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.
I want to ask you a question about talk page edits which seem to be essentially Baiting or trolling. Responding to edits such as this [1]
have gotten me into plenty of trouble in the past, so meeting such remarks head on seems counter indicated. Should edits like this just be ignored, deleted, or some other option? It is, for me, a serious problem because I run into this sort of thing pretty often, and because I am usually disinclined to just let such things pass. My guess is that there is not much to be done but ignore it, but decided to ask anyhow. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Your guess is spot on. It's a bit snippy but I guess we're all like that now and then, I mean, it's not snarky and I wouldn't call it trolling. Baiting? Some might call it that, but for me, baiting is asking a blatantly leading question for which there is no answer you'd ever agree with. Anyway, yeah, I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 5 years and when I see posts like that, I tend not to answer but if I must, which is not often, I stay way civil (as much as I can) and stick to the topic.
Another way to look at it, you can't fix everything here, nobody can. It's ok though, because the kind of readers you'd care about are wontedly smart enough to see through the content worries of an article and still come away with something helpful, more so if it's been smoothly written. Find topics where you can sway things without stirring up too much upset (there are jillions of these) and skirt those you can't do much about other than revert straight vandalism and/or tone down only the biggest blobs of nonsense. The tides do shift here, it's easier to be steadfast and wait things out than to make a big kerfuffle out of something that'll settle down months from now anyway. Hope this answer wasn't too long though, I guess it was. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My name is Tantan Hou. I have created something for Exit Art(An non-profit organization in NYC) lately. but Seems now it has been deleted. Actually, I am now working at Exit Art and I am authorized by the Exit Art to create some thing about Exit Art on Wiki. all the texts on Exit Art's Website at www.exitart.org are also free to use for creating a Exit Art page on Wiki(That's what my supervisor said). then what can i do to work this out?
I think that a proposal that was chucked out for the umpteenth time only five months ago doesn't require revisiting again so soon, but thanks for your quick reply! It's appreciated. Knepflerle (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[2] - your good advice on respecting the existing specific consensus and not revisiting this again over individual articles fell on deaf ears it would seem. How far does this continue? Knepflerle (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess that would depend on how it carries forth. Meanwhile, there's no hope that RM or any like it will go through (these can be WP:SNOW closed by the bye), so maybe he'll get bored. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No voting is involved. The use of the Proxy Table is entirely optional and voluntary. Your participation at the RfC remains invited. It's really just a highly organized use of my user space for the purpose of seeking advice from the community. If I organize it badly, the one who suffers the most is me. Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you opened a fresh checkuser? I stopped, because in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soccermeko, you can see that they have refused to comment on the IP addresses, even though the same set ( 4.129.*.* and 4.154.*.*, which are Level3 dial-ups out of Atlanta) show up in every single case. Multiple sockpuppet cases against the pair of ranges, where the pair of ranges are geographically linked, is enough to persuade me. Kww (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's highly likely, but range blocks can affect so many users that one must be very wary of them. Since IP edits are helpful to the project in many ways, it's taken as the "last of the last" things to do. If IP socks are popping up a lot in the same articles, semi-protection is more often the easier way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please review it and let me know if it is okay. I tried to make it factual w/o any promotion to it.
I am working as getting more external references for it.
thanks Celebrateheros (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Gayle
You responded with this:
Ok, the article is now written neutrally, which is helpful, but still carries no assertion of importance and no sources supporting any notability for this organization. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the article written by The Province newspaper on SawaGlobal isn't considered an independent source to support its "notability". I am working on other references, but isn't The Province reference useful?
Gwen Gale, the editing situation of the New antisemitism article is the most abysmal I have seen. I have been trying to get two editors, in particular, to stop incivil comments, but am having no success. Here is an excerpted example from very recent discussion:
csloat wrote: "So on that issue it is quite impossible for me to discuss the article without also discussing the other editor, since his actions are tied to his alleged argument about the article. Now, let's get back to the issue of hypocrisy..."csloat (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[3]
The "hypocrisy" is not a subject of the article, but what he is saying about another editor. I am starting to suspect that the problem is not so much lack of understanding, as an intentional editing strategy of baiting. Any recourse? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I see two things, lack of civility and a content dispute stirred up by a lack of NPoV. Civility worries should be posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. As for the content, keeping in mind that articles with titles like this are targets for highly emotional edit warring (often by editors who don't have the least notion of what they're talking about, other than an overall feeling that they're upset), the only way to settle things down is to sternly follow what reliable sources from most (if not all) outlooks have to say. Any assertion which is not wholly supported by a verifiable source can be removed on sight. The pith is, topics like this can be a scourge, since editors editing from either overall outlook of both polarized PoVs will often take as foregone and self-evident the roots of their rage. Wontedly, they're all wrong and worse, both "sides" more than likely have hidden aims, which is why things can't seem to settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
CSD Group
I was wondering would a church fall under CSD A7 or would some other CSD apply? I was thinking perhaps no context could work as well. But I want to be sure I have the correct CSD. Thanks for your time. Whispering08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's an A7, group/org, no assertion of significance or importance (seeing as how the article is clearly not about the building itself). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that you are familiar with the above user, after the social networking noticeboard discussion, I thought it might be prudent to let you know about a message I left on his talk page, the subject of which I think merits further attention: link. In addition to the examples detailed in my message there, he has left the following message on his user page: "Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. SLJ will still be making minor edits, but, will be spending most of his time remodeling his userpages!"
I wish no ill will on him at all, as when he has stuck to mainspace edits he has shown he can make some valuable contributions to, and upkeep of, various Sonic-related articles, but all of the above does concern me and I do wonder whether it might be worth discussing with him again, as has been done before. Thanks for your time. Synergy/Blades (Talk)23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
On August 17 you deleted an article called Supercharge (band) because the article didn't indicate the significance of the group. Could you please reinstate the article as the band had a number one hit single in Australia in 1977 called You've Gotta Get Up and Dance.
Thanks for the speedy deletions of KMER and KZER but for reasons I cannot explain, I still find myself unable to move KMER (AM) or KZER (AM) into their proper places. This is a second try for the KMER article so I'm extra-baffled on that one. Perhaps these need the gentle touch of an admin to coax them to their new names? They're the only two of the dozens of article I've tried to move over the last week that have caused me any grief. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, and I just tried to move WERL (AM) to WERL and got the same error message. The only pattern I can see is that all of these have "ER" in the name. Bizarre. In case case, if you could nudge that one home as well I'd be grateful. Thanks for all your help. - Dravecky (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"I was talking about verifiability of content in a helpful encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)"
Sorry Gwen Gale, I tried to alter my indents so it wouldn't appear that I was replying to you. I was trying to reply to the original poster. I probably could have been more diplomatic in my response to the original poster as well. I'll post the same on your talk page so you are sure to see it. Veriss (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait a few weeks and if you're doing ok on vandalism edits (meantime mark them rvv or something like that so whoever looks at it can easily see how you've been doing) then ask and you'll very likely get it back. At that time, if you plan on being active in ACC, I think you can ask for that back too. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you grant me ACCT rights back again? Every time I log onto it there are no requests. I'll see if I can log onto it more often then. Thanks. --eric (mailbox)01:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Keep in mind, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming need at this time for users with the ACC bit. First, please ask User:Xenocidic (who took away your ACC right) and explain what happened and why you would like it back. If you have more questions or need help, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
(crossposted) eric, the ACC flag is not required to create accounts and is typically only granted to users who are participating in the ACC process and have hit the account creation throttle at least once. feel free to ask me or at WP:RFPERM once you are coming up against the throttle. –xeno (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm signed up for that list, have been. I get tons of e-mails from the mailing lists a day. So I will continue with that then. --eric (mailbox)11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As soon as you hit the throttle I'll re-instate the flag, until then, there's no need. Just stay logged into the toolserver and refresh it every 15-20 minutes, you'll find requests to fulfill. –xeno (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I did block indef (as you likely saw) and a day later, Alison confirmed through CU it was him. After his Fclass account was first indef blocked early this summer, if he'd been able to keep from stirring things up with sockies and IPs for only a month or so, I would've been happy to unblock him two weeks ago, in the hope of giving him another go at editing openly and peacefully. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Just dropping you a little "thank you." Rest assured I will be refraining from any unnecesary edits to articles or nonconstructive additions to talk pages. For the record though, citing sources and adding information of an encyclopedic nature IS fun to me... And civil is easy.Jersey John (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(Imagine I respond with some beautifully poetic line about "milady in the eye," and, doh, thought I'd grown out of forgetting to sign my name. lol Cheers.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. He seems to still be unhappy over my having blocked an IP 12 hours for "Disruptive editing: some likelihood of sock/meat puppetry - anon only" back in July. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
For some reason that doesn't surprise me. His stalking of me began over an incident in May, and he still brings it up every time his stalking and harassment is brought up. *eye roll* -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks For the Help w/Apollo 11 Manual Cover and I need some bigger assistance
Gwen I have this extremely important historical manual and I want people to see the entire thing. Any idea who I can go about it. There are 205 images. Only the front cover was a true scan. The rest were taken in the back seat of a new Nissan Maxima because to remove the binding would destroy the manuscript.
This thing completely blew my brain when he loaned it to me. Please reply to me at run2zion@gmail.com because I rarely ever log in here at all and probably won't see your reply. Even more impressive than the cover is the original artwork of the LEM landing on the moon. I have never seen this artwork so clearly anywhere. Plus all the operating schematics. This thing is a goldmine. But I just want people to have it if they are interested in it.
This will blow your mind. All the other copies in the world have been converted to 2 bit line art.
[5] Page IV from LEM Manual, 15 January 1964, drawing of astronaut landing on moon.
Thats the one I want to put up on the apollo 11 site. But I had such a hasle with the cover, I can't spare the time and its incredible piece of work.
Haha how cool! In it, I think one can see hints of how many of them were so driven by the dreamy science fiction they'd grown up with in the 30s, 40s and 50s. I'll email you, but scans of every page can likely go up on commons as time allows, no worries :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. The same user has reinserted the same, or similar, unsourced change to the Syndicalism article: [6][7][8][9]
So far I have just reverted the changes, but that does not seem to make this user change his/her pattern. Should I take it to the administrators notice board? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malcolm. None of it, old or new versions, is sourced, so although I understand what's happening, it's not vandalism, but edit warring by User:Scvisel (who is very close to 3rr) along with an utter lack of citations in the article, making it almost worthless to the reader other than throwing off a fuzzy notion of what syndicalism meant to whomever has contributed to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I had, earlier left a message on the article's talk page. Sindicato is the Italian word used for a labor union, and it is not clear to me if the subject of the article is anything different than a discussion of the European labor movements. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Latin roots are all cognate. The pith is that syndicalism is nasty blend of socialism and corporate fascism built upon labour unions (themselves twisted takes, more or less, on all that was wrong with medieval guilds), which tend to be one of the most corrupt notions thought up by 19th century minds. :) Happily though, what I have to say about it is meaningless original research. The big worry is the lack of citations and that someone is edit warring over content which is unsourced both ways. I'd revert the edit-warrior but truth be told, I think the earlier edits are as worthless as his and I don't want my name on any of them. How's that for helpful? :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not whatever. It's not vandalism, it's edit warring over wholly unsourced content. If you want to help build and settle the article, find some reliable sources to cite, don't revert back and forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. (According to my own expert source, listening to Garrison Keillor on the radio, the word is widely used in the Midwest to indicate resignation to the inetivable.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha! Ok then. I've heard it spoken with another spin altogether. Sorry I misunderstood you and thanks for telling me what you meant. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever (just kidding). I have fixed on what it means by looking at Encyclopedia Britannica, "Syndicalism is a type of movement which aims to degrade capitalist societies through action by the working class on the industrial front." — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, I could use some technical help. I just edited the introduction to the Stoicism article, and something I did resulted in red ink in the References section (if you click on a reference the red appears, but it does not always seem to be there otherwise). What went wrong? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed the reference list. The problem came when you changed the reference and the rest of reference depended upon it, so I moved the old reference down to 4 from 3 (where you added the new reference). — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I was wondering if you could help me with fixing Brian Cox's article to fine style and higher quality. Also, I am not sure on how Wikipedia handles derogatory language, such as the newly added "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t***."
