocking note I assumed good faith, made it a soft block and encouraged the user to create another undisclosed sockpuppet, but this time without attracting attention, stressing that I saw no need for his main account to be outed. I told the user he could appeal this block and that I would unblock if I saw a shred of consensus for it. None came. Meanwhile a worry was brought up an ANI that the user had created a third account, which was trolling there. This, along with further edits made by the user on his talk page led to his main account to be outed, the latter which made me sad. Checkuser showed he wasn't the trolling third account, but confirmed another account as his main one. As for the blocked account being related to an IP pool at a school, the account has wound up still soft blocked and shouldn't cause any worries for any other users. I'll be happy to unblock but how do we handle the worries of those who have supported this block? What shall we do? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, making a change in the block is probably unnecessary at this point as the user has retired anyway. Still, I don't see anything that, to me, requires an indefinite block in the first 10 edits of Prima Facist before the account was reported to AN/I. To my mind the fact that he was reported to AN/I does not, itself, constitute evidence of disruption. As for outing the main account - that happened, I believe, because the main account was caught in the autoblock (at least according to Astral). Something which could have been avoided with a little less haste by some in filing the checkuser request when Thatcher had already commented, and similarly less haste in blocking Prima Facist. Not that I think Astral's plan was well thought out, but it generally helps (particularly when things are being discussed at AN/I) to refrain from quick action in the absence of clear and ongoing disruptive activity. Avruch T 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think part of this has to do with different takes on multiple account policy. The policy page itself is very clear, additional accounts should be tagged as such. As you know, I'm also aware of the IAR side of this, that if a user is causing no disruption, there is no reason to worry about an undisclosed account. However, this user voted in RfAs and I think that strayed from policy, because a new account seemingly warded by an experienced user who immediately begins voting in RfAs makes editors wonder if the account has been started to avoid a block or ban and the stirring up of this worry is in itself disruption, especially since the sockpuppet policy stesses the importance of not using multiple accounts for voting and so on. I was very sorry to see the main account outed, though, I was hoping the account would fade out quietly and the user would learn from the experience.
From the beginning, another admin and I encouraged the user to quietly create a new alt sock and not stir up any attention with it. I also stressed that I didn't want to know the identity of the main account. I think he made a series of honest mistakes. Even further, now that the main account has been disclosed I see utterly no need for the indef block and have lifted it. He might perhaps rename the account but that's up to the user (I do hope he rethinks things and keeps editing). If there is anything more I can do to help the user get through this, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the requirement for revealing the main account or indicating the status of an alternative account through use of the {{alternative account}} tag was inserted without consensus on May 14th, 2008. I've removed it. Avruch T 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A little bit more. What I removed was the only actual "requirement" for disclosure - the other paragraphs recommend but do not require it, although the distinction is perhaps irrelevant when talking about policies that are more or less in a constant state of flux and thus traditionally can't be applied inflexibly. The voting part of the policy deals specifically with double-voting to artificially inflate support for a proposal, candidate etc. I don't think that in this case there was any double voting, so I think the voting section of the policy really does not apply. An argument could reasonably be made that Prima Facist violated this section of the policy:
All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior.
Since there was no double voting, and until recently disclosure was not stated explicitly as a requirement, I had focused above on the "disruption" element. At any rate, the damage so to speak has been done and Astral may or may not return - thank you for unblocking the other account, perhaps he/she will see that as encouragement to return productively. My only real goal was to say that I thought more time and other forms of resolution can be explored in these types of situations short of a block, particularly an indefinite one. Thank you for discussing the issue with me and adjusting the blocks. Avruch T 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Regarding the declined CSD tag on Bill Bragg... no problem there, really, I just want clarification so I don't make that mistake in the future. The page is a cut-and-past of an IMDB bio, as I tagged G12. What's the policy on this? Perhaps IMDB bios aren't actually copyrighted, I guess. Thoughts? Tan | 3917:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen - I was a little mystified concerning your closing of the [this PUI entry] on the above image. Your statement was Kept, image also contains architectural features., but the debate was not about deletion - it was about whether the image should have a non-free copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. I had provided a link to the policies on this type of artwork, I was wondering about your thinking on the closure and how the closure fits in with the copyright policy. Kellyhi!19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You did? Also, on this PUI entry, it looks like you deleted Image:Daizee.jpg but not any of the other images in the same entry that had the same problem. Also, I found it really odd that you closed out the entry on this image with the copyright concerns unresolved. Kellyhi!19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
UK mural, erm, still looking at that one, the law is odd, pls give me a tick.
