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.
y u delte the article of record holders republic. i think this article will be helpful for record holders from all over the world .
you are nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.80.165 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. This "User:JetRuiz" user page is being used as an promotional encyclopedic article, and is being exclusively edited by an IP address since 9 September 2008. Also, the user itself has only edited his/her user page before 9 September 2008 (5 times). Thanks! — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
And, they do not have articles on Wikipedia itself. Definitely hosting promotional encyclopedic articles (even a template). — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It's all CSD G11 and COI self promotion in the user space, likely by someone running multiple accounts. I don't like coming down too hard on indy teen bands though, never mind those with one or more members who can write complete sentences and conjugate verbs, all without spelling mistakes. If you were to blank those pages and let me know if it carries on, that would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, same reason here. I didn't add the G11 template because I didn't wanted to be too hard and wanted to be absolutely sure of what's going on. Before I had time to make a decision and reply, Dædαlus has already seen and reported (my thanks, too). They were using couple of IP addresses too, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaturdayNightMorons. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
"Very lame metaphorical log"? Gwen my dear that really stings! You didn't even like my homage to Cool Hand Wallamoose? No accounting for taste I suppose. Party on. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Hey Wallamoose, your metaphor, of Wikipedia being likened to a sordid Los Angeles murder trial or a Hollywood take on a work camp in the US deep south of the 1960s "doesn't fit" and shows you don't grok Wikipedia yet. You edit warred, you were blocked. Truth be told, your answers to the block have been far more worrisome to experienced editors than the block itself. Had you read the unblock guide, you could have written a very short unblock request which would have gotten you unblocked within minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to argue the merits of my actions as opposed to the Admins involved, but I feel that my "lame metaphorical log" is sufficient for now. You say, "Had you read the unblock guide, you could have written a very short unblock request which would have gotten you unblocked within minutes". That's an interesting argument, but the fact that my first appeal was rejected before it was even completed doesn't support your position. How's that for AGF. I also happen to be a Paul Newman fan and am pleased to pay tribute to one of his outstanding performances. Good day. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Your first unblock request was quite finished when it was declined. Again, had you read the guide to appealing blocks and heeded what it has to say, you could have easily written an unblock request that would have gotten you unblocked straight off. Instead, you posted five unblock requests even after you'd been warned not to, so you were stopped from editing your own talk page. When you were unblocked, you wrote a long metaphorical post which was so over the top and argumentative, someone mistook it as a legal threat and posted it to ANI. You say you want to learn the rules, but I don't see that in your edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
THIS POST MODIFIED AFTER THE FACT SORRY: You're right I guess I should have said my first appeal of my appeal. So clearly I'm wrong. I was blocked and appealed. And then my appeal of that was rejected before it was completed. Anyway, what's done is done. I'm over it.
I've tried to get a semi-protect on the Clarence Thomas article, but have been turned down repeatedly. So anonymous puppets will continue to have their way. Another illustration of how things seem to work here. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Are you serious Gale? Listen I don't want to make a federal case out of this. I made some satirical posts on my page that embody my feelings on the matter and I've moved on. I'm a big fan of yours, so if I chose not to go after the Admins whose behavior violates Wiki rules and guidelines, I certainly don't want to create a hassle for you. I did notice that a certain super-villain is again on the loose. So much for escalating punishments, and "this being the last time" etc. etc. But I've been told I'm not supposed to talk about other "editors" no matter how many rules and guidelines they violate. Cheerio! (Wallamoose (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
First of all I was never good with fractions (or linear equations). Secondly, keep in mind Groucho Marx's comment that, "I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member". Finally, I notice that a certain super-villain violates at least three of the five pillars consistently, and yet the whole edifice remains standing and little or no action is taken. These guidelines, like many of the rules here, appear to be more of a Hollywood prop facade than a true code. Isn't it strange that an organization so unconcerned with mere "facts" and the truth, would borrow greek architectural models? I think Plato would be distressed.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Well, in fact it's pillars and not columns. So perhaps it's more of a stone age reference. Certainly more fitting. Didn't the Neanderthals have simple tools? :) (Wallamoose (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Wow, are you like the head honcho of name censorship or what? What's up with that? Fo shizzle there will be no craptastical names? Tsk tsk. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
Legal threat
It's in that quasi log that he posted, here, I'll copy it so you can find it/ see what I mean:
Boss man:
Since this is your fourth (actually my third since I didn’t get to finish my 2nd, but who’s counting?) unblock request and you clearly haven't read the guide to appealing blocks, I'll handle this one again. Edit warring isn't allowed. Please don't keep putting up unblock templates. You've been blocked by an admin and the block has been upheld by three other admins.