Oh, you know, Brian's a spokesperson. LHC's indeed a highly lethal structure, there's a teensy, itsy bitsy risk it could set off something worldwide (I don't lose any sleep over that) and a much bigger but still very small risk that someone could botch it and blow up Geneva (I hardly lose any sleep at all over that) but what truly worries me, while I tend to have a strong scientific outlook, so far as that can go, is the utter corruption, waste and abuse of state funded science. CERN has been the chavel of many academic lives, but we're not meant to talk about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, how can I thank you? Thanks for spending two hours to fix the whole article. All I asked was how to and what rules, but you have done everything while I was having lunch. Again, I really appreciate for what you have done. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Happy to! I only spent about a half an hour on it though, then came back an hour and a half later to read it again and added another section title. Let me know if you need more help on anything! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, don't worry about the LHC at all, it's actually extremely safe to humans as in world and Geneva. The only actual danger is if a beam dump, or one of the superconductor quadruplet magnet explodes, which actually has already happened in 2007 due to support structure of a quadruplet magnet. Even still the magnets and beam dumps are 100 meters below Geneva so only danger is to part of LHC itself. If that wasn't enough, I am actually moving to Geneva for few months in 2009 when full energy will be reached, to experience in CERN control center for full luminosity LHC beam collisions at 7 tera-electronvolts per proton. OK, now about strange-matter and black holes. The reason they are not going to be created is because Earth is getting hit by particles far more energetic, and that has been going on for billions of years and Earth is still here. So sadly no black holes will be created due to extremely low probability (sadly because it would tell us that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions). And even if a black hole do show up it will annihilate in less than a billionth of a second into particles from which we will be able to tell if they were indeed created; This can't happen but lets just say, even if it doesn't annihilate it will not grow, here is a good detail http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1938.
OK, so the world and Geneva are safe, but what do scientists mean by low probabilities? Actually scientists are talking about the quantum probabilities which is in physics in which everything is possible (so YES there is a probability that we can destroy the world by just breathing) but these possibilities are so low that for normal people (non-physicists) it is absolutely impossible. It would take an eternity if not eternities before even having a reasonable chance of happening. The LHC is absolutely extremely important for advance of humanity in everything (yes everything). On Wikipedia and other places people are having fiesta on what ways LHC is going to destroy the world with no knowledge about why is it going to do what, and of quantum physics (I really wish people had more knowledge about the world; I am not talking about you, you are way above of average). You may read from Michio Kaku on danger http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/cern.particlephysics1, and hear on weirdness of quantum mechanics http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/sep/01/science.weekly.extra.podcast2. So please don't worry and have a great life. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Orion, as I said, I'm not losing sleep over it, I do grok a shred or two about quantum probability and am the first to say most of those who bring up the topic have not a clue what they're going on about (truth be told, there are only a handful of folks in my life from whom I'll abide any utterance of the word quantum at all). The local worries in Geneva have aught to do with the beam but with much more conventional chemical (gas) explosion/seismic risks. I'm keenly aware of LHC research's hoped-for sway on human knowledge: The sales job's been at least as clever as the physics and the canton's done wonderfully off that! Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I respect your objectivity; could you take a look at this article? It seems to have been taken over by an anonymous user and other folks intent on discrediting the "Eurabia" theory, and they are intent on blocking and/or mis-tagging any well-sourced contrary information.
They have even removed a neutrality-disputed tag several times before bothering to engage in debate. I requested informal mediation, but so far no mediator has been assigned, and other editors appear to unwilling to respond to the mediation. I know you are busy, but tell me what you think. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. For example, they challenge a source which doesn't mention the specific word "Eurabia". However, the source is defending a book entirely about "Eurabia". Could you clarify whether a source must mention the exact title of a Wikipedia article in order to be included as a source in the article? Freedom Fan (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The pith there would be, the topic's Eurabia, so if the source (book, chapter, paragraph, article, web page, whatever) doesn't deal spot on with Eurabia that's wanton cite spanning and you can rm it. This said, the background on this topic, which the article doesn't acknowledge, is such that someone like me wouldn't think it's worthy of a skilled editor's time (other than checking out whatever sources get thrown in). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Have you told all the other administrators what you did? And what are you going to do with the other usernames? Delete them? Fclass (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
One more request. Could you rename the Afro-Jamaican page back to "Jamaicans of African descent?" I tried doing it, but it didn't work. Black people in and from Jamaica don't call themselves "Afro-Jamaican." The term does not exist at all. Fclass (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way your assertion that the term Afro-Jamaican "does not exist at all" is wholly mistaken. A strict text search on Google yields over 15,000 hits. You must learn to be more careful about the assumptions you make as to ethnicity and terminology, along with citing your edits to reliable sources. Moreover, the widely supported term does indeed seem to be Afro-Jamaican. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
it actually is "cock." im sorry if that offends you. but I am in the army and I would know. it's not vandalism, it's just the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1. no but it did seem a safe assumption, considering the context.
2. you didn't say anything one way or the other.
3. no. i didn't. my mistake.
4. somewhat... heh
anyway, i wasn't being argumentitve, i dont see why you must have such a harsh tone... Jersey John (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) also, if you're tracking all my contributions... is that necesary? unless of course, you really ARE interested in united states army cadences and marching tunes lol...
What is with you and that word? On second thought, don't answer, I don't want to know. You're the one who showed up here and blurted it out. Thanks for reading what I had to say though, along with putting it in the "alternate" part of the article. If I hadn't believed you, by the bye, I'd have been unswayable about having a citation. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You are not doing a good job covering up your hostility. There is nothing with me "about that word." I do not know what your issue is with me but please stop. Thank you. Jersey John (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oh and, by the bye, if you saw my watchlist and noticed some, shall we say, very odd things on there, some of them saying things about brits which i am assuming you are one, please note I did not put those there, I have no clue how they got there. Foul play obviously.
I know you've been helping this user a lot as seen above. I, however, am concerned by this where he calls someone "racist". I don't know the reasoning behind his unblock, but I am concerned by the diff. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
i didnt link to a blog, i linked to a video posted on a blog
this is about the 'alex jones' article, the michelle malkin incident
i provided detailed information about what minute/second cue you could view the given quotes in the video. the video was a primary source of an event that happened, i dont understand why you would consider this to be 'non reliable'. was the video faked? did someone edit alex jones' voice, and then photoshop his lips to match the words?
Neither YouTube nor a blog is a reliable source for a video, because the uploads are unmoderated. Moreover you're edit warring, please stop now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a question
Is it ok to add information on wikipedia if you interview the person who the article is about? I mean how do you source that information. I may be able to interview a couple of people over the internet, via IM or email so how do I go about making it useful to wikipedia??? SholeemGriffin (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's wonderful that you want to add new content about Wikipedia. However, if you do the interviews yourself, these would be original research, which cannot be added to the encyclopedia. Only if you can get the interviews published by a third party reliable source might one be able to cite them to support article content. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the group "Bicolline" has been widely covered in media, evidencing notability. I think the article included some of these sources, but some may have been on the talk page. Just saw you speedy delete now - can you give reasons? I could prhaps understand an AfD (although I think it would survive, as I say there's lots of coverage) but speedy seems extreme for that article. Unfortunately I'm about to be away from the internet for a week from tomorrow, but there's no hurry so I can take this up with you on my return. Cheers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this was borderline, I almost declined the speedy, I'm happy to restore it in the hope you can:
Make an assertion of significance in the lead (there is none, which is why the article was tagged as a CSD A7) and,
Find more non-trivial coverage. The two French language articles are helpful and fun to read but the number of participants is low and this seems to be a local event. Neither the film nor the book noted on the talk page have been released, they're yet but foreseen (the film doesn't even seem to be in production).
I'm going to say this here so that conversation does not get.. fractured. I speedied the articles because the current sources were non-english, and therefore non-verifiable. As per WP:NONENG.— DædαlusContribs /Improve11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries about your having tagged it, the text is A7. Having read the French-language articles I can say they only confirm shreds of local notability. As I said, it's borderline, so I'm ok with putting it back by editor request. If you think, as I do, that notability's lacking, I suggest an AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and noted. >.> I should really be getting to sleep, I've been wikipedia'ing, and modeling for several hours now.. and it appears to be almost 5 am... night!— DædαlusContribs /Improve11:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
These mass larp article deletions come at an unfortunate time for me, as I'm about to head away from the internet for a week. The rationale of the nominator seems poor - surely subjects that are only covered in French can still be notable, and only "un-verifiable" for people who don't happen to read French or know how to use a translator tool. It also seems like an ad hoc rationale, given that the nominator is nominating larp articles in bulk. The admin's call that the articles only demonstrate local notability is worth looking at, but I suspect incorrect. I gather the subject is notable at least in Quebec, which seems a wide enough scope to me. Unfortunately I'll miss the AfD if it starts now, so I'd like to request it be delayed a week. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish to apologize for some comments that I made some time ago on the Jarvis Island talkpage. I disagreed with your reversion of my edits and the characterization of them as "unhelpful", and still do with regard to some of them, though I'm not as "hung up" about the whole thing as I was then. In retrospect, however, I believe my comments were rather rude and thus themselves "beyond the pale" (a term I used at the time), and I have accordingly removed them from the talk page. If I offended you by anything I wrote there, I sincerely apologize. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the note. I was never offended, I always took what you said as coming from good faith and left it at that, without saying anything more. Since you said you were very unhappy but weren't going to dispute it, I was so wary of saying anything that might be misunderstood, or stirring up more unhappiness, I let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
How to get the "Beauty Bridge" page posted again?
We wrote the article called "Beauty Bridge" which is a trademark owned company serving and served closed to million customers. People search for this company and want to know more about that.
When we were writing this article we inspired from Sephora which has been selling similar products and services and one of Beauty Bridge's competitor.
What should we do in order to Beauty Bridge article get relisted?Gerkavun (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about what can be done about the 5W Public Relations article. I apologize in advance if this is long and a bit confusing. The article itself has been wrought with edit warring socks and related IPs who are POV pushing and seem to have a COI. The article has since been locked in an attempt to settle the fight over POV wording and bad sources after I filed a 3RR report yesterday. To a degree, this is a content dispute, but it is one that could probably be easily solved if the involved IPs and related user weren't the same person (the user and one IP were confirmed as being the same editor and briefly blocked back in July but have since resumed editing. Yet another checkuser is pending) with an apparent agenda. I have no problem with working through the issues, but it seems totally useless to attempt to get any sort of resolution when one user is masquerading as two. There's a dialog on the article talk page in progress, but it's all over the place. One of the IPs (207.237.137.37) seems to be in his own little copy & paste world and ignoring points that are raised as if they are solved. There are two other editors, Flowanda and Mosmof (who has had the pleasure of being harassed by both the the related IP and the related user), besides myself who are also involved in this and both have been trying to defend this page from these guys for quite a bit (I only became involved after catching one revert on Huggle). My question is (finally!), which board would be the best to file this? It seems to be a COI conflict, but there's also sockpuppetry, long term abuse, and edit warring. Any help would be greatly appreciated and again, sorry for the length. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
First thing, is to get rid of any sockpuppets/puppeteers. If IPs are stirring up worries, the page can be semi-protected for weeks at a time if need be. Then, start blocking for edit warring, which need not reach the threshold of 3rr. I can help. This may not need to be posted to ANI, but if you do this, bring up only the socks first, since admins would tend to see all the other stuff once they started looking. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I'll go ahead and open a SSP report on the users involved since the first checkuser report was positive. That will probably fix things for a time and then we can start sniping the new ones off from there. Thanks again! Pinkadelica (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't editing between the time that got nominated for speedy and speedied, and, frankly, don't recall what was in it. Can you restore it to my userspace, so I can see if I want to make an argument to keep? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at it, I think you made a mistake speedying it. Your deletion comment was "(A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.: although many references are cited, most are not reliable or independent) - the first reference cited is Wired (magazine), which is both reliable and independent. As for "a meaningful assertion of significance in the lead", that would be "True Dungeon has been described as "the single most popular event" at Gen Con. People attend Gen Con just for True Dungeon." which are in the lead, and cited. If you think that's not enough, then take it to AfD, but the assertion has been made, so it's is not eligible for speedy. I don't recall, specifically, and you didn't restore the article talk page, which would have documented it, but I seem to remember the article survived an AfD before. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The article was tagged by an editor and then deleted by me because it carries no assertion of significance. I did look at the citations before making the deletion and although there are many, they are very thin. The Wired article doesn't seem to confer notability at all, only verifiability. There is no note of an AfD on the talk page and no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Adventures. WP:DRV would be the next step. If a consensus to restore shows up I'll be happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's make that a little more graphic. :-) I know it's hard to go back and say: I may have been wrong. Thanks for being big enough to do that. --GRuban (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, ta! Mind, I don't think I was wrong but now and then, a straightforward take on A7 doesn't quite match up with the background, on-wiki and off, of a topic. Hearing from a bunch of good faith editors made me think that's what was happening here and I'm always happy to find a reason to restore stuff, moreover if I think it'll be watched over. I'm hoping y'all will strengthen the leads of these articles so this doesn't happen again. Cheers for the daisy-thingy! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure as to your motive for the deletion of Darkon Wargaming Club for its being "Non-notable", as the group, which is a 25-year old non-profit organization with over 3,000 members, was notable enough to not only have been featured on Fox News and CNN, but also have a full-length documentary about it. I feel that this meets requirements for notability. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§05:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article makes no assertions of importance, nor did it mention the club had been featured in any national television broadcasts, hence it was deleted as a CSD A7. Would you like a copy in your user space, to hopefully build up the article and get it by CSD? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the television broadcasts were not mentioned, in the first paragraph the documentary is clearly stated. If you can copy it back to my userspace that's fine...but I think it would be easier to restore this article which does not meet the criteria for A7 deletion, which I feel was a bit harsh. Its notability is clearly defined in the article. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§06:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to reconsider your deletion of True Adventures? While the article was poor at explaining the notability, with about 3,000 players, a budget on the order of $100,000 a year for a single four day event, and a level of complexity of build unmatched in the US, it is most certainly notable. You appear to have deleted it under Wikipedia:CSD#A7 while ignoring the citations provided as "not reliable or independent". CSD A7 specifically says we should not consider verifiability or reliability of sources, only that notability is asserted. If you would be so kind as to restore the article, I will strive to make the notability far more clear. — Alan De Smet | Talk14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, let's just turn this into a list. Should be easier to go over:
True Adventures - Massive complexity of build, 3,000 players and ticket sales of over $100,000 for a single event.