Wrestler pics, yes, I was unsure, if you can confirm that OTRS tickets never showed up for any of them I'll delete them all.
Thanks...is there a reason why you're processing the listings at WP:PUI that are less than 14 days old? Not that I'm complaining, but I thought that was the policy per the instructions on the main PUI page. Kellyhi!20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As it says at the top of the page, Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied". I don't think I'm deleting anything controversial (indeed, you've been questioning most of my keeps :) However, please let me have your thoughts. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not complaining - I'm just happy that some admin is helping with the horrendous backlog. But somebody whose image gets deleted before 14 days might complain, just sayin'. :) There are lots of older images to work in the PUI holding cell. Cheers - Kellyhi!20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm easy though, if someone complains I'll (likely) put it back unless it's blatantly not ok. Lookin at the wrestlers now. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Today you deleted my article on Machiel van den Heuvel.
Machiel van den Heuvel was the dutch escape officer for all dutch POW in Colditz castle Oflag IV-C.
He is mentioned in Pat Reids book on Coldtiz castle and on various websites as Vandy.
I started writing and adding articles on dutch POW's especialy on those who were in Colditz. Today I started on Anthony Luteyn and Hans Larive. Their stories are not complete without Machiel van den Heuvel because he played a key role in all their escapes.
I do hope that it is possible to put my article back in wikipedia.
I added some extra references
books:
leo de hartog; officieren achter prikkeldraaf 1940-1945; publisher Hollandia 1983
(officers behind barbed wire 1940-1945)
Pat R. Reid; Colditz 40-42
Reinhold Eggers; Colditz the german story
yes please.
do you think it will be possible for it to be published someday or do you need more references to proof its "worth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchdoc (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's at User:Dutchdoc/sandbox (that's in your user space). First off, make sure the first paragraph of the article makes a strong assertion of notability about this person. Also make sure you can back it up with as many sources as you can find. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm hassling you about copyright issues - on the above image, regardless of who created it, the organization holds the copyright on the logo/coat of arms. It doesn't matter if someone creates their own version of it - it's still a derivative work and the organization retains the copyright. I changed the license to {{non-free logo}} and added a fair use rationale. Kellyhi!23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that, I thought it was already there, I thought the worry was image copvio. Oh and pls speak up whenever :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, Gwen - I totally understand that not everyone is a copyright law geek like me. I do really appreciate you helping with the image backlog! Kellyhi!00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Heya, I know something about it so I'm not too worried but please please let me have tips whenever you see something worth talkin about! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh...oh, FYI, I noticed you had closed a couple of listings as "clearly pre-1923" based on the appearance of the photo and/or the clothing of the people depicted. I'm afraid that's not always a good indicator of copyright status, as the primary determinant is not when the photo was taken, but when it was published. I guess an example of this would be Image:ColJMHarlan-1861.jpg (which comes from here) - the photo was taken in 1861 but is still under copyright because it wasn't published until much later. Kellyhi!15:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes - I normally try to research the correct license from whatever details are given, or use Google or a Library of Congress search to track down the correct source and copyright status. I actually prefer to place a non-free image copyright tag on them (as opposed to just deleting them) if there's any possibility that fair use could be justified. The problem is that a lot of uploaders just don't understand the details necessary for a valid public domain claim - the worst area in this regard is paintings and other art. Kellyhi!15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Normally, yes - especially in the U.S. A great guideline on this situation is Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The problem lies when people do not address the copyright status of the 2D work of art that is the subject of the photo. Many assume that just because the subject of a painting died long ago, the painting must therefore be in the public domain. I sometimes tell uploaders that people are still making new paintings of Jesus Christ, George Washington, and Elvis Presley even though those people are long dead. Also complicating this is the issue of "publication" - if an artist paints something in 1850, but the painting is not exhibited until 1983, then the painting is still under copyright. It can be a nightmare. Kellyhi!16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I get it, ouch! I guess it's easy to forget lots of folks (in good faith) have not a clue about cr, ipr :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decided to go ahead