Wallamoose:
(uses his one phone call to get a lawyer)
Johnnie Cochran and I have reviewed the 3RR rules closely. Needless to say, we are prepared to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, and I'm certain that Justice Thomas will not take too kindly to certain POV abuse issues involved in this dispute. We are also confident that even Justice Ginsburg will not appreciate her fellow Justice being slandered in this manner. Please note that the exceptions include: "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons". There were also several instances where I did not in fact revert, but modified a comment. It also states: "Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution." And in fact several dispute resolution methods and third opinions (including a RfC) are already under way. Plus, as I noted on your talk page I was in the process of doing an unrevert of one of the reverts in question, before seeing it had already been reverted. So that one doesn't count! There was also an edit I made where I made a modification. It was deleted saying it needed sourcing. So I put it back in with a source. So again, that was not a revert. And certainly not 3 reverts. But, in conclusion, Johnnie and I would like to point to the SPIRIT of the 3RR rule. Clearly the record shows that when I thought I was at or near 3RR I stopped editing the page. The evidence is INDISPUTABLE in this regard. So again, I ask for justice. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!!! As these issues have not yet been considered I do not think this is an abuse of the unblock request. I ask that the issues I have presented be adjudicated in light of my have NO PRIOR BLOCKS for edit warring and again, for ceasing the edit warring of my own volition and seeking Admin guidance.
I absolutely reject the characterization of my posts as being lame. This is an outrageous and distressing accusation. Nothing could be further from the truth. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Which thread are you referring to. I will try to use the sandbox feature, but Wikipedia formatting is difficult for me and confusing. I can't write effectively without drafts. But I've never gone back and tried to change my statement in a material way to influence an outcome or alter the record (like a certain super villain has), but sometimes I try to copy edit and clarify. So I'm sure I will be tried and hung, the Chewbacca defense having little utility here among Chairman Mao's happy workers.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Well I had a look, and the comment I interjected was in response to another editor's comment so I put mine after that comment and outdented yours below it. I thought this would make it clear that I was responding to him, inbetween your two comments. I don't know how else to do it. If I put my comment after yours it looks like I'm responding to you. I suggest you post my latest indiscretion on an Admin board so that I can be tarred and feathered straight away! I seem to deserve it. What is it that Mel Gibson yells at the end of Braveheart? Freedom? I'd like to go out on a good line...(Wallamoose (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
How bout starting your post with the name of the editor you're replying to. So, you may be muddling up threads without meaning to, please be careful. Meanwhile, if you keep calling other editors super villain and Chairman Mao's happy workers, sooner or later you'll stumble into more blocks. No personal attacks, please. Wikipedia is neither a William Selig serial nor the PRC (maybe Chinatown, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
YouTube clips seldom stir me, much less when a few of one's own pithy words would do. Also, you shouldn't be posting links to copyright violations. 'Sides, I'm more the L'Avventura kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell you how much joy you would bring to my heart if I could at least get you to witness the Chewbacca defense in action. And that link is to an authorized site (I trust in the good faith of others as far as the other videos go, as you know I am a devout believer in AGF)! But alas, I doubt you are much of a South Park fan, and I see the censors have taken out the scene where a juror's head explodes. So the truly dark days seem to be upon us... Your suggestion of using the editor's name is genius! That should be one of the pillars. I will employ that technique from now on. I am concerned, however, that you may be letting your POV influence your opinion on my comment regarding Chairman Mao's happy workers. Maybe I meant it as a COMPLIMENT!!! Let a thousand flowers bloom! Remember, NPOV Gale NPOV! (Wallamoose (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
Wait a minute now, why isn't his interjection a refactor? And for the record I suspect flowers would be far more endearing than the Chewbacca defense in "charming" this "proper" English Admin. Proper? Hmmmmm... She is awfully nice though isn't she. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
See that! I knew you would. In fact, I'm counting on you to stick up for me on the next series of ANI reports. Would you be willing to add that to your watch list? That would be a big help. Is this considered canvassing? (Wallamoose (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
The Selig article is excellent, very interesting. A pity it has only one reference. I suppose we'll have to burn it with the rest of the books. Someone call the "Firemen". We can't have unsourced material cluttering the site. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
I wrote that shortly before we began paying as much heed as now to sourcing. Only so you know, contested and uncited material can be removed, but blanking helpful, verifiable and uncontested content because it lacks sources is pointydisruption which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
When you do a bunch of indents is that to indicate you want the last word? Your having written the aforementioned article would certainly explain why it was so well written. I wonder how it would read if you had to cite every line. I imagine it would be far more stilted, but rules are rules...