LARP Alliance - Previously speedy deleted and restored for the exact same reason. As such warrants a proper AfD discussion and not just a speedy deletion.
(More to come, I'm sure)
No notability was asserted, they were all A7s. Any note I made about sources had to do with my having tried to skirt deleting an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is that some the groups are notable and in many cases did list why they were notable. The article's only fault was failing to clearly spell out the notability. As far as I can tell, had I gotten to each of these pages before you and simply slapped, "This group is notable for" with my above notes, they would still be there. I would in fact have already done so had I realized that someone unfamiliar with LARPing would not have appreciated their notability from the article as they stood. As far as I can tell, I could re-create them right now, but more carefully spell out the notability and they would survive a CSD challenge. If I must, I will. But I'll be spending hours of work copying text from Google and re-wikifying it. Were the articles restored, it will save me a great deal of time. Please reconsider. — Alan De Smet | Talk22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying these articles would survive an AfD challenge on notability grounds. That's not the question. I'm saying that speedy deletion was too aggressive. CSD:A7 very clearly sets a lower bar for notability than the wider standards. Were I to repost the articles, in the process pulling out the notable part and putting a very clear, "This group is notable because," would they have survived an A7 speedy deletion attempt? I believe so. If that's the case, the flaw was simply that the notability wasn't well stated. As such, restoration and an opportunity to make this very minor improvement is superior to posting new articles copied off Google and losing the edit history. — Alan De Smet | Talk22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
LARP doesn't need to be clogged with them. Indeed many of these articles exist because LARP was getting clogged. I feel that the standard that each group's article needs to survive on their own is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps none of them will survive AfD. But, for the reasons given above I believe CSD was the wrong path to deleting them. I believe the articles were deleted on a minor technicality that is easily remedied. I would like the opportunity to remedy the minor fault. If they're not notable enough, they'll be deleted via AfD soon enough. — Alan De Smet | Talk23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my suggestion for LARP clubs. "Clogging" LARP would not be a worry. Either way, they were all CSD A7, which is not a "minor technicality," nor was there a "minor fault" in each of these articles. As you acknowledge there is a question whether any of these could make it through AfD, so I see no need to restore them. You might want to look into WP:DRV instead, since if a consensus showed up there to restore, I'd be more than happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was reading it as a way to weasel otherwise arguably non-notable topics into Wikipedia, which I decidedly don't want to do. As I said above, I'm okay with the articles standing on their own strengths, so I thought my answer was implied. Upon further thought, perhaps such an article could stand on its own merits, one I'll consider the possibility. That the articles might not survive AfD (and I believe some would), seems irrelevant to my questioning the decision to speedily delete them. And my point isn't that CSD:A7 is minor; my point was that some of the articles did express notability, simply poorly, a minor and easily correctable fault. However, it seems clear we disagree, so I'll take it to DRV. Though we disagree, thank you for your time. — Alan De Smet | Talk00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to let people know on their talk pages. I appreciated it. Also, thank you for all your time in this matter. From here as a non-admin it looks like tiring work, and I'm thankful to you and other admins for doing it. — Alan De Smet | Talk22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Your removal of material by Hayabusa2938 on talk page
Hi. I noticed that you made this edit and wondered if you'd care to clarify. I see that you blocked (the very rude) Hayabusa2938 for leaving a fake signature, but why not just clarify that it was his comment instead of erasing it. The comment to the talk page that you reverted did not appear especially offensive. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The signature was forged (with the name of his sockpuppet) and the edit summary was a lie, the comment waved GNAA like a troll flag, hence the edit was vandalism and I reverted it as such. If you support forged signatures and wholly misleading edit summaries, please take it to WP:Village Pump and get a consensus for a change in policy which would allow and/or encourage these methods, as you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that I do not support Hayabusa's methods. I can also see that his comments might be somewhat defamatory (against Administrators). Since I do not have Administrative tools to check to see if the page he mentioned actually was erased, and whether the erasures he mentioned were also erased I wasn't sure if his comments were lies, or were just his opinions. That's why I asked. Please don't take it personally. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, it wasn't a forged signature. (It may have been a sockpuppet, of course, but using a sock isn't the same as forging a signature) The original comment was by Mythstory (again, presumably a sock), so restoring the comment with the original name is hardly 'forging'.
Additionally, it was poor form for Gwen to lock his talk page for insulting her personally. That's generally a conflict of interest, so she really should've had someone else do it for her. (It's not about impropriety. It's about the appearance of impropriety) (uh... did I spell 'impropriety' right? anyways, you know what I mean)
That said, while although the actual content of the original comment wasn't terribly offensive (and in some parts was even true: wikipedia is indeed censored, and abuse of power is a problem in any large project), it was still entirely unrelated to the advancement of any article. So, issues concerning sockpuppets, and a comment that didn't belong in an article talk page... general practice is to simply remove it. (though it shouldn't have been marked as 'minor', but that's a clerical issue)
Incidentally, you don't need to be an admin to see if someone has deleted a page. You can see the deletion log here. However, many of those previous "attempts" didn't actually include any conversation whatsoever, so they don't really count as "surviving deletion". (eg. Check out the 12th-17th attempts here: [10]. Many keeps were after less than 8 people commented at all, and at least one was a lack of consensus=>default keep) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose she could be making a sly comment that you are a sock puppet. In any event, to make it 100% clear, I would NOT like to be blocked. However, even an vague suggestion by Gwen Gale that I should be blocked for this line of questioning makes me seriously question her competence as an administrator. Gwen Gale, please assume good faith in the future. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me?!?
You care telling me what policy, rule, or even general rule of etiquette I broke that would warrant blocking?!? If not, don't go throwing around random threats. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Uh... because... I'm made of concrete? You never know if I'm finished? Pictures of me would benefit from extensive airbrushing? (not going to disagree on that one) I don't get it. Nor do I understand how that warrants threatening someone. Civil much? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(I don't understand why you're pushing the indents in so far) So... you're saying that I'm empty, costly, botched and doomed?
So first you threaten me, and when I ask why you were threatening me, you switched to insults? Since when is this acceptable behaviour? Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And then, please start following them. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are - things are settling down though, and I think we are beginning to reach a consensus. Maybe I jumped the gun asking for a third opinion. Take a look if you like, but not required. Thanks--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Question
Wikipedia Commons images can only be deleted at Wikipedia Commons, not Wikipedia, right? And could you please remove the sockpuppet tag from my user page? Fclass (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
I notice that you removed someone's comment in the Kim Jong-il discussion page (here).
I know you had the most honest of intentions, but I don't think you were reading their comment very carefully before you deleted it.
It was not just a random bit of nonsense. The article itself, under Fictional portrayals, says, Comedian David Letterman refers to him as "Lil Kim" or "Ment-Ally Ill". The talk page comment was a correction that Letterman suggested that he had a brother called "Ment-Ally Ill". ie. he was suggesting that part of the article was slightly inaccurate.Keeping that in mind, I cannot fathom any reason to remove such a comment without any explanation.
Again, I assume it was just an honest mistake (heck, even I misread the comment at first as well), but you really should be just a slight bit more careful before removing the comments of other editors in the future. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In Gwen's defense, a comment by David Letterman is hardly encyclopedic to start with, and that bit in the article appears unsourced anyway. Frank | talk 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I entirely agree. And I don't think Letterman calling him "Lil Kim" or making jokes about an imaginary brother even qualify as "fictional portrayals" to begin with. Frankly, I don't think either should be in the article. My concern, however, isn't with the accuracy of such a trivial detail in the article, but rather with the removal of an editor's comments from a talk page.