Hi Gwen, how are you doing? I hope all is well. Just to let you know, I decided to go ahead with nominating the Stanley article for GA. I tried a couple of times to add to it, but couldn't figure out what else to do with it for now. Maybe whenever some more info comes along it can be taken to the next step but I think for now it has reached a plateau. Actually I wrote to the president of the Stanley Theatre Society and asked a bunch of questions (maybe too many??) but haven't gotten any response yet. Anyhow, I guess whoever reviews the article may have some suggestions, so let's see what happens. Alrighty, bye for now! Moisejp (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I got your reply. The deletion policies specifically advise people to hold off on tagging articles for deletion within minutes of their creation. I believe that this tagging was irresponsible. And I am very disappointed that you decline to restore it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't ask me to restore it. Instead, you told me I was exceeding my authority. If you look at this talk page you'll see I almost always restore these on request (when it comes up at all). First, I would hope that you would try to be more civil, ok? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, would you please restore the history of the article, prior to its deletion.
Note, the first draft (1) was referenced; (2) said this individual was a former governor of two provinces.
Note: WP:POLITICIAN says that "notability" is already established if the individual is a
Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
So, it seems to me that nominator was lapsing from policy by tagging the article, and, forgive me, you lapsed from policy by concluding the deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, all you need have done was ask. Nothing's lost, history's back, let me know if I can do anything else to help. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I put the "hang on" there because the wrong criteria was being used. I explained this on the related talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's allowable fair use criteria are a lot tighter than many editors understand them to be. The image you uploaded and put in the article (all in good faith) will never make it past any image deletion review, since non-free images cannot be used only to show what a subject looks like. Maybe you can find a free one somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, is it okay with you if I remove the inline cites tag now as I have provided references for everything? :) naerii - talk20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen Gale and Naerii for your help on [FINSAS]. Considering it was recommended by another admin before I could even create content, the entry as come a long way. Thanks! Arunram (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no speedy category for that and it looks like good faith. I agree it's nettlesome but I can't speedy this. I've prod'd it, next step would be AfD, which it will not get through. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Urrggh. It is of course very problematic in that wikipedia in trying to be an encyclopedia has an article on a game which shows the childishness of some of its users on its own site, which in turn has a whole encyclopedia article devoted to this silliness. Not a good look... ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw, don't worry about it too much, I don't see all that many of these, the writing is clean and it'll be gone soon enough. However, if you like, start an AfD on it now, I'll happily vote to delete :) Want me to start one? WP:SNOW is likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm the reason I placed a speedy on it was because there was no verification that such a name exists and I've seen exactly the same sort of article like that under a different name speedied before. I guess the article itself makes sense which would seem to stop it being speedied but it is so wrong to accept on article like this. I've asked Orangemike what he thinks, but yes I would proceed to AFD straight away, it will be interesting to see what the wider community thinks. I appreciate you are extra careful to do everything correctly in light of your recent admin promotion. Congrats on that by the way ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I agree with Gwen that while rubbish, it's still several steps above patent nonsense. However, variants on this have been deleted so many times at AfD that deleting under WP:CSD#G4 might be justified - see this list. In fact, WP:NFT used to have a section on exactly this game until it got rewritten. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Would that the tag had said that to begin with, but thanks for keeping at it Blofeld, it's gone, only had to find the fit way to do this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ja I knew it existed somewhere, but I have seen countless articles created on this topic with different names speedied before so I thought I was making a good decision. I should have left a different reason other than nonsense though. Thanks Gwen ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you just deleted the Human Rights Torch Relay page as Blatant copyright infringement. I have to agree with this assessment because much of it's content was taken as copy/paste from it's "About page".