It's a shame the policies you've mentioned can't save the hard work of others as on the Venture Bros. article. Many of the best articles I've found have few or no citations, but all it seems to take is one disruptive user and it all goes bye bye.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
You are so wise! RRG just criticized my math skills on the CT article discussion page. Please ban him for life with no chance for parole.(Wallamoose (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
I am new to contributing to this site, but I have used this site for a long time. I have always thought it to be very fair and unbiased, allowing for varying opinion.
But where you claim I am using language which is misleading, I find much of the language you keep reposting to be misleading.
You've been reverted by multiple editors. I already asked you to bring this up on the article talk page, but please don't bother unless you can cite reliable sources. If you revert the article again you'll be blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Miles, please stop removing the alt account tags from your talk page, you're lucky you haven't been banned for all that sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Said user is trying to say that Sarah Palin has a strong pro=Palin bias. To that end she canvassed several dozen editors, including some who had not made any real presence known recently, and accidently missing a few recent editors <g>. She also solicited User Talk:Facts707 who appears to be misusing Talk:Sarah Palin to accuse specific editors of biases. I suspect his "section" ought to be removed by a third party. The entire talk page is becoming even more of a circus than ever. Thank you! Collect (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is high traffic, has to do with a current election in stateside politics and it's a BLP, hence some editors are bound to be unhappy with it. Could you show some diffs for the canvassing? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is true, often because a consensus of core editors can keep otherwise reliable sources out of an article: Peer review in both Europe and North America has always been dodgy, but in the last 20 years or so has become utterly corrupted and politicized by government funded university systems and a big swath of Wikipedia's systemic bias can be linked to this. With Sarah Palin though, it's mostly the kerfuffle of the now. If you can give me some diffs, I'll try to take care of the canvassing. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The messages are neutral, 30 is a bit too many, one wonders if she chose the editors because she thought they'd "vote" her way ("partisan audience"). It's tottering on the edge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You recently deleted my pages and also blocked my account, "GCpedia". I read about the possible reasons you had todo so. I should have read it before writting my article :). it would have save me and you some time. I sill want to put some content on a company "geneva consulting" without doing advertising or promotion for it. Could I submit the text to you first (short below) to avoid problems?
sorry, you are right the blocked account was gcpredia. It was just a description of the companies divisions and links to some of its divisions. thanks anyway for your prompt answer. Have a good day,
CEE market (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
yup, no problem! I just finished reading the book and I thought I must also enrich wikipedia with the knowledge I earned. Knowledge shared is knowledge earned :)
North Korean Leader Health
Why do you cancel talk about Kin Jong-il's health? The official NK news agencies issued the announcement. This is talk not main page. dmode (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday you deleted (as CSD A7) pages for three high-ranking UN diplomats: Jun Yamazaki, David Tolbert and Jean Arnault. Could you please undelete them? The A7 tags were placed by user:Bongomatic who also yesterday placed about a dozen or so A7 tags on other high-ranking UN diplomats. All of those were denied by administrator User:SoWhy. A couple of those pages were then nominated for AfDs and they are both heading for a SNOW keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Alleyne and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Stelzer. While I cannot see the three deleted articles, after doing google searches for the names involved it seems to me that they are roughly in the same category as the speedies that were denied and those that are AfD-ed now. E.g. Jun Yamazaki is an Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, same as Thomas Stelzer. Jean Arnault was a special UN envoy to Georgia (1260 GoogleNews hits[1]) and David Tolbert is a senior prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I am fairly sure that Yamazaki would be kept if nominated for an AfD. While I am not sure about the other two, I think they also deserve a chance to be properly considered in an AfD, especially in view of what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Alleyne and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Stelzer. In all three cases their diplomatic ranks are high enough to indicate plausible notability and to pass the A7 bar. So I request that you please undelete them. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I had nothing to do with and did not delete the BLPs you noted above as having gone through AfDs. Some UN diplomats are notable, some aren't. Either way, the ones I deleted were all A7s, with no assertion of importance or significance. Moreover, they offered no hint that these topics had gotten meaningful independent coverage in reliable sources, which is what confers notability. Have you read this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read my original message more carefully. I know (and said there) that the three deleted pages were deleted as A7 (not AfD) and that you did not have anything to do with the other speedies and with the Alleyene and Stelzer AfDs. I am well-familiar with the CSD criteria. While I cannot see the content of the three deleted pages, I am fairly sure that they did specify the diplomatic ranks of the people involved. These ranks themselves are sufficient indicators of plausible notability (that is all that is required to pass the A7 bar). If you look at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Stelzer, you will see that his rank of Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, same rank as that of Jun Yamazaki, is taken there to be sufficient proof (not just indication) of notability by the current strong AfD consensus. I would rather not have to take this to DRV, but if you don't want to undelete them, I guess there will be no choice. Nsk92 (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I did read your post carefully, no worries there. In the UN, diplomatic rank often has aught to do with notability, those agencies pass out way-flattering job titles like biscuits. To be fair, I work in Geneva and meet upper-level dips like these a lot, most of them are bureaucrats and lawyers whose careers get no independent coverage. This said, I'm neutral and willing to put these in your user space so you can look for citations and perhaps put in believable assertions of importance. If, after having done this, you think they won't be tagged CSD again, you can put them back in the article space yourself. Would that be ok with you? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I am not the creator of those articles (and in fact I had never edited them), yes, I'd be fine with having these articles restored to my userspace. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The main worry would be they'll get tagged CSD A7 again so you might think about making assertions of importance in the leads. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of topic Pichat
Hi Gwen,
why was the topic Pichat removed? I don't think it was written to be an advertisement. Can you write a detailed reason please? Just want to know why. Thanks ... 77.181.251.70 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. For example Windows Live Messenger or Skype are similar and aren't deleted. But what is daunting me really is: there was no discussion about the deletion, no one could write down a point of view. :(( Btw. I've not written the article. ... 77.181.251.70 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm not a native english speaker. And as far I understand you, you had written: "If a software/product is widely noted, you can add an advertisement in wikipedia." ? Correct me if I'm wrong please. The reason of the deletion was "Advertising" but advertising and notability are two different things. 77.181.251.70 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand what Wikipedia is. But what are Windows Live Messenger and Skype? Independent articles or advertisement articles? Okay don't answer. Please explain why you deleted this article (the background, what you thought when you read it for example and what was the COI?). What do you think about the idea to recreate the article without 'advertising' and with independent 3rd party sources? May I do that? 77.181.251.70 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd hoped you could explain the reason with your own words instead of linking to a subsite. But okay I don't want to annoy you. And it's late here. Have a good evening Gwen. ;) 77.181.251.70 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a subsite, those are indeed my own words, I wrote them. If you read and heed them, you'll know how to write articles which can get by speedy deletion (and when to not bother with those which can't get by speedy deletion). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Question about disambiguation pages
Hi, I was wondering if you could point me to the Wikipedia guideline for disambiguation pages. I want to possibly create one and move the title of an existing article, or place a tag on an existing article that says "This is an article about X. For the article about Y, go here.." I've never done that before so I'm confused as to the procedure. Thanks. Switzpaw (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:HATNOTE was what I was thinking of.. I just added one to Narp. Does that look right? I'm not sure what's more notable: the French village or the American advocacy group for railroad passengers. I'm going to read through WP:Disambiguation to see other ways of doing it. Thanks for your help. Switzpaw (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
On Talk:Sarah Palin see under "Drag on Campaign" 'I am trying to improve the article by attempting to force Collect to stop having anything to do with it. --Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin" "
He has previously accused me of being a paid employee of the GOP, and a few dozen other thing. I thank him each time, which seems to make him upset for some reason. This time, I think he has overstepped any reasonable behavior, and I would like your opinion on it. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Offer him a lot of money. However, if you can't buy him off, give him a link to this thread. Telling another user I am trying to improve the article by attempting to force Collect to stop having anything to do with it not only strays from WP:NPOV but is uncivil and if it keeps up, disruptive, which is blockable. Meanwhile, if I were you, I'd not answer him in ways I knew he'd find nettlesome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No, no, but some editors may take politeness as a kind of forward cheekyness. If politeness is sitrring him up, be neutral and civil and no more, don't give him anything to latch on to either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Username blocks
Hello, how are you? I disagree with one of your recent blocks: StinkingFish did not appear to be a blatant violation, and the user's edits had been in good faith. Overall, though, you have had good judgment in your administrative actions. --UberScienceNerdTalkContributions23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I gave it some meaningful thought. Too many editors are bound to take it as an untowards hint at this (link carries an image which is not work-safe). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift reply. Had it been me deciding whether to block (that is, if I were competent enough to recognize untoward hints), I would have used the uw-username template first in this case, but it was not me, nor am I as competent as you are. I am sorry if my inquiry was bothersome. --UberScienceNerdTalkContributions00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see much to talk about, which is why I didn't leave a note first. It's only a soft block and the username block template invites the editor to create a new username. It is very likely the editor will understand straight off: I'm careful with these, watch all the talk pages of the username blocks I make and have yet to see a sincere unblock template or answer on one of them (that said, watch this one wind up as the first to be truly befuddled at having been uname blocked by me!). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Lesbian
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to lesbian. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.