Like I said, I read it wrong first as well, but that's why I read it again before removing it. Honest mistake of course, Gwen does a lot of work, so statistics demand that she make such a mistake eventually (trust me, you don't want to meet 'statistics' in a dark alley). I just figure that nobody can learn from a mistake if they don't know they even made it. :)
(incidentally, no point in replying to this on my talk page, as it's a dynamic IP. If you choose to reply, you can do so here, or you can just ignore me. :D 209.90.134.118 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
But can I ignore you here? ;-) Seriously - I think Gwen's revert was clean, since the comment was without context. No biggie though. How about if we just remove the Letterman remark from the article in the first place? Frank | talk 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I am puzzled by what is going on with this user page. Michael Laitman is a well known Kabbalist with a large cult following. This should be an article, not a user page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It seemed very strange to see a user page about a notable (and somewhat controversial) person, that looked like an article. I could not quite figure it out; but the WP:AN/I, a user accusing me of "disruptive activity", and a lot of time wasted on "yes you did" and "no I didn't", made it secondary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to start Michael Laitman in the article space, that's ok. As for the ANI bit, the easiest way to skirt a yes you did and no I didn't back and forth is to never even come close to edit warring (try holding to 1rr) and cite reliable sources on the talk page if need be (you know not to ever say anything about an editor during a disupte, but rather to comment only and sparingly on sources). Also, in a dispute, keep article talk page posts as short as can be, a sentence or two if you can do it. All this makes the diffs very easy for an uninvolved admin to look at and you won't have to defend yourself (hardly) at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but in this case I am not so sure. This involves a user I asked you about a while back because of incivility. It did involve about one revert a day for a few days. It was just an editing dispute involved a change to a template made by Jayjg that the other editor had reverted...and I reverted back, etc. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There you are: You commented on another editor straight off :) Another hint, never use the words good, bad or grammar in an edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
According to th Stoic philosophers, "...nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant." [11]. As for commenting on grammer, I am just a undeucated worker, and know nothing about it. Thanks for the advice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are not deleted under RTV, as numerous administrators had said there. Why did you delete this page? seresin ( ¡? )20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If the user is not in good standing, the community may decline to delete user pages, most often the talk page. This happens, but otherwise you might want to ask them. WP:RTV is clear and makes no exception for talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It does not explicitly say we do not delete talk pages, that is true, but it does not say we do. Several people here, as well as the three administrators I mentioned above, do not agree with you that RTV covers user talk pages. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance. seresin ( ¡? )21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
See Right to Vanish at meta, which says User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted.Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is starting to sound like wikilawyering to me. Meta is referred to in the see also section of WP:RTV. Moreover, when RTV refers to user page and subpages, it wlinks to Wikipedia:User page which clearly includes talk pages, which have been a part of RTVs for users in good standing as long as I can remember. As I said, users not in good standing sometimes are declined deletion of their talk pages, which is how this misunderstanding likely came about. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
←The main thing is that in all discussions I've found about this, the agreement is that talk pages aren't deleted. They can be blanked, and they're not indexed by search engines. You seem to be the distinct majority in this opinion, given what I provided above. Given LRG's history, I don't view the deletion as wise after the speedy had been denied and two other administrators agreed. But fighting about [this editor] is hardly worth my time. So I'll defer to you. seresin ( ¡? )21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Those were good faith misunderstandings. Mind, lots of RTVs come about because a user not in good standing (or at least, in "dodgy" standing) has become unhappy about how things have gone and wants the user account and its history thrown down the memory hole, but nevertheless the talk pages are kept, following the "good standing" bit in RTV, so that later editors and admins stumbling across the user's edits may be made aware of past worries. If one wants to assert that [this editor] was not in good standing, that's another tale. However, in my experience, the talk page is deleted in uncontroversial right to vanish episodes, which we are all much less likely to hear about, whereas the "not in good standing" episodes get plastered all over ANI and AN, the talk pages aren't deleted and hence, a snowball of misunderstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think those were misunderstandings at all, I think that's what the community supported and thought was happening all along. Talk pages are different from other userpages, and contain large amounts of comments/contributions from other editors. I'm very tempted to take this to DRV, and make some proposals to clear up this deletion nonsense once and for all. -- Ned Scott04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
RTV is clear, talk page deletion is not nonsense. If you want to try and get the policy changed and consensus gathers for that, it's ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
RTV is certainly not clear on that issue, and I recall several discussions where several long standing editors and admins have said that RTV did not include talk pages. There is no policy to change. -- Ned Scott04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's one thing to simply disagree, but now you're just acting stupid. For one, it's not a policy. Two, we've specifically held a different version from meta for years, so whatever the heck they've put on their page means jack shit in regards to what this community supports. Historically, we've always treated user talk" and user namespaces differently. This is evident at WP:CSD, WP:UP, and several other pages and discussions. What the heck gives here, Gwen? I'm already collecting links for the DRV listing, but I don't understand why that is necessary. It's pretty clear from WT:RTV itself that there is no consensus for the user talk page to be deleted at request, and RTV on en.wiki has always been a guideline. It's not covered under WP:CSD, either. -- Ned Scott04:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ned, I'm not sure what communication Gwen Gale has had with [this editor], but he's told me in email about serious harassment concerns that prompted his decision to vanish. Instead of arguing about whether policy, guideline or convention supports the deletion, let's think about this in terms of why we don't generally delete talk pages. Talk pages contain lots of things, but among problematic users, they might contain warnings, discussions of problem behavior, notices about sanctions, etc. (I'm speaking globally, here). The project obviously has an interest in keeping that king of stuff around so that any editor (not just an admin) can show at a stroke that user x has received 3 warnings for y behavior and ought to get blocked for it. With someone who has vanished, it's obviously a different story. Perhaps with the drama queens who leave the site every few months, one could make an argument for keeping a talk page around for their inevitable return, but there's nothing to indicate that's the case here. Once someone has left the talk page, there's much less to zero reason that we must keep it. In fact, convention is to delete talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors after one month. Now, [this editor]'s not blocked, but I'd like you to consider whether whatever archival benefit of having his talk page around outweighs harassment concerns?--chaser - t23:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with Chaser: nontrivial harassment concerns exist. Deletion is the correct move. Worst case scenario on the one hand is he returns and merits a block before any of us notice it (unlikely on its face) and gets blocked for, perhaps, 24 hours instead of 72 (although any admin who sees the block log is likely to inquire further anyway). Worst case scenario on the other hand is actual harassment. This is a clear decision. DurovaCharge!01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, way to keep cool, Gwen. Secondly, FWIW, I support the deletion. Finally, it looks like the policy does now state that user talk pages can be deleted if a user vanishes. Cheers, WODUP03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ned and Seresin, the user in question is gone, how about we just let him disappear and let the matter rest? I'm sure that we've all got much, much better things to do than worry about departed editors. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC).
I'm not buying that deleting his talk page helps him in any way with a situation involving harassment, but I don't object to such reasons (and have accepted them in the past when I've asked about a user talk deletion). Jesus, Gwen, you could have at least told me that there was a reasonably good rational for the deletion. -- Ned Scott06:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo's edit doesn't clarify anything. Like I've said, I (and probably most editors) don't oppose a reasonable deletion for things like harassment and personal info, but deletion of user talk pages by request is not a given "right" under RTV. -- Ned Scott07:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sceptik has, of course, been ostensibly entirely idle since being banned. But it strikes me as more than a little suspicious that anonymous users should simultaneously appear, one pursuing the same obscure (but arguably homophobic) line of tendentious editing that Sceptik had been engaged in, and the other praising Sceptik in openly anti-gay language as though Sceptik were currently active. I seem to recall that you were involved in dealing with Sceptik's behaviour last month, and took a reasonable and helpful line then. I wonder if User:Contaldo80 and I might request your assistance again in trying to understand and deal with the present situation, such as it is?
Possibly not. I just felt it would be helpful to flag up the probably connection between these various events and the existing previously-banned user. I'm happy to deal with the 'Revert' element of RBI, and the 'Ignore' aspect within reason. Thanks for your response! AlexTiefling (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Refering to the delete of the user page: Cobraz.
This is actually a true artist, I am marketing my self trough internet.
And I've been doing this the past 3 years, and I've got alot of public attention trough doing this,
mostly in Norway. So, I think it is a importiance..
An IP User:207.232.97.13 you've dealt with not too long ago who seems to have lots of "legitimate" (at least admitted) socks has been heavily editing the Political Positions of Sarah Palin page. The edits don't appear to be vandalism from first glance, but I would think such extensive editing of the page would be better with some consensus behind them, as the page is controversial. I went to comment on the userpage, but after saw the clearly labeled sock drawer (which freaked me out, though I don't get the nuances of socking policy) and your recent two-week block and even further vandalism notices more recently and thought I'd defer to your judgement on this. Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Done, I don't think anyone'll ever miss it. Next time, keep in mind there's nothing untowards about letting the listing sit for 5-7 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
speedies
Please restore Camarilla (fan club) and f Alliance larp which both make a very clear assertion of notability as major international groups for their games. (and any other of the similar nominations by Daedalus969, who was under the impression that even clear-cut claims of importance must be referenced in RSs to pass speedy). You may in this connection be interested in a related AfD [13]DGG (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, these are A7s and neither makes a clear assertion of significance or importance. Moreover neither article asserts meaningful, non-trivial coverage by independent sources (a single cite to an article in the Boston Globe from 17 years ago isn't enough). Within the LARP world they may be taken as "major international groups" but otherwise, they're not. However, on Wikipedia, now and then some things trump CSD A7 worries and I'm more than happy to put them back. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of live-action role-playing groups, taken altogether, the topic of LARPs is encyclopedic and hence I think a list of them would be too. Which ones to list would be but an editorial worry. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at this article several months ago, and was surprised recently to find that you had deleted it on 12 June 2008 on the grounds of "advertising". I may be looking in the wrong place, but haven't found any discussion of that - it may have been a speedy deletion. In my view Ms Brennan is notable enough for an article (clearly that would need to be demonstrated) and an article could be collated from independent sources. Before I try to put together a new article on that basis, I'd be grateful if you could confirm whether or not there was any discussion (and if so point me towards it), and if you have any comments on whether or how I should approach it (recognising that I have started a lot of other articles before now, but don't want to waste my time on something that is likely to be deleted again anyway). Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It was tagged by an editor for speedy deletion and deleted by me. You're an experienced editor so I'd like to let you decide if you think it's worth rewriting, sourcing and establishing notability. I can put the deleted content in your user space or, if you think you can fix it fairly quickly, I'll restore it straight off. Let me know! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: User formally known as "evenin' scrot" has been limited to one account, but he continues to refer to his prior offensive names (Evenin' scrot, dong-gook, coney island whitefish...) on his new user page (User:Supervox2113) - proudly, I would venture to say, he thinks the whole thing is a big joke. Which is fine - as Lar says, we can't force people to be good editors. My question: does persistent reference to violative names also violate any wikipedia policy? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree! It is disruptive. In fact, even this guides GF edits are, in their own way, disruptive. Look at the volume of discussion on this talk page!! He is very persistent. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Was one of the first commercial LRP clubs in the UK (possibly the world). I would argue that makes it relevant enough for inclusion. However I can't check the text since it's been deleted. It that available anywhere?
This was another CSD A7, no assertion of importance or significance. I've put it at User:Alex/sandbox: If you can fix the text so that it asserts some kind of notability, please feel free to put it back in the article space. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And Maelstrom has gone as well. It's the second largest festival game in the UK. Easily as significant as some of the others still listed on List_of_live-action_role-playing_groups. I'll have a look at the Treasrure Trap text and see if I can make it clearer. -- User:Alex—Preceding undated comment was added at 10:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC).