My question is, what is the minimum information about an article, and if there is any guideline on how to start a new article on wikipedia. Thank You very much in advance :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed a template bug with that, which I asked about on IRC. Apparently when a template listed on CSD was deleted, the article got hit instead and the template remained (with no hint of a db transclusion inside). It got fixed but I guess this one wasn't caught. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw the article about David Speyrer got deleted. I was going to add the category american video game designer there,
but didn't get the chance... Do you think you can bring it to life again? Darkeye (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The cat alone won't keep this article from being seedily deleted as an A7 (which more or less means non-notable). Is there any wide, independent and verfiable media coverage of some kind about this person? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those would make editors very happy, since they're more or less the topic talking about himself. You might read WP:BIO and WP:BLP for more on what's looked for in a biographical article like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you deleted the True Remembrance article that was created by VDZ. May I ask why you did that? According to the logs, the description provided by your edit was (A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance). I challenged the AfD nomination at the time on its talk page which I presume you have read. From the template, the text reads that "Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible for this criterion. See CSD A7." It should be noted that True Remembrance is not "web content", it is a piece of software that runs on a person's computer, it is not interacted with through on a browser. In this regard, I don't believe that it fits the scope of articles that criteria A7 covers. I understand that the article may not have seemed notable nor did it assert its importance and significance, but since I don't think True Remembrance fits the A7 criteria, I don't think it should've been speedily deleted. Thank you for your time. --Remy Suen (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the article text, with no assertion of significance, a visual novel and links to Japanese and English websites, I can understand why the editor tagged it and I deleted it. However, upon review, as you say, this is not an A7 and I have restored it. However, unless you can provide independent sources showing notability, it is unlikely this article would get through an AfD. All the best (and good luck with this)! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the re-review, Gwen! The other editors and I will investigate notability sources and contribute them to the article as soon as we find them! Thanks again! --Remy Suen (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'll respect your decision, but I would've happily A7'd it. Another thing you might remember is G11. If something is getting put on Wikipedia, and there's no assertion of notability or encyclopedic suitability, the only thing left is that it's being promoted, and well, promotional articles are speedy-eligible! Don't be hesitant to take out the trash. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks! I would have caught it today but if you ever see one lurkin about like that, feel free to close (I can always add something if need be). Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you closed this AfD as A7 speedy. I do not particularly disagree that the article deserved to be deleted but I am very surprised by your closing summary as A7. This was certainly not an A7 case. There were over a 1000 newsstories quoting this guy's opinion's on various matters related to the automotive industry. That alone certainly takes him over the A7 bar which is set fairly low: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". As I said, I don't mind the article being deleted, but in terms of setting A7 precedents that substantially depart from previous consensus, I would much prefer that the reason for deletion be given as "not notable per WP:BIO" or something of the sort, but certainly not A7. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, yes, you caught it. About 20 seconds after hitting the button (and into the next AfD close in the swamp of an overwhelming backlog of them) it dawned on me there had been an assertion of significance buried in the article and I thought "Ok, if someone brings it up, I'll swap it out." You saw it, I've changed it to a simple delete taken from the AfD. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts on this. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD of Jim Nelson
Question with regard to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Nelson. It was at AfD, I did not see any !votes making a case for A7, nor I did I feel the deletes made any case that the sources provided did not assert notability. Its not my article, I'm not that interested in whether it exists or it not, and there was certainly a consensus on the keep side as well as on the delete side, but to me, that would read no consensus, not A7. MrPrada (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I closed it as an A7 because the article made no assertion of meaningful significance (getting a noted politician to say he likes you is not a big deal). Wonderful CV, I see how it got so far but it was always A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you might want to reread the discussion and the article itself, perhaps you had a similar mixup per above. MrPrada (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Rereading above myself, I see it was not a mixup. I just don't remember anything in the article talking about "getting a noted politician to say he likes you". MrPrada (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Something about Wesley Clark as I recall. Hey, didn't you say, "I'm not that interested in whether it exists or it not"? Let's not get all WP:POINTy, ok? I mean, with all respect and heed, if you tell me you truly care about seeing this article in the encyclopedia, let's talk on, otherwise what's the pith? All the best :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I think being a major party nominee is assertion enough to avoid A7. It seemed like a strange close to me, I was considering taking it to DRV and I wanted to know why you chose that particular wording instead of just "delete". MrPrada (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Major political parties nominate folks for all kinds of stuff. This one was for the US congress, over 400 members, elections every couple of years, big turnover and he lost anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen. We can't A7 an article that has already been kept through deletion discussion, per WP:CSD policy, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." Hadley Corner survived AfD in April, here. Just thought I would point it out in case you either weren't aware of that provision in policy or hadn't noticed that it had previously survived, as you may wish to reconsider your deletion rationale. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it, I was just about to tell Gwen this. Careful with that delete button and those dodgy A7's else I think a fair few of them will end up at Deletion Review. RMHED (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I'm not speedying that many of these and I either forgot or didn't know about past keeps blocking any future speedy. Thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen! I'm pretty sure that the result was "merge" rather than "no consensus" (two arguments for merge, one [me] for delete and an IP who went for WP:ILIKEIT first but then changed to merge). Would you like to revisit the discussion? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see enough editors calling for a merge (or calling for anything) to feel swayed to that but... yeah, try 'n sway me, then see how far it gets you! :P Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) :)
I've gone ahead and merged and redirected, feel free to revert me if you feel strongly about this article Gwen. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have done likewise by now, but was out for awhile. Thanks for doing it! However, I must say, I don't think 2 merges, a delete and an odd keep are a consensus for anything (without maybe getting nudged politley like this in the aftermath?). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen. With one argument for delete, which in itself indicates that a "merge" is probably appropriate, three !votes for redirect and one for keep, I'm wondering how you came by your conclusion that consensus in this debate was to delete. I don't see any firm arguments in that AfD to delete. Would you mind explaining your choice there? I'd be interested in hearing your rationale. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Following WP:Notability (music) none of the 5 singles in the AfD were notable and the articles themselves were OR stubs. I saw nothing in the editor comments which supported their !votes to keep or redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But none of them voted to delete, except possibly the nominator, who also indicated that a merge would be appropriate. Our job as administrators, obviously, is to determine the consensus that was reached by participants in an AfD, not to contribute our own opinion. We're neutral observers. The majority of responders to that AfD argued for "redirect", which is quite reasonably supported with WP:MUSIC, which says "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators indicates that "When in doubt, don't delete." Going beyond the arguments advanced seems somewhat beyond the role of an administrator in closing an AfD, unless there are serious issues like copyright violations to consider, when protecting the project overrides the community's will. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any arguments at all: One said "Redirect per nomination" but the nomination was to delete, with no mention of a redirect. The second said "Redirect to the respective album's, except Whatcha Gonna' Do With It which doesn't have an album, so delete that one," with no assertion as to why these songs were prominent and the third said "Redirect per everyone." The keep vote said it was a real record and an "Internet hit" but the article(s) did not assert this. I'll be happy to redirect but I don't see any support for redirecting these song titles to this band. :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point, though. :) I've closed many an AfD where I've personally disagreed with the outcome but community consensus was clear and did not violate policy. The community that took the time to respond thought the redirects were worthwhile. For us to override them is not respectful of their participation in the process and might be perceived as forgetting that admins do not have extra authority to determine content. After all, it was community consensus that created those notability guidelines in the first place. At some point, the community might decide that all songs deserve articles no matter what. We get to contribute to policy like any other member of the community, but our admin tools exists to enforce what the community decides. Generally, when I encounter an AfD where I disagree with the general thrust, I'll stop and enter as a participant rather than as an admin. You might want to consider doing that if you find something where you think community consensus is just wrong. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
←Hi, Gwen. I know you haven't been around to respond yet, but I've thought of an example to illustrate what I mean that might be of some relevance to you. While closing AfDs, I came upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Thunder Records. It had a delete, a comment leaning delete, and a keep. Rather than close it, I decided to throw in my two cents, which I did, for redirect. We all know that WP:R are often used for useful search terms when the terms do not merit stand-alone articles. (In this case, I would consider it an {{R with possibilities}} as a subtopic that might be spun out if and only if the parent article grew so long that the subtopic overwhelmed it. Unlikely, as it's currently an item in a list and is quite notable enough for that purpose.) It disappointed me that subsequent contributors didn't agree, since this seems like a clearly good case for a redirect to me. But they didn't, and your closure of that AfD as delete was quite proper in that it reflected rough consensus.