Do you read the edits you blindly reverted? Apparently not, because there is a dead link for an unverified claim. at any rate, the Isle of Lesbos page mentions lesbian sexually too. This page is not 1. to be monopolized and owned, and 2. it refers to the lesbian a term used to refer to inhabitants, language and sexuality. Unless of course you want to split it off to include a lesbian sexuality and a lesbian from Lesbos. But do not censor rightful content. Lihaas (talk)
OK, thanks. I suggest that the section should do what the Gay article does – say how the word was originally used and then explain how it came to mean female homosexuality – and when that came to be the dominant meaning. I will look up some references later today and see whether the transition is properly documented. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I would like to pass muster on my deleted wiki biography and try again. My name is Rick Amme and am often on the Internet for one reason or the other. You deleted my initial entry for blatant advertising. I surely did not intend to do that but I suspect that my mentioning my company's name had something to do with it plus some language that may have sounded self-aggrandizing. Please give me another shot at it. I'm a fast learner.
Hi Gwen I had a serious question. An unregistered user came across something interesting which was an interview of Lil' Kim's mother. She states that Lil'Kim was born in 1976 see here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKT7WFyolLo&feature=related This was an interview by VH1 so it's exclusive but can it be used?? Everything else I've been able to locate that can be used states 1975.Mcelite (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Neither YouTube nor mothers of celebrities are reliable sources, put 'em together and... it's not enough, much less for a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. This new information can be used as a jumping-off point to locate new, published birthdate information, but we cannot use anyone's relative as a reliable source. Tan | 3920:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just reviewing the article for deletion and was declining with the summary: "Declining G3. There's no indication of vandalism and though some of the links in the sources are broken, the pdf shows this is not a hoax. What are you referring to?" You might wish to reconsider given the pdf source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, before I even saw this note from you I had big second thoughts and restored the article within seconds. The sources are more than weak but I don't see this as clearly being a hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I wontedly block usernames made of sundry spins on it and am happy to do this for the community, knowing that 19 times out of 20 (or whatever) anyone who would choose any username calling this word to mind wants only to disrupt the encyclopedia but truth be told, I mean, fuck, I so like that word :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Calm down Switzpaw, Gwen may be the alias of a huge hairy bloke. But this is a great page to learn about Wiki and how to deal with all levels of ambition, attitude and culture. PS Gwen, I know a lady who chose her company name, 'FertilityUK', in complete naivety, so she must be the other 1 of the twenty. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Regretted it but carried on regardless. Resolved to always write the name in full. The 'business' is at the formal/technical/medical end of the spectrum of family planning and sex education. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Its a service run by (mostly) women for (mostly) women. There are good grounds to assume that (mostly) only men have scatological minds and a puerile sense of humour. Thus nice, well educated, girls like you (if a tad more hirsute than is strictly necessary, and with a propensity to Polycystic ovary syndrome), will exhibit nothing more than a wry smile and a slight blush. Ergo, 'cracking up' fits with my original spitzpaw supposition. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Inclusionist has made it his business to archive current sections from a Talk page without consultation, and in order to show his "positions" ina better light that the recent sections showed them. Collect (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he did it to use 29 or so rapid fire edits to fix his words, and to change section titles as well as to remove posts which were embarassing to him. Of course, mainly without noting the changes. Sort of a do it yourself WavBack machine for Talk. Collect (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it may be a little untowards but unless there's a consensus on the talk page to put everything back I wouldn't do anything: If you have a need to cite any of his talk page edits, do so with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Game time -- now he has a RfM out -- he notified me even before he filled in any of the blanks. I think Joe the Plumber is setting a record for such processes ... Collect (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's codswallop stateside meaningless scam politics no matter who comes out "on top" and has little to do with Joe himself so don't try to keep up with it, cite sources if you like and please do let me know if you see any WP:BLP worries but otherwise let it play out into its pithless fate as an historical footnote to yet another tweedle-dee tweedle-dum election. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Although just a few seconds ago, I did try looking for those diffs, I honestly am not thinking straight. For the past few days, all I've been doing is parser code in my friend's wiki for an sheeted, dice-based rpg of his. Long story short, the template topped out at 150kb of parser functions. I'm exhausted, as are my eyes. I probably need to take a break from the computer for a couple of days until I feel better before I get involved in any disputes.— DædαlusContribs /Improve06:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, there may be a reason why looking for the diffs was a slog, tired minds tend to shut down when faced with worthless tasks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Now he is editing the Talk page, reorganizing it, removing what he does not apparently like, and renaming sections, and removing posts from threads to do so. Is there a name for this behavior? Collect (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say rather much the same thing as Theresa. I don't see any removal of other users' comments in that diff. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes... I am having trouble with this, and clearly need to figure out how to narrow the width of the columns so that they fit alongside the userboxes. Otherwise, the rest of the page is screwed up. Ya get what I mean? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It all lines up ok in my install of Firefox but I do see what you mean. I wouldn't get into specifying column widths: Although with a bit of searching I could likely find the tag for doing this, you might get them looking how you want on your browser with your monitor but they'd likely be even more broken on other broswer displays/resolutions. WP:Columns goes about as far as you should go with this, although you've already taken it further :) I mean, you can tweak it all you like and I know it's fun but it's unlikely you'll ever get something that will show up the same way on all the different browser and resolution congfigs folks use with Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I couldn't give bugger-all what it looks like on other people's browsers. I am obsessive-compulsive, and I want it to look right on mine. With thanks for your assistance, I am going to go back to "tweaking," since going too far with things is what I do well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Your grossly inappropriate block of The Enchantress of Florence
This block was inappropriate for several conspicuous reasons:
You imposed the block without actually considering the substantial issues. You comment in announcing the clock was simply that you had "worries." It is clear that you did not reasonably consider the circumstances or evaluate the circumstances, but acted on accusations alone. That is simply high-tech lynching of someone who had stated unpopular opinions, and is behavior that a reasonable, ethical person would be ashamed of.