Yes, very likely. I had seen it but since it was only an edit to his user page I didn't think much of it. Please let me know if it goes beyond that, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. He once played quite a disruptive nomic [15] on a user page. (A lengthy discussion with Lar ensued. One poor user even tried to follow the "talk page rules" to leave him a message. [16]). WP:OWN!?! For historical purposes, it is informative. Thank you again for doing a good job here. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you reverted my 12th september edits on the Alex Jones page? You not only restored the page to a clearly biased version (referring to Rubin's shameful "apologist for Russian aggression" edit) you've since allowed it to be edited for bias in the other direction (now it's Georgian aggression) and locked the page. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I've wholly neutralized the statement. Meanwhile, the page is only semi-protected for now, any confirmed user can make edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've blanked the talk pages and taken the sockie tags off the user pages, it's about the most I can do for now, given the history. You'll more or less always need to acknowledge and disclose these accounts. If you stay in good standing, they won't mean much at all, Wikipedia is a very forgiving website, since we need all the helpful volunteers we can get. Looking at your recent contribs, I must ask again that you be careful when making any edits having to do with ethnicity. I suggest you don't make any such edits at all for the time being, but if you do, you must cite reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You know what? Forget it. Forget I asked. It was a dumb question. Put those sockpuppet tags back. I'm sorry for wasting your time. Fclass (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't dumb. No need to say you're sorry (though it's cool of you to say it), no need to put the tags back, the little category lines are more than enough to keep the history. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I pointed that out to Ryulong on his talk page. Well, not explicitly, but I asked whether this happened because it was such an old account. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a canny software glitch to me. Sanger seems to have edited from User:LarrySanger for a short time (maybe the early software couldn't handle spaces in usernames), then abandoned the account for another (not User:Larry Sanger, which has a contrib history starting a year later), with some sort of step taken back in those early and experimental days (on the dev level?) to "delete" User:LarrySanger. Meanwhile the contrib history stayed in the database, only to be tagged back on when the username was taken globally years later by someone else for less than helpful edits. Something like that, anyway :) Gwen Gale (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've commented at AN. Probably worth dropping a note at WP:VPT or the technical mailing list or pinging a developer or opening a bugzilla entry or finding a place to report SUL bugs (maybe it is a feature and not a bug?). The early software (I'm sure you know this) was UseMod and used CamelCase. Carcharoth (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't helped that she or someone closely linked with her have been making blatant WP:COI, highly promotional edits. Although these are always reverted, they draw questions about her notability, which is indeed borderline for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's ok now. The most helpful thing those who have a direct interest in her career can do is stay away from the article (suggestions on the talk page are welcome though). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I know you are busy but, was hoping you'd be willing to help me with another article. Joe Sernio needs a lot of help. I don't think he is notable and I think there are some definite COI, and puppet concerns but, want to be as fair as I can so have been trying to improve it and help the author(s) improve it with suggestions without any real success. I ended up taking it to AfD which ended up as a no consensus close. I'm still looking without success (as well as trying to get the author(s)) to be actually constructive and openup proper two way communications (neither of which seems to be working). Was hoping you'd be willing to contribute some (either by helping to improve the article or by interceding with the author(s)). Thanks either way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So far he looks to me like a non-notable bit player and the AfD "should" have closed with a delete. With that, I'd say the article needs some skiving down and maybe semi-protection from the IP who is likely you-know-who. I am busy these days but when I have spare minutes maybe I can do something edit by edit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I took a few minutes to do a cleanup. There's not much to this topic. I've saved the sources and will go through them as time allows. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My worry is, once the article has been brought to encyclopedic fitness it looks to me as though it will only support his non-notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. I spent about 2 months trying to prove notability and such before eventually taking it to the AfD in the first place (including trying to get help at Editors Assistance and such). It's why I need help from other people because I think some people think I'm just trying to hurt the subject or the author(s) when I really just want the article to be up to snuff (if possible). If there is any doubt I'm sure my contribs will show things in a clearer light. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. I've been through all the sources now and this guy is not notable. His only independent coverage is a single short article which is highly local and trivial. He has had no noted roles as an actor. The film for which he has a lead role is a webcast. I'm not sure what to make of the film for which he has a lead role. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That single local article clearly (but enthusiastically) describes him as a (local) struggling actor. I'm likely going to write up another AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Another scary thing is he apparently does "web content" as his "real job" which has made other things even harder to confirm properly. Should I stay away from the new AfD if you right it up or am I okay to comment at it despite my "history" with the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that he works in the web content industry, the outcome of which, here, indeed makes for a bit more work in skiving out the fluff from the independent coverage, of which there is none. Even that local article was posted by someone to one of those "free press release sites," along with another blurb about one of his credits. There is nothing untowards about clever self-promotion, but that's all we have here and it's not enough to support an article about him on Wikipedia. Yes, you can comment on the AfD, which I will write up shortly. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there may be a circular approach by one or more users on this as well but, am unsure of the proper way to report it and such. For instance, Currents (magazine) and Vinny Vella seem to exist or existed more for lending credence to this person than for actual encyclopedic reasons. I'm attempting to fix bits on the Vella article (just in case the role in Casino) makes him notable enough. Is there some central project or something that helps with stuff like this or is it just a case of reporting to it to the SSP, and other boards? Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm cleaning Vella up now (best I can). Hopefully, some others will be able to help. The question was meant to be more general in case I come across similar behaviour from others not about this specific case. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Naw, first try finding a hapless admin like me to help out :) Truth is, you can learn to mostly handle stuff like this yourself, without admin tools. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I didn't nominate it for speedy cause I was trying to give it a chance as I thought he may be notable enough (if he'd actually been on the shows and we could provide the 3rd party references and such). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I'm wording it wrong. It's more like I was trying to confirm not just being there but, stuff like importance of role, etc. Was it just a cameo? An extra? Did his character actually have a name in the script and in the credits (even if just student #1). The only stuff in the article at the time seemed to be the Joe Sernio site and I was trying to get info from the shows actual sites so I could update the references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly been a few walk ons and small parts with only a few lines. None of it is noted anywhere but in credit listings. He's verifiably had work as a bit part actor on North American TV and likewise he is verifiably non-notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally with the non-notable thing but, can you help me figure out the "credit listing" thing. The only one in the article is IMDB nad like I said I couldn't find him at the particular shows sites. If there are some better places that I can go to first with other actors and you can point me in the general direction I'd appreciate it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I was wrong, thank you for nudging me. I can't find any independent verification of those bit parts either. I must have seen convincing looking pages on one or more of his websites, before I skived those out. That's what I get for AGFing :) I'll note this in the AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really want to be able to help people but, this particluar case is giving me a migraine. I'll do my best to ignore for a bit. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not edit it myself i have casting directors, and dorectors who had edited correct information and it has been deleted for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.127.26 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you are monitoring the page (thanks for helping deal with some of the vandalism by the way) you will have seen that another editor has restored the comments on Peter Damian. I commented there and removed the specifically offensive language. I couldn't bring myself to reverse the whole thing as I am still angry about the way Peter was treated, and the way in which comments on that action were not permitted. You may notice that the active editors on this page are in general agreement on this.
I'd suggest leaving it as is, if only as a way of diffusing tension. Hopefully I have made that easier by censoring another editors comment. The original reversal came from an editor who was involved in the various debates around Peter and s/he is not a neutral party. --SnowdedTALK19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: I'm a little surprised to see you say that, since you had said on ANI that you wouldn't support restoration of the thread. However, I probably won't remove the whole thing again if you have changed your mind on this. Skoojal (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I had taken the pain to read the cited anonymous text closely before I removed the claim that "From 1945 through 1948 she was held in sundry American and French-run detention camps and prisons". Please provide direct quotes from the source which justify your wording. Being under house arrest is not the same as being held in a detention camp or prison.
I also find it a bit disturbing that apparently you didn't even read my edit summary fully before reverting [20][21].
In August of 1946, Leni was transferred to a post in Baden-Baden where she was interrogated. Then after weeks there she was shipped to Königsfeld in the Schwarzewald with her husband and live-in secretary Hanni Isele. Leni felt a sense of freedom here but the poverty was difficult. ...Meanwhile, the tension between Leni and Peter caused her to leave the relationship just after 3 years of marriage. ...In early 1948, Leni received documentation that the French government had made her a free woman.
The source only uses the term house-arrest to describe her cirmcumstances in 1945 and maybe parts of 1946. As a compromise, I'll add this term to the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not selling a product on the net hence I have no need to spam, Advertise anything.
Since you are so Wiki Knowledgable, and I am not, please explain what I have spammed and how I have spammed for my future reference. Also, I would like this block to be reviewed so if you could be so kind, please explain to me how to do this. so if you could please explain to me how to do that.
--207.194.108.93 (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Mister Albert
Hi, I see you've been following that article for some time. I could have done a better job of coordinating with you on the page protection. Looking forward to working with you, Tom HarrisonTalk11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
edit war once, and two images that have been declared as copyright infringement, really i don't think you had any reason to comment on my page at all you were just reiterating what was said before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogioh (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I reuploaded the britney spears image again but the copyright owner is going to specifically say what type of licence he releases it under, its not my fault if he messes it up Ogioh (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You just blocked this user for edit warring (just as I was preparing a WP:3RR complaint against them... you're fast!) The user has immediately resurfaced as User:69.110.70.85 with a posting here.
Thanks for all the speedy deletions as this sweep through the radio station articles is almost (almost!) complete. I tried moving the KRMY (AM) article to KRMY on my own, got the message "Error: could not submit form", so I slapped up the redirect and hoped its deletion would fix the issue. As you've no doubt guessed since I bring it up, it didn't and I get the same error while trying to move KRMY (AM) to KRMY. If you could give it a nudge, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance! - Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thought you should know your indefinite block was reverted within the hour. I didn't see the that unblocking admin J.smith had contacted you, so I thought you should know. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Again it appears you have overstepped your authority and used the blocking system inappropriately. Tbsdy lives seems to have tricked you into using this to punish his "imagined" critics. I would hope that you learn from these last two mistakes and stop using this system so willy nilly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coberloco (talk • contribs)
You were blocked because you picked up edit warring where multiple, related and blocked IPs left off. As noted in your RfCU: CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. If you edit war again, you'll be blocked again. If the editor above again starts uploading images with meaningless licence info, he'll be blocked again (and has been warned of this by another admin). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen. I don't exactly know what to think here, this user seems to think that WP is a game of sometype, judging by his talk page header, and his userpage. He also has a personal attack on his userpage, calling others idiots. I removed it, but he reverted. I don't know what to do here.— DædαlusContribs /Improve05:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey. The community has grown willing lately to put up with all kinds of stuff on user pages, so long as it's not soapboxing or advertising. I can understand that. Please let me know if contributions outside the account's user space stray. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like them at all, but they're not aimed at a named user. I'd say, if there are worries to be had about this account, something stark will happen sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The user was given a final chance as such after saying he had "learned his lesson", yet still he is personally attacking other users, if I'm to be honest, I think the user should be reblocked indefinitely - he has had too many chances and clearly hasn't learnt his lesson from past blocks. D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. The only thing I can say about it is, I'd already planned on one or two short blocks if he strayed (before indef blocking again). As you can see, I'm watching him closely. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
please will you take a look at her talkpage and contributions, a block warning is needed, she's almost as bad as Paaulinho. And also would you mind deleting Image:Womanizersleeve.jpg no official artwork has been confirmed, it's obviously a fake. Thanks Ogioh (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Given her upload log, I've deleted the image as lacking source and copyright info along with a note that it could be a hoax, since it seems the recording is not yet in release, only sneak copies. I've also warned her. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Womanizer Cover.jpg seems to be the same rumoured artwork cover only uploaded by User:Superpop. This users also has had their fair share of copyright violarions, i'm not sure if they need a block warning yet but you're the admin, so you would know better than me if they need a warning or not. Ogioh (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Baba Sehgal. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jay (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would appreciate any info you can provide me with concerning adding pictures. How do I go about proving that I own the copyright so that I can contribute photographs?
"I don't think Gwen knows how to work in a cooperative environment that Wikipedia requires."
Well she is the exact opposite of what "H-- w--" said. I have been thinking of this problem of not protecting the archived content. Seriously, something MUST be done. No one has the right to edit specially archived content and yet it has no protection. Weird case, and cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am quite new to this and so I am still encountering errors due to inability to comply accurately on some policies but then again, I have had an article I posted days ago about ProV International and I want to create a new one on the same topic not for marketing or ad as alleged in my first posting but to outline how the business entity startedm its history, current issues and initiatives and some efforts being sone for community awareness as well as its path and all the lessons for our young professionals. The aim is to write much like some for Microsoft and IBM but I still am trying to study the way the said articles were written. Thus, my question is... Is it okay to write anew on the same topic that has been recently deleted? Thank you so much.
Hi. I declined the speedy and blanked it instead because, although it was mistakenly put there, it's not vandalism or advertising, doesn't carry any personal information and may say more about the topic than does the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
NK
yeah. I can concur with your thinking. however we might try to find a source. he (Kim Jong Il) is more than mysterious. I reiterate that he, the national government, his supporters, whoever else too hides things about his biography, etc. your blurb doesn't quite go far enough, methinks! I mean it covers that he is much discussed, but not much else. I rather dislike just sending people to a link; we need a few facts on the page also. besides this topic, I have a situation I would like to discuss with you. let me know how? Flyinghigher9 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you it doesn't even begin to tell the canny tale but anything we put in the article must be reliably and verifiably sourced. I'm all for putting more sourced stuff about the cult of personality. You can use the email link on the menu at left if there's something you don't want to say on the open wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Gordon Cooper page
Hello Gwen,
I amended your Gordon Cooper addition as the information was incorrect. If you check the Apollo 9 page and history, you will see that Dave Scott orbited the Earth solo in the Apollo 9 command module for a lengthy portion of the mission, while the other two astronauts independently tested the lunar module. Thank you,
SpacerPower (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
That is perfect - in fact, better than before, as it highlights Cooper's unique contribution as the last NASA solo flight. Good work! Thanks, SpacerPower (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A user moved the Kabbalah article without consensus. Someone already move the article back, but the talk page is not, and there seems to be a technical problem to reverting the move [22]. How can I correct the problem?