If I run into an AfD and disagree with the developing consenus, I have an opportunity to enter in even at the last minute as a participant. Of course, if I believe that admins were meant to bring in their own interpretations of policy, I could have simply closed the AfD for redirect in the first place, because I thought that was the right thing to do. (I could also have closed it as no-consensus, but I try not to do that unless the AfD has been around twice; it seems like a poor use of community time not to at least try to come up with a definitive answer.) It's my understanding, though, that with AfD, admins work kind of like trial judges: we make sure that the attorneys and jury work within the boundaries of "law" and eliminate inadmissible evidence, but we have no say other than that in whether or not the "defendant" is guilty. That's up to the jury to decide for themselves. :) (Obvious flaw in my analogy: the "attorneys" are also the jury!) Given that understanding, I believe that the best I could do to influence the outcome away from consensus was to enter in the argument. Anything else would take me away from the impartial position WP:DGFA tells me to take.
With regards to this closure, I'm not here because I care if these songs are redirected to the parent album articles (or group articles). I tend to glance through the deletion log quite often and saw that they had been deleted and was wondering about the approach you used to close the RfA. Figuring out rough consensus can be tricky, I know, but in this case, I just am not seeing any kind of consensus to delete. I could understand that if the keep arguments were overlooking a copyvio or a blatant BLP vio. I'm just not sure how closing outside of consensus came to happen here.
This lead me to wonder if you are thinking of AfD closures in the same way that I do: that we are there to read through the group debate and figure out what the group has decided, so long as the decision does not contravene inviolable policies of the project like BLP. Intricacies of notability would not, to me, seem to apply. If you've got a different reading on the function of an administrator in an AfD, I'd like to hear your perspective. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I think we may have slightly different takes, but mind, this is only the first big round of closes I've done and one thing I want to do is minimize any unhappiness felt by editors with the outcomes, so that does mix into how I see things, too. So, AfD isn't a vote, but a discussion, and votes are weighted by the thoughts expressed behind them. If I get a complaint from an involved editor, that's something I want to listen to. If it's an abstract objection or disagreement from someone who personally doesn't care what happened to the article, but cares what is happening with process, I heed that too, but in a different way. Have I made any sense at all? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, AfD is a discussion, and we weigh votes by thoughts expressed behind them--that's the very definition of rough consensus (as set out at WP:DGFA. We agree there. :) I guess my confusion comes in that you seem to be acting here outside of consensus altogether. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
With those 4 OR song title stubs (by a somewhat thinly notable band) thrown together into one Afd? The inarticulated comments, which to me represented no meaningful consensus, may have led me through IAR to support policy first. I didn't see evidence the songs were performed prominently enough by the band to redirect these titles to the band. Truth be told, I'm kinda waiting to see if there is feedback from any participants in the discussion. Let me have your thoughts? :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Support policy? I'm not sure I understand you. WP:MUSIC clearly supports the redirects; I quoted the relevant section above. Which policy do you feel overrides that? I could see WP:IAR when policy is being contravened, but in this case it seems they were arguing to conform to policy to me. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:VOTE. I didn't see any meaningful discussion at all behind the votes for redirect. With no discussion for them to facilitate, I didn't think they had much sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They seemed to sway each other, which is, after all, the point. (Also, the relevant section of the policy which mentions redirecting is included in the nom's statement.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't see any discussion behind them. Without discussion, all I had was a vote (and very few participants in the AfD, another reason why it was in the backlog and nobody had wanted to close it). AfD was renamed from "votes for deletion" along time ago. ...? Do you want me to put up redirects? I'll be happy to do it, redirects are cheap (and if we're arguing yet, I'm going to stop and do what you want me to do :), but why wouldn't this be simply treating that discussion like a vote which passed by only one editor? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