You imposed the block without allowing an opportunity for the accused person to respond. That is another feature of a lynching. Since my spouse is actively employed, unlike, it seems, most of her critics, she did not have an opportunity to respond to the discussion of blocking before you imposed the block. I would think that simple decency requires allowing a response. You apparently do not.
The block was asymmetric. Once of the complainants, Crusio had posted a lengthy personal attack on my spouse, in response to her civil (and accurate) comment that his actions toward a new user violated the WP:BITE policy.[2][3] Crusio then accessed my spouse's contribution list,announcing his intentions and began removing her prior contributions without regard to their validity; here, for example, he vandalized an article by reinserting unsourced material that amounts to puffery/advertising. [4] Note that Crusio began devoting unwarranted attention to her only an hour after she removed a "prod" notice he had placed on an article. [5] Note that in the same discussion, concerning deletion of an article concerning an erotic film performer, supported the inclusion of a claim that the performer had engaged in explicit on-camera sex with her sister (raising BLP issues far more substantial that the accusations falsely leveled against my spouse bu Durova), even though the source Crusio cited said exactly the opposite, that the claim was a hoax. [6][7]. Frankly, Crusio's actions and comments more that justify the description of him as a "stalker," and demonstrate far greater cause for restrictions on his editing capabilities.
Several of the charges you cite are no more than unfounded accusations, little more than rude epithets. THe claim of "pointy noms" is unsupported by anything other than name-calling, and your repetition of it, plainly without having evaluated the response provided in relevant discussions [8]. It should also have been clear that several examples of that accusation were clearly made in bad faith; Horrorshowj, for example, made the accusation while aaccusing "mass" deletion proposals, although there were only two. Acting without evdence -- indeed, in the clear absence of evidence, is at best grossly irresponsible.
Your reference to BLP violations is clearly and unmistakeably inappropriate. That claimwas made only by user:Durova, who has achieved notoriety by making false allegations against another user. It rests entirely on Durova's objectively false statements regarding the standards for credit card chargebacks, as discussed in detail in the Ginger Jolie deletion debate. "Durova" believes that it is inappropriate to unfavorably characterize a person who refused to provide services she had contracted for, refused to voluntarily refund the advance payments made to her business, and inappropriately, publicly, threatened retailiation against those who made valid claims to their credit card issuers. Why Durova has such sympathy towards dishonest business practices I cannot understand, but discussion of them, based on the subjects own public statements, plainly violates no Wikipedia standards.