Thanks for the help. The user created an RfC after I opposed moving the article; without waiting for the views of other editors, which might have resolved the problem. Then without waiting for a response to the RfC, moved the article. (And moving the Kabbalah article -- which is a large article with the work of many editors -- is not like moving a stub which has not been changed in two years.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's discuss it first, Malcolm. After all, I reorganized the category to address your direct complaints here about the difficulty in seperating articles on traditional Kabbalah from Hermetic Qabalah. This was due to a poorly thought out category arrangement, which I addressed. Bob (QaBob) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
QaBob, having done this without consensus, you've made a bit of a mess which must be cleaned up first. Sweeping category changes should only be made after a consensus has been reached. Recategorize the articles in Category:Jewish_Kabbalah as they were in Category:Kabbalah, then discuss any changes after things have been put back. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
My response is at Category talk:Kabbalah. Let's not rush to simply revert, but agree on proper terminology and organization first. Then I will be happy to help implement any necessary changes. Bob (QaBob) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the timestamps. Her message postdated the changes. Let's discuss at Category talk:Kabbalah, where I have just posted a full explanation. No pages were moved. You don't seem to understand how the category system works. I'd be happy to enlighten you. Bob (QaBob) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of "enlightening" other editors, you might want to think about listening to them and finding ways to edit together. I do suggest restoring the category back to how it was before beginning any discussions about changing it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As you well know, that involves changing dozens of articles. As I said, I am happy to help do so after discussion and agreement. No reason to edit all those articles two or more times. Bob (QaBob) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, I was unaware that it was within the purview of administrators to order other editors around. I made the changes before your posts on my talk page explaining why they were problematic. I've now explained the changes clearly, with no response on the category talk page. I am trying to get Malcolm to clearly explain his objections so I can fix my mistake in the best possible manner. Could you advise me as to what venue of dispute resolution to further pursue this in? I am still unclear as to the best way to correct this. Bob (QaBob) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
We're all volunteers here. You made the changes without consensus, which could be taken as disruption, which is blockable. I've asked you to clean it up. If you won't, someone else very likely will. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely do not believe that creating subcategories is the intended use of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. If it would help you AGF, I will move the articles in Jewish Kabbalah back into Kabbalah, but this was not a category name change. The original category is still there, with a collection of articles common to all subtopics. Bob (QaBob) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, there's more to category organisation than that. But I have begun moving the articles back as requested. I have some business to attend to just now, but will finish the job as soon as I am done with it. Bob (QaBob) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As an uninvolved admin, my only worry here is giving other editors time to think and talk about this first (consensus). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, I am sorry about getting you involved in this editing mess. I would have reverted the page back to "Kabbalah" myself, but do not understand how to do it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this article as A7. I made some research and it seems to be notable (the fact it's listed at Hong Kong Stock Exchange also asserts notability). Since it's sourced, could you consider undeleting it ? Thanks, CenariumTalk14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I can, but don't have much time (I'm watching my watchlist whilst doing other stuff). Why not download Inkscape and do it yourself? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Dumb Swiss in-joke having to do with elves and doing crafty stuff. Yes, there are lots of Americans (and Brits) living in Switzerland. It's hard to walk in the city centres of places like Zurich and Geneva without hearing American and British accents. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know you do. Taken altogether, I don't like cars. However, last year I was at an art gallery party which had stock car racing as its theme. They even had an old wreck of a car in there dressed up like one. A DJ played top of the pops records from the 60s and 70s, there were flatscreens with viddies of stock car races on the walls and they grilled hamburgers. It cracked me up, I had fun. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop Making False Assumptions (Re: Stephanie Adams Article)
I forgot my username "An-Apple-A-NY-Day" so only my IP was recorded. Just because I undid one of your edits, along with a few other editors who kept and later clarified the edit (including "EdJohnston" and "J Readings") does that make me or any of us the "subject"? Do you actually think Miss Adams has time to waste on such nonsense? Think about it. An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you got the wrong person honey. I'm far from being Miss Adams and I know she is a professional writer. I couldn't even get away with writing something here without having to correct my typos. (wink) An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that wasn't me either. I thought you were pointing the finger at me regarding the "coi" because I was the only one who undid one of your edits. Perhaps you are referring to someone else then, but even so, I do not see the proof, just the assumption. I haven't been on here in a while anyway. An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. But just a bit of info for you...from the research I did on people like "Sean Martin", they are editing this article because they do not like Adams. Pretty odd. What's even odder is that they only know of her, but do not know her, not even Sean Martin, who was the name linked to his friend Adams sued and beat in court. Neither one knew Adams personally, but they stalked her online and posted defamatory comments about her in the past, comments which were later removed by a court order.) So his editing this article is not fair and not a "neutral point of view" either. Remember that. Have a good night. P.S. Watch him come on here and reply to this. He's really got mental issues regarding his obsession with this playmate. (I'm sure you get a lot of these types on here too.) Again, have a good night. An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but one more question. Are editors allowed to make personal attacks on the subject of the article? According to their contribution history, that user has done so in the past. An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No, she does not have examples because there aren't any. Although personal attacks by the various other sockpuppets she has used against me and nearly anyone who edits the Stephanie Adams article in a way she finds not suitably fawning are not rare. -- Sean Martin (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, here is some of what I read from the archives for Stephanie Adams:
[personal attacks removed, please use diffs instead]
Personal attacks in answer to personal attacks aren't allowed. As for these lawsuits, they don't even look notable to me and I don't think they should be brought up without cited coverage by independent, third party publications. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with GG. I don't even know what that was that you quoted. The first thing appeared to be a discussion, and the second thing seemed to be a blog, or something else that wasn't legal. There were too many jokes in it to be a legal document for my tastes. The bottom line is unsourced/non-encyclopedic information will be removed from the page, as will personal attacks. Regardless of the obvious WP:COI there, that's the way it works. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Heavy relief from WP
Gwen, I'm thinking of buying some goodies from www.cafepress.com/vaginacheney but I'm wondering if more than 2% of people would laugh. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Didn't Rush Limbaugh call her a babe? I recall her husband races snowmobiles. Isn't that kinda like stock car racing? User:Fclass, what do the sources say about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the trailer for "Don't Cry for Me Alaska"? I think it's from Barely Political, which also brought us an ad for 72-hour underarm protection in the context of admiration for a certain other candidate. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Someone who seems to be an economically ignorant socialist writes a detailed article about yet another corrupt, thieving socialist American politician who has been allowed to sign on with the dark side because on video she happens to look and sound spot on like the opposite of what she is. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Following the community's outlook on models who have appeared in that magazine, the topic is notable enough and the sources are verifiable but if she doesn't stop sockpuppeting and disrupting with sundry IP posts I'm going to start blocking them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The odor of socks is indeed overpowering. (I'm not going to use my own block button for a couple of reasons, one of which is technical: my connection to WP is atrocious right now.) I don't know how this squares with the metaphysician's reported desire for privacy. All very confusing. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it was but a ploy, "If I can't have the article about me the way I want, I want it deleted." This was posted before I did the rewrite, though. My Internet connection is very fit and I'm going to start blocking if they don't quiet down now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I recently added Image:Detroit Grand Prix on Belle Isle route.svg to the article in the B column next to Belle Isle. The image is not there. An X with the words "Belle Isle" is there. Is there anything wrong? The words are correct. Fclass (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I tweaked your blocks of 77.74.198.121 (talk·contribs) and 24.252.245.173 (talk·contribs). The first is a proxy and the second one seems to be his normal IP. I don't know the full details of this sock, but he frequently seems to be using proxies. If you suspect him on another IP, you might want to list it at WP:OP (or drop me a note). Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit to the Stephanie Adams article about the Playboy appearances such as "Book of Lingerie" etc., the titles were at one time all standardized to something like Playboy's Book of Lingerie. Since the editor that added all those went through and listed all that, various other editors have gone through and changed many of them by taking the bold out. Just thought you'd like to know some of the history behind it. Dismas|(talk)16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you think is the standard is ok with me (the ones I looked at, to see how they were done, weren't bolded). Thanks for letting me know there's some background to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want my full opinion on it, I don't think they're necessary at all. You don't see a list of every magazine appearance of Cindy Crawford. You don't see every episode listed for a recurring character from a television show (for example, Uhura from the original Star Trek series, I don't know if you're a sci-fi fan, so I don't know if that example will be much value to you). These magazines are put out several times a year and I don't feel that they are inherently notable. As for why I haven't taken them out, I haven't had the time to build a suitable case against them using WP guidelines and policies. So, there's probably more than you wanted to know about that... :-) Dismas|(talk)17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above editor (and his IP sock) are continually creating a vanity article at Jayswagg, and deleting my CSD notice (it appears to be the fourth time it's been created). Idle question, is it edit warring to continually reinstate the tag, even though it clearly says the creator of an article should not remove it? It's an easy CDS, but I'm leaving it be until I know otherwise. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you won't respect my request. I asked if you could add turn numbers to Roebling Road Raceway and you get an attitude. Are you going to do it? Yes or no? Fclass (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Fclass, we're all volunteers here. Anyway, please don't badger me (or others) to do stuff you don't want to do yourself. I told you about Inkscape. Maybe you can download and install a copy on your computer, learn to use it and add the numbers yourself. Or indeed, maybe you can find another editor who will do it for you (but don't tell them they have an "attitude" if they won't do your bidding). It looks like I'm here a lot but what you're seeing is, I'm able to check my watchlist a lot, meantime I do other stuff and the time I have for Wikipedia is mostly taken up by admin tasks these days. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Spam links
This user [25] is making a second tour through the same articles as last time, adding the same spam link the everyone spent time deleting after his last trip through. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I am making emphasis with as many (4) warnings is that a lot of edits remained un-reverted until I saw them. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I created a page called smallestgoogle.com, highlighting this website. It is similar to blackle, but is also 20 times smaller than google.com, saving time and bandwidth. I feel that if the wiki page blackle.com is allowed to exist, this page should also be allowed. Can I get some help with this?
Look, that was the first and last time I did that. I just wanted to show the person he or she cannot push me around and not expect to get pushed back. However, if something like that happens again, I'll inform you instead. Fclass (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:RBI, WP:Don't feed the trolls, he targeted you because he knew he could tick you, Fclass, off. Next time it happens, try asking yourself, "How would someone like User:Malik Shabazz handle this troll?" I get attacked too, blow it off. Also note, both attacks were reverted from your page before you saw them (you had to look in the history). If something like that happens again tell me or another admin. I think you can see, that kind of stuff gets taken care of quick here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
BLP issue
Hi Gwen, sorry to bother you but I don't really know any other admins. Could you please comment on WP:BLPN#Sylvia Browne? I'm getting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about a BLP issue. Surely if that's not a valid reason in a deletion discussion, it's not a valid reason to ignore BLP? Bob (QaBob) 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In this section, I added Image:A1GP Taupo Motorsport Park New Zealand.jpg. It hasn't been deleted yet. Taupo Motorsport Park has an .svg image. Fclass (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, can you give me some background on your recent indef-block of this user? It seems apparent that there is some history, however I'm unable to find any serious issues since the 24Sep08 block was lifted. There is of course the little flame-out against an anonymous editor who went far, far beyond baiting, into territory that very few 'pedians could respond to with an appropriately belittling response. Fclass may have responded over-the-top, but too-bad-so-sad, he just chased away a valuable new racist editor - our net loss is...?
And the other controversial activity I can see is image questions, where I'm finding it hard to see the block reasons. In fact, that's the only reason I'm here. The user is trying to resolve an image problem, raised also at VPT and pursued by myself at Commons. To the extent that Fclass's pursuance of that issue was a factor in the latest indef-block, it's a perfectly legitimate technical problem.
So, summing up - why the indef? I'd appreciate your pointers to the previous issues so that I may study them. I'd also ask on a preliminary basis for your forbearance - has this user been given the option of mentorship? I could try that. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The block had nothing whatsoever to do with his worries about image thumbnails not showing up. I've spent many hours of my volunteer Wikipedia time dealing with this editor. Yes, Fclass has made helpful edits. My block notice on his talk page and the thread at WP:AN are very clear. Fclass promised many times never to make personal attacks, ever: I've been over this with him and warned him time and again. I also warned him not to badger editors about deleting images which were already in the deletion process (diffs are in the block notice). Fclass ran several sockpuppets during his last indefinite block, which I lifted anyway, hoping he might at last find a way to edit here without being disruptive. My having blocked him again is the outcome of his behaviour taken altogether, not one or two edits. If you would like to offer mentorship, please do so in the AN thread and let the community have its input. As I said in the post which started that thread, I'll happily abide by whatever outcome the community settles upon. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The troll who attacked Fclass very likely picked on him thinking it likely Fclass wouldn't be able to hold back. This is what trolls do, stir things up, hoping for highly emotional, time wasting reactions. Answering back to them hurts the project because it only gives them what they want and getting what they want, they come back for more, further disrupting things in never-ending loops of pithless gnashing of teeth. A new user who doesn't understand this and lashes back is one thing but Fclass, having been warned never to answer back with personal attacks, having promised many times never to make another personal attack, then feeding the troll anyway, is another. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that the answer to trolls is to not respond in kind. I personally have many resources to respond in ways ranging from humorous to acerbic to sarcastic. Those resources are not available to all editors, so they are provoked to flail away in response. We do have to convince them that's not the way to go - at least the productive editors, less so the random IP's. However, Fclass responded badly to a particularly egregious attack, I assign no particular fault for that - I would have stuck the knife in better, or not at all - but it's no surprise that knives came out.