←I'm not intending to argue with you, although I believe you should reconsider your closure of that particular AfD. What I would really like is to reach some kind of consensus between the two of us about what the role of an admin closing an AfD should be. :) It seems to me from what you're saying above that you think AfD is supposed to sway or convince the admin, while I am firmly of the belief that AfD participants are attempting to sway or convince each other. This is a fundamental difference, and that is some concern, because it suggests that (if I'm correctly reading our difference) one of is misunderstanding what an admin is meant to do here. I think we are in agreement that arguments that fall outside of policy can be disregarded, but it seems like you're suggesting that even arguments that accord with policy should be disregarded if the debater does not spell out his rationale completely, but trusts an assumed knowledge. That concerns me, particularly when another contributor to the debate has already quoted the relevant guideline. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly, as AfD (and I presume from the bit above on the AfD name that you're wondering about closing AfD debate as redirect? It and "merge" are mentioned as valid subsets of "keep" at Wikipedia:Deletion process.) is not a simple head count. The numbers do matter, once arguments are weighed. In terms of this specific AfD, the way I see it is this: you've got one person presumably !voting for deletion; the nom. He quoted the section of the guideline relevant to songs...and the section itself indicates that redirect and merges are proper handling. You've got three editors arguing for redirect...the first of whom obviously believes this was the nominator's intention in quoting the guideline in the first place (even says "per nomination"). Two other contributors agree...except one of which puts some of his own research in and discovers that there is no parent album for one of the songs. He does recommend deleting that one. Then you've got one "keep" arguing eventualism, clearly outnumbered. Three editors arguing for an in-guideline outcome of redirect; one who may be arguing for deletion but whose argument itself includes quotes from the policy recommending redirect; one for eventualism. Rough consensus there seems pretty clear. I believe that this AfD should have closed with a consensus for redirect and that the articles should have been accordingly redirected. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the notability guidelines support redirects here, but I don't think they stop anyone from putting up those redirects themselves, either. I closed the AfD with that in mind. If one of the editors who participated in that AfD asks me to put up one or more redirects, I'll be happy to. I'd like to wait until then, though. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
←Well, Gwen, others may feel as you do or they may not, but I personally believe the AfD should be closed according to the consensus. Since we seem to have stalemated, I think we could use some other opinions. I've listed it at DRV. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy if editors can more clearly speak to any need for redirects of these song titles, given notability policy, in the DRV. I don't think they did in the AfD. Either way, redirects are cheap. Thanks for sharing your thoughts though, I've heeded them. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
DRV is not for re-arguing the AfD, but "instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer". I will certainly grant you, though, that Wikipedians often wander off task. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hence they would more than likely have to speak more clearly to any need for redirects. Meanwhile, as I said above, "I don't think the notability guidelines support redirects here, but I don't think they stop anyone from putting up those redirects themselves, either. I closed the AfD with that in mind." If someone wants redirects, nothing is stopping anyone from putting them in. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
_DS.jpg)