I didn't take anyone's word for anything, I looked at the diffs. The block was endorsed at WP:ANI and she was clearly being disruptive, engaging in personal attacks and pointy edits whilst straying from WP:BLP. Moreover the block will automatically lift in a few hours, although if she carries on with that behaviour, the next block will be swift and for a much longer time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Where are the "pointy edits" and "BLP violations" you claim? Why do you believe it is approprate to act without providing an opportunity to respond? Why was your block asymmetric? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said, this block was endorsed at WP:ANI. She's more than welcome to contest the block by putting up an {{unblock|reason here}} tag on her talk page, which other admins will review. Mind, her block will be up in a few hours anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to discuss the matter? Your block was "justified" by false statements and poor policy judgments; the fact that another administrator had the poor judgment to agree with you is hardly relevant. And that certainly does not address the asymmetry question; why did you not act against Crusio, whose personal atack on, and stalking of, my spouse led to the less caustic comments you imposed the inappropiate block for? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's a private website with easy to follow rules which have grown through community consensus. She broke a few rules, was blocked for it and the block was endorsed. The block notice clearly tells how to contest a block, but she hasn't contested it. If she does contest it with an unblock template, other admins will be happy to review this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
That's just another evasion. I think it is clear that she did ot break several of the rules you cite, and that you refused to block other users whose more severely broke the one arguably applicable rule. Moreover, there is no rule which states that other users may not object to blocks, and such objections take place frequently. Your comments here strongly suggest to me that your behavior was abusive, and you are unwilling to follow the standards you apply to others. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
On your user page you self-identify as lawyer who has too much time on his hands right now. Wikipedia is only a website, she broke some of its rules and was only blocked from editing web pages on a single website for 2 days. Moreover, as a relative you seem to have a conflict of interest. She's welcome to put up an unblock template and other admins will review the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that's a personal attack, and you're also citing a nonexistent COI policy. You continue to evade the legitimate issues involved. Thats an abuse of your authority. Your behavior appalls me. Regardless of my relationship to the target of your hostility, there's nothing inappropriate about questioning actions that appear dubious. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hostility? I think you may have your own edits muddled with someone else's. I'll put it this way, but only once more: She can contest the block by putting up an unblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Any user may object to abuse of an administrator's authority. You cite no policy otherwise. The fact that the target of the abuse does not choose to follow the abuser's preferred process is irrelevant. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And I have told you an at least equal number of times that my objections to your abuse of administrative authority are independent of anyone else's opinions. You do not city any policy as justification for your refusal to address these issues. I would also note that the overall discussion you implicitly endorsed included a suggestion that sanctions toward me were possible (a claim also without plicy justification), so I hardly think your dismissive attitude is appropriate. Any Wikipedian editor may object to abuse of authority, not just the target. You cite no policy otherwise, because there is none. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that is a thoroughly inappropriate response. It is an unfortunately common resort of those receiving criticism to make unfounded accusations. My comments are entirely based on your own comments and actions, and your refusal to city either policy or evidence. Comments like your most recent one only serve demonstrate the abusiveness of your actions. And, as you knew when you made the comment, I had already taken the discussion to WP:AN/I, so your suggestion is inexplicably evasive.Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale has not been evasive, she has answered your queries appropriately. I agree that you have strayed far from WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and have great admiration for Gwen Gale's patience. Doug Weller (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Me too. The outcome for blocking your wife was determine by consensus at AN/I. Gwen Gale was the one to pull the trigger. Royalbroil15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I have just noticed the deletion of the Curious Pastimes page, reason (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.) OK I am fine with this if this is not the type of article wanted on Wikipedia. Looking through the list of LRP games I notice that a lot of 'notable' organisations have been deleted recently too. My confusion starts with those that haven't e.g. Lorien Trust. These pages seem to be equally A7?
Long tale short, it fell by the wayside many weeks ago. Thanks for bringing this up, I've restored it. If you find any others, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thank you very much for that. I think there are some other LRP ones that might feel the same. I will get a list. Also the logo image has now been deleted as it was orphaned, should I chase the deleter of that or post the image again? Many thanks anyway. Unkle jimmy (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I restored the logo image. Let me know if you find any more of these deleted LRPs, most of them read like CSD A7s but there is a consensus among a group of experienced and good faith editors that despite this, many LRPs can have helpful articles here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I suppose to people not involved in the hobby LRP can look like self interest and hence A7, but if you are going to list LRP I suppose there are quite a few of us that would claim some importance in the hobby. Looking at the list I would say that following merit an entry (in my humble opinion) ConQuest of Mythodea – (very large and current German event), Fools and Heroes (One of the oldest continual club events in the UK), Heroquest (Similar to previous), Labyrinthe (another long running system run in caves in the South of England) and Maelstrom (relatively new UK festival but again very popular and quite a different style of game to other games). They are all listed on the List of live-action role-playing groups page. I can't honestly comment on the others as I don't really know them. I'll try and keep a more regular eye on the CP page in case this question pops up again. Thanks for all your help.Unkle jimmy (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What?