Sockpuppeting is plus-ungood - but also a natural response to a block, and depending on how you read the policies (ie. RTV) it's positively encouraged, especially for the naive reader (I'm not justifying here, it's a much wider issue).
And as far as mentoring goes, I'll not post to AN. I've had enough upstream paddling lately. I've posted to Fclass talk page, if they respond positively, I'll follow up by investigating their history (likely with reference to your experience) and work from there. The block is indef not infinite, and I don't see a ban developing yet. Which is good, cause it's sleepy-time for me :) Franamax (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - heh, the bit I've yet to discover :) I suffer under no illusions here. If I see positive responses, I'll proceed. Negative = end of story. Franamax (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I hope you are having a good day. I just wanted to bring this user to your attention because he/she has been doing some very destructive edits. This user Wal0013 did some really unconstructive edits on the article of Chris Tucker and some others I've seen by looking at his contributions.Mcelite (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Great, I create an alternate account as suggested by WP:BOT and you block it indefinitely within minutes without even letting me know. What gives? --Itub (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, again, Milady :) ... Just reached 1,000 edits, do I get a secret decoder ring or something? A Huggle license in a custom color? lol (Aside: Are you completely satisfied with the lede of Haymarket affair? Ignore this aside with impunity. :)Proofreader77 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you want to help, and it's amazing how much of Wallamoose's antisocial behavior you've ignored. The notice is a brief one that will only be up for a few days. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the PAs. Mind, I think you should very carefully review WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before carrying on with any further edits. I don't think you understand Wikipedia's policies along these lines, or how most editors manage to get along with each other, even when they don't agree on stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand all the policies. I don't think suggesting I post original research would be effective; all additions I make to pages are cited. Additionally, I never called any other editor "brain damaged" or questioned anyone's scholarship, or anything like that, unlike other editors. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You clearly have not understood the policies, or have been unwilling to follow them. If you want to edit on this private website, you must follow its policies, which have come about through community consensus. If you do not follow them, for whatever reason, you will be blocked from editing. As for original research, you may not be aware that synthesis isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You provided a link to a Talk page comment I made and said I have a highly-slanted PoV, but the article itself doesn't meet the definition of synthesis. Also, the sources used are all reliable - government transcripts, Time, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, etc. - and I didn't even select them all, or even most of them, myself. I am going to respectfully disagree with your assertion of synthesis and leave this page for now. The Clarence Thomas page has more than enough people watching it. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that User:Fclass has a history of bypassing bans by editing as an IP. All I know of that User:168.12.197.37 did was make a polite request that I do a map of a race track. However, since he simply assumed that I do that type of stuff and other users that admins stated were User:Fclass did the same thing…
Note: User:Fclass has a history of assuming that I answer to him. Example: He told me not to do a track as though he would attempt to get me in trouble if I did. When making requests, he is polite. When telling not to do something, he isn't. I haven't yet brought this up on his talk page. Will (Talk - contribs) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's how Fclass behaves. The IP is likely him, I more or less knew we'd see this, please let me know if it starts up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the time you've devoted to helping me out
You're one of the most helpful administrators I've come across. Sometimes I'm actually reluctant to thank people because I worry that I'll be accused of trying to bias them. That's how neurotic I've become in dealing with certain "issues" for so long... Thank you very much.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
Hey, you're welcome! (and I see you now know how to use the strikeout tags!) Talking online isn't always easy and the things we say can sometimes be taken wrong, but saying "thanks" is never untowards :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
help with wind generator article
hello. we wanted to put up an article BATWING Wind Generator - but it looks like it was deleted (oops!). i had not finished with working on the page - we have lots and lots of info which show how in general any wind generator can be useful.
though a lot of this wasnt posted on the first time round - batwing is simply an acronym, not a trade name or otherwise - this is strictly a personal/family-and-friends type of project - strictly non-commercial :)
while we've not received any major coverage in the news, we believe wind power is good and putting up test results of a home made wadge of turbines (we've made 7 so far) would be provocative, in good sense.
if this isnt ok or there is a better way to go about this please guide me on this topic.
I have worked on a new version of my Article on Music2titan.
In this new version i got rid of the mention of Apple's ITMS & Quick Time Implication in the process of distributing these unique music as you might have taken this mention as some kind of an adverticing, though this implication should be considered as a sign of the time : Only an immaterial distibutor could consider distributing music traveling in a space craft as know one knew if this space craft (Huygens probe) landing on Titan will be a success before it succedded (January 14 2005).
More over regarding this point : In many artistic project the mention and the action of the label and/or the distributor has it's importance in the understanding of the project in it self
I have also ad informations about the meaning of the musics accoding to it's composer and a quote by Ian Anderson who created the Music2Titan Logo.
Please have a look at the "Articles, References and sources" for more details.
I hope this is enough to bring back this subjetc into your great encyclopedia.
Are groups with fancy names as long as they lack the power to tax their citizens. Of course. I'm going to have some more coffee—thanks for taking care of this! Darkspots (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I think now you started looking for people who are putting Information about less know people. I wonder how you know who is know somewhere in the world or Not?
Some people are locally known, do your created Web will not accommodate them!
I have seen many pages on same website which I have never heard about, I am not going to delete them.
I might not be very Familiar yet with all the WIkipedia Technics & Tips but it seems to me that you have answer to my previous message regarding the deleting of my article on Music2titan.
You answer looks loike an automatic answer as i saw the same sentence used to answer to other questions.
It maybe means that you did'nt have the time yet to read my message and especially to read the changes i made in The Article.
In that case i will wait for your precise answer on the subject, as i have read the page you mention and i did'nt find any objectiv reasons not to print this article.
Hi, I answered above, you might need to read this page much more carefully then. Also, have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Anyway, aside from some publicity blurbs on sundry space agency websites, this sub-project (putting some music data on a space probe) seems to have gotten no meaningful coverage. It might be more helpful to mention it in Cassini-Huygens. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Dude
Do you seriously think I give a shit what you think? What happened to Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. Looks like you don't know the spirit of Wikipedia.
Jabunga (talk)
help with wind generator article
Hi Gwen, I did read through, yes. I'll try to get some better coverage so I can post a more comprehensive article. Thanks.
Hardly 107,000 hits, more like less than a thousand for the string "Smoki People." The article is a CSD A7, carrying no assertion of significance or importance, was so tagged by one editor and deleted by me.
Mr. Garcia is entering into 3RR status on Sarah Palin (sigh). With full force and vigor. A word or action from you might spare him worse from others. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, he should know by now not to edit war, much less on BLPs, it only stirs editors up and yes, as happened here, can cause them to make mistakes whilst coping with it. Oh and for the record (given his comment in his unblock request), I had not a clue what "side" he was editing from, I only tallied up the reverts and read the edit summaries. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I note Garcia claims you have actively edited in Sarah Palin though I thought I knew about all the active editors there by now (having read all the archives in a masochistic frenzy). Collect (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is only one block of four edits in a row by RafaelRGarcia. One of the four is this. As you can plainly see, it is in no way a revert. I bring your attention to WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)". Unblock Garcia immediately, as per WP:3RR. I suggest an apology is in order. (copy edited to Garcia talk) Anarchangel (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I counted 6 reverts in only 3 hours. I did not count "consecutive reverts." At 23:59, 23:55, 23:48, 23:45, 23:42 and 22:05. Non-consecutive. I think six is a higher number than 3, and 3 hours is less than 24? If I recall correctly, you have been very active in Sarah Palin? Collect (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You say you "did not count consecutive reverts". So I take it you are backing off from your position that you blocked him under WP:3RR. An apology for having invoked that rule misleadingly might perhaps be more in order, to say nothing of amending the block on his talk page. The wording is quite specific, and does not allow wiggle room as in mass number of edits; if they are not consecutive, it is not WP:3RR.
You might also want to consider how many of the six edits were in fact reverts. My diff shows the insertion of a comma. I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that that counts as a revert. Anarchangel (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The four reverts I listed above show a lot more than a comma and it was for those four reverts that he was blocked for 3rr. Edit warring isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I concede that point. They were reverts. They were not consecutive. You have not responded to my quote of 3RR, which shows you must desist from invoking that rule other than as context and attempt to restore what damage has been done by erroneously invoking it. You have an opportunity now to retract your statements regarding Garcia's blocking under WP:3RR. Anarchangel (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No warning is needed: Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance.Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If I err not, Garcia has been a poor playmate in several venues now, including in ANI? And each time he says "I will be good"? And each time he falls short? Collect (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I glark he thinks each time is the last he'll have to learn something about Wikipedia. As it happens, I hinted at that in the unblock notice, for what it's worth. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually he and the other editor who was mentioned in that ANI report were surprisingly cooperative during some recent changes at the Keith Olbermann article, which is why this caught my eye. Switzpaw (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the unblock. That editor has now joined Sarah Palin's page, though. Regarding: your edits to Palin, you made several edits to the talk pages of Palins, and some to Michelle Malkin. That's fine of course, but it wasn't a question of a single edit. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If you get a sec, can you spare a moment over at Priest River Lamanna High School. Some IP is inserting some weird fan-fic to the page. Could be inflammatory, but definitely gibberish. The page could either use semi-protecting, or the IP blocked, whichever is easier. Thanks in advance! Dayewalker (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not see why the other user was allowed to post on my talk page with no problems, when you also told him to stay away from me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't blatant advertising. It is a DTH network in India, just like Dish Network and DishTV in the United States. Why are you so biased towards the United States that you don't give a flying damn about what goes on in other countries? This is an encyclopedia for everything in the world, not an encyclopedia for the United States.
My name is John Mallow. I'm a PR Agent for SlyFox PR in the UK. We represent Mark L Cowden. We get a lot of requests for information on films and music projects that he has been involved with and felt it important to create a wikipedia page for this individual. I noticed that the page was deleted for apparent copyright infringement reasons.
Any biography or promotional material on any other music or film website was created and is managed by us. If there are similarities, it's because we wrote and retain copyright on the articles.
We have received no email varification as to this page being deleted
So basically if I rewrite the article but in a different way then it's not a violation of copyright? As for conflict of interest, there was no promotion of any kind. These were simply facts and biography information of a living individual in the public eye.
If this were the case then every living actor, musician and artists page on Wikipedia would be as such unless written by a random person with no connections to the individual what so ever.
Conflict of interest has nothing to do with whether or not you think the article was promotional. If you have any economic or other directly personal interest in the subject of the article, you shouldn't be editing the article. If he's notable, someone else will sooner or later write one (likely sooner). Please also have a look at WP:Copyright and WP:Music. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I saw your name mentioned here at User talk:Sean D Martin about having blocked some socks related to this page. I also noticed this exchange. Do you know if an SSP report exists, that I could refer to for justification in case any future socks need to be blocked? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The last registered editor at Talk:Stephanie Adams other than myself has prepared a list of socks in hidden text on his user page. I know this stuff probably ought to be moved along to an actual abuse charge at some point, to justify keeping the info. The case has been at WP:COIN before, so either there or at WP:SSP is an option. To temporarily calm the festivities, I semi-protected the Talk page for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Found it. I'm not startled to see there are so many. I think the time is coming for a CU on all this. The user has never given a hint she cares a wit about following policy. It should be said, her gripe is not about anything negative or untowards in the BLP, but that the article can't be used to promote the subject's (as yet wholly un-notable) writings on astrology and the occult. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This was left over from a series of A7 deletions of LARPs last month. A small group of experienced, good faith editors showed a consensus that these articles are helpful to the project and this one somehow wasn't restored. I have done, thanks for letting me know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi! Sorry to bug you - I understand your recent frustration with the Fclass incident, with his habit of asking you questions and expecting you to do it. But I've just configured Twinkle - but how am I suppose to know it works for me? Thanks for considering my question, Ay (Reply!,Contribs!)20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh ;) I only knew you were a respected administrator, so I gave it a shot. Well, I bypassed my browser's cache, and everytime I F5 my page, it always says "I'm too new to use Twinkle". Technically, I'm not that new - I've been on Wikipedia for years but had a name usurption a few weeks ago. Is that still old? Thanks, Ay (Reply!,Contribs!)20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This IP is quickly shaping up to be Wallamoose's Lex Luthor, isn't it? I guess the only reason to keep from jumping to the conclusion that we're all jumping to is that Wallamoose does have more than one enemy. Dayewalker (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If I have any "enemies" besides the one I am unaware of who they are. Just sayin'. I'm really not such a bad dude. Also, Lex Luther is kind of cool in the movie and the TV show. I would prefer you pick a more despicable villain/ arch-enemy/ nemesis for your metaphorical example. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
Seems a little harsh. Yikes. And to think I got in trouble for using what I consider much milder language.
I think I've caused enough trouble for a while, so I'm going to try to stay out of this. If anyone has any questions for me, please let me know. Thanks for your interest in this issue. And don't make jokes, that's what always gets me in trouble! Just sayin'.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
(OD)Hey, I joke for a living. I'm a paid professional. If no on the Parasite, we could always refer to the anon IP as the Prankster. Or perhaps he's the Bizarro-Wallamoose.
Bizarro seems good to me. I'm not familiar with the Prankster, so I'll have to take a look at the link. I think some good pranks would be a welcome change from the current state of affairs...
So much for my staying out of it. Maybe I should strike that comment. I'm not always great with the whole self-control concept. Please don't lead me into temptation...(Wallamoose (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
It's a cross between a Wallaby and a Moose. Fairly uncommon now that the North American and Australian land masses have drifted apart. Distant cousin of the Wallabear, and the Jackalope. No relation to the Kangarat and the Koalabird.
Yes, and Yes. If you're not too "busy" one of y'all might want to take a look on the ACORN discussion page. I see storm clouds forming. Or would it be better if I posted a similar request at one of the offical places? Serious Admins ONLY. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
I don't watch articles about political or criminal orgs, but I repeat myself. I'll do admin stuff if given diffs and it's needed straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Had you told me that before? Or am I dealing with a Model B-9? What do you do/ like to do as an Admin.? And what does straight off mean? Like: URGENT URGENT!!! How do I turn this thing off???(Wallamoose (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
Ok, so now you know you must never ever in a jillion years change or re-factor other editors' comments. Say you're sorry, that you understand how disruptive this was, you didn't mean for it to wind up that way and that you'll never do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Way ahead of you. Done and done. Jeesh. The Prankster must have painted a target on this prongster's back. I guess it must be the season?
First the Admins are telling me to change my titles, then the Admins are changing them for me when I'm asking for an explanation, then I'm not supposed to change my titles, now I'm in trouble for changing a title because I kept thinking KO had something to do with Knock-Out so I couldn't find Olbermann related posts... I don't even like Olbermann! If they like that page so much they can have it. Can't peeps just be good to the Wallamoose? (Wallamoose (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
It seems Wallamooses aren't the only ones that gather in herds. The plot thickens. As long as it's not soup and I'm not in it. I'm going to go run on the beach. Too much craziness here. Thanks for the laughs. You kids are fun.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
I did not edit the Sarah Palin article nor did I contribute to its talk page with respect to the section that User:RafaelRGarcia marked on my talk page. I avoided that because I thought he was canvassing. I had previously contributed to some discussions there and made a couple of edits a while back, and I assumed that is why RRG commented on my page. I admit I have been watching edits by RRG and Wallamoose with heavier scrutiny than usual, because I saw some edits by *both* that may have violated some Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. However, I have tried to treat the editors in good faith. That being said, I won't stand for having my words twisted or arguments being drawn into some kind of soapbox. Thank you. Switzpaw (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I understand what's happened. Both have yet to get a grip on some of Wikipedia's core policies and I think both have been editing in good faith. Moreover, there is nothing untowards about watching an editor's talk page, they're quite public and meant to be read. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this editor is a little aggresive. For example, after I apologized for a misunderstanding on the Olbermann talk page he says: "Do not ask someone to give you a synopsis of an event in order to accuse them of POV and turn it into a soapbox. This is an act of bad faith, and if you do it again I will report your behavior". That's an awful lot of accusations for a couple sentences. And I never asked you for a synopsis. I stated the events as I recalled them. I'm not sure what your beef is with me, but I've explained myself and apologized to you twice, on issues that don't strike me as earth shaking. So if you want to play tough guy and come after me, that's your perogative, but don't be surprised if I push back. Your issues with me don't have anything to do with this discussion, or my seeking guidance from an Administrator on issues I don't fully understand. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't understand all the rules. I've tried to be patient with your belligerence and to take accountability where I've strayed from protocols. I don't have any problem with you or your edits. And I trust you will treat my actions and edits with the same good faith as I treat yours.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
Hey Wallamoose, my guidance would be to comment much less on other editors and a lot more on reliable sources. Some articles won't wind up the way you would like, others will, the editorial tides here do ebb and flow. Many readers are smarter than you may think, all you need do is find reliable sources they can hook into. Did I say something about reliable sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(OD)From my experience, editing here on anything political (especially close to the election) is a powder keg with an itchy trigger finger waiting for the other shoe to drop. I try not to edit those, because a) I'm not very political, and b) I don't dig the drama. If you're going to edit those, you need a thicker skin and those reliable sources that Gwen mentioned. Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't tell anyone I said this, but most political articles and books found everywhere are utter codswallop, hence Wikipedia articles built upon them as tertiary sources are likewise doomed. Most of the editing disagreements have to do with whose retail spin on the same pack of lies gets to take the narrative voice. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of my edits to the Keith Olbermann article were particularly political or controversial. I have no interest in attacking or defending Olbermann, I was just cleaning. You should check out the conversation there. I'm totally compromising about most everything.
I don't know why people get so fired up, but the irony of it all is that I had changed the KO title to something amusing (to me) about Keith Olbermann because I couldn't find the section when I was trying to respond to: "Hello, Wallamoose. You seem to have a helluva lotta fun editing Wikipedia as do I at times," under that title.
Here's the end of my reply, "Have you found some interesting articles to work on? I think I'm ready for a breather from some of the partisan stuff. I'd rather have fun than have to wear a helmet all the time and have to keep ducking for cover". Seconds later I was looking at a Wikialert. And I was like WHAAAAAA? So I immediately looked into it, changed the title, and apologized. I don't know how anybody can have a beef with me unless they're trying to cause problems. Because I'm pretty low key.
I've been kind as can be, taking responsibility for differences of opinion where something I said might have caused a misunderstanding. But I'm only generous up to a point. If somebody has ill will towards me then my generosity and good will are going to dry up and fast. And rules are great, but courtesy knows no bounds. All he had to do was drop me a note on my page. Problem solved.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
Cumulus Cloud is now at 2RR in Dino Rossi , about to head to 3RR for sure. -- he is reverting and marking the revert as a "minor edit." Note the quality of the items he is editwarring on (sigh). I have repeatedly asked him to post in Talk:Dino Rossi. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Gosh. I think CC has been in a mess of them now (at least six different people have said he has aimed at them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Stalking me again, CC? You are the only person who says the year "2007" is "partisan"! And you insinuate that I disappear after each election --- which is demonstrably false on your part. Try going after MichaelQSchmidt again ... or some of the others you have tried to bully. Me, I don't get bullied easily. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
TREAT-NMD speedy deletion
Hello, you deleted the new article TREAT-NMD because of 'blatant advertising'. I really don't see advertising content on the page. TREAT-NMD is not a company, it is a scientific and non-commercial european network. I updated the content (currently conserved on my user page) and added a reference to show that the term 'network of excellence' is not meant to be advertising. Moreover other articles for projects from the Sixth Framwork Programme exist in wikipedia (e.g. see European_Clinical_Research_Infrastructures_Network). For more information see Network_of_Excellence and the Sixth_Framework_Programme. If you still feel the page has an advertising character, tell me what you mean so I can change the content. Please see the updated article on: User:Adrian.tassoni/TREAT-NMD. Thank you very much!
Adrian.tassoni (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no assertion of significance or importance, there are no citations to meaningful, independent coverage and capitalized words in the text such as Excellence hint at org spam (which need not be an open offer to sell something, or gather funds, to be taken as blatant advertising meant to publicize). Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability, it is meant for citing notability though reliable, independent sources. Moreover, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. If you are any way linked with the organization, you shouldn't be editing a Wikipedia article about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Inveresk and York Park Precinct
Thanks very much for saying that it's not nonsense and declined it for speedy deletion. Thanks :)
I'm sorry, but the situation of Berghof is in the South of Germany, while the Wolfschanze is in the north of Poland, near the border with Russia in Kaliningrad, so I don't understand why you say they are so close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.99.50.237 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought a change had already been made there. But I will review the record. I agree the mediation should be allowed to work it's magic. A citation needed tag can always be added to anything in question.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
What's your point? I added a section heading to separate the sexual harassment material from the confirmation. Does that justify you deleting whole paragraphs of Anita Hill's testimony? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to keep track of all your POV abusive edits. If you can edit that section then so can I. Frankly, you've used the removal of the full edit-protect to tear into the article. Taking out anything you disagree with instead of adding cite needed tags. You're putting in all kinds of POV and non-Wiki words like: "Thus" as if you're trying to argue your case. You need to be stopped. Someone call the Sheriff.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
I did not "edit the section." I added a header. And you know you have to wait for Ruslik to mediate. Please stop focusing on me; focus on the content. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, for the time being I've backed off. I think we're both at or near the 3RR rule. I would note that RRG continues to delete content (even stuff that was in the article for a while) when it doesn't suit him instead of tagging it. He asked for a citation and then when I added one deleted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=245497003&oldid=245496088
And he's adding all kinds of POV and arguments. My experience in the past has been that his stuff gets left in and then the page gets locked down. But I will try to be patient and to remain optimistic. I feel better knowing an Admin is at least aware of the situation. I also posted on Encmstr's (or something like that) page since I knew he was around. I wasn't sure if you were here or not. I thought you might be nothing but ashes by now... but I'm glad to see you're still kicking. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
He He, This user page is the best thing on wiki, a soap opera with perfect characters. Gwen, your knowledge of wiki is awesome but is surpassed by psychological, counselling, mediating skills. You should be resolving real/hot wars rather than edit wars. You deserve another barnstar. Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, you blocked User:207.194.108.93 for edit warring a month ago, he continued warring from User:207.232.97.13 after your block, you then blocked that second IP address - thanks for that. You suggested I contact you if he turns up again. FYI, he switched to User:199.60.112.30 and has accumulated a few complaints for vandalism on that talk page already. Mr Miles (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok still. First time I've used it, hopefully it'll be helpful because others can still leave their input on his page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean, the new range of must-have dolls that every kid will want this Christmas? They're cute! They're armed! And every one is slightly different, so they hate each other and fight to the death! YAYYYY BALKINS!!! I know we all make typos... this one was too good to pass up SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, I misunderstood the unblock request. My apologies - I simply would rather people approached me to allow me to undo my own work, rather than doing it unilaterally, whilst being somewhat curt and rude in their notification. No need to drag Gwen's page into this. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Daedalus969, the declined unblock request you removed indeed cited a wrong reason, but I agree with Fritzpoll that it would have been more helpful to take it up with the declining admin first. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, will do so in the future. I will not remove something I see as wrong, but instead notify the reviewing admin. If the reviewing admin refuses to budge, I will ask others on the matter.— DædαlusContribs /Improve20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but that last bit was in the case of others, or other instances in which this case could be applied. I've ran into an admin before that refused to admit he was wrong in blocking a good editor we had. An editor which we no longer have to do this admin's complete refusal to admit a mistake.— DædαlusContribs /Improve20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to the admin I refer to, no thank you. If you're referring to the resent past matter, and any matters in the future, okay then.— DædαlusContribs /Improve20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, the other admin you're unhappy with wasn't Fritzpoll. However, you did help out by bringing up the decline reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