Please explain how you could even consider a NASCAR driver for speedy deletion? NASCAR is the most well-known stock car racing series in the world! I am certain that a deletion review of the Tighe Scott article would result in a speedy keep. Do you want me to go through the process or would you like to restore it? Royalbroil04:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:ATHLETE. He performed at the highest level in his sport. He even was good – with 16 Top 10 finishes in 89 races according to the infobox on the deleted article. Don't you think that I could find a huge number of reliable sources on him if I was actually given a chance? To speedy delete something means it was a very obviously bad article like "Tighe Scott is my brother". This isn't even borderline for a speedy. It definitely should have received a full deletion discussion before it was deleted. I can see why new contributors get turned off of Wikipedia in cases like this. If I were new, I would be p*#-ed off wondering what kind of articles are acceptable if something with a high level of notability gets deleted. Royalbroil05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The deleted text asserts: His best finish was a fourth place finish at Rockingham in 1979. His highest career season points finish was a thirteenth place in points in the 1978 season. Is NASCAR fully professional? If this was an amateur, would such a career outcome be taken as competing at the highest level of his sport? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured you weren't a fan. Yea, it's the highest form of racing in the United States and second largest in the world behind Formula One. All of its drivers have been had fully-professional drivers since at least the early 1970s with many before that dating back to the late 1940s. Every race since the early 1980s has been nationally televised and current races are televised in 150 countries. NASCAR races are the second most viewed sport in United States after professional American football in the National Football League (ahead of professional basketball, baseball, ice hockey, etc.). Check out the second paragraph in the NASCAR article. NASCAR has its own WikiProject. Last year's 13th place finisher Ryan Newman has a nationally-known household name for racing fans for many years. If you bring back the article, I'll add plenty of reliable sources to the article to ensure it meets the general notability guidelines. I stockpiled several in a note at the bottom of my talk page. I could probably find enough sources to write a good article on him. Besides his NASCAR career, he's one of the more well known New England region dirt modified racers. I was surprised to not find him in any halls of fame when I looked. Royalbroil13:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Having a Wiki Project dosn't make it notable, Theres a wikiproject on alot of things, so you arn't getting me with that, and second, i only like real football, aka SOCCER to people like you.--Jakezing (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
True, but why would someone create a WikiProject on a non-notable topic or on a topic where only the main topic is notable? Anyhow, you should be convinced when you read how notable NASCAR drivers are from the second paragraph in its article. You should also be convinced by seeing the reliable sources that I noted to my talk page. Over the last few years, I've never encountered a NASCAR biography or team article that was deleted in a deletion discussion. When I don't understand the sanctioning bodies in some sports like cricket and "real football", I never speedy delete biographies for those sports. I think that someone should have at least a cursory knowledge in a sport before speedy deleting its articles. I'd be happy to start a deletion review on this article because I am certain that it would result in a snowball restore. Royalbroil14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know tonnes about car racing so I have an open mind about this but I do have some background here in dealing with assertions and citing of notability and going by the article, Ryan Newman has won seven races, some or all of which look notable. Mr Scott has not won any, best he ever did was come in 4th. Moreover, I don't like boring "restore this or I'll take it to DRV" openings. Tell me why you want to talk about the article, not what you'll do if you don't get your way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. What else do you want me to say? I contend that he meets WP:ATHLETE as a racer in a fully professional sport, and I'm willing to do a discussion to determine if I am right or not. In fact he raced in the highest national series in his country and the top stock car racing series in the world. No where in WP:ATHLETE does it say that someone has to win to be notable in a sport. A few days ago I promoted a DYK article for a baseball pitcher that pitched in one inning in one game and did horrible by giving up 5 runs. Notability standards aren't based on high performance, although I contend that a Top 10 finish in any NASCAR race is a high level performance. I promised that I would add numerous independent reliable sources to the article to ensure that it meets the general notability standards in addition to WP:ATHLETE. Royalbroil14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It's true that some topics can be notable within the bounds of community consensus and still read like A7s. Done, following your thoughts and the likelihood you can add some sources showing independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing past my bad attitude and vile tongue. I think my attitude was indicative of my confidence in my ability to defend this article at AFD. You'll be proud of the result when I'm done. Royalbroil15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[9] Think it's a Sockpuppet? They both want ot add the infomration both are redlinked for talk and user... both in a edit war with the other guy... I think its a socky.--Jakezing (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok? So, I don't like ot start some things without proof, it is fun to do that but it gets annoying when you have people who arn't easily confused to your side.--Jakezing (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, rather than add to the drama thread at ANI, could you clarify something for me? I've no intention of creating articles on books myself, and tend to avoid articles on them. But I do sometimes patrol new pages, so might come across the Jellyfist scenario again. looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles:
7 An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.
So if not A7 what code should a non notable book be flagged as, and is the test for CSD "has the book been commercially published", and for AFD "has it been independently reviewed or referred to as a notable work". ϢereSpielChequers14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, there is no way a book can be deleted A7. G11 blatant advertising will most often do for self-published stuff with no coverage, or G3 vandalism/hoax if the marketing spin strays into blatant lies. G1 can work if the article is very short and the context isn't at all clear. I tend to delete creatively written but non-notable book/poetry pages by kids and teens as test pages, to skirt hurt feelings (and lifetime hatreds of Wikipedia). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. When you add a UsernameBlocked template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the current article it is said that the last known aircraft's position was 800 miles, 1300 km off Lae. It has in a publication [European Journal of Navigation, July 2008] been shown that by recomputation of the position fix that the exact distances are 847 miles, 1363 km. These figures to insert in the article ? Desertfax (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)deseretfax
Hey Gwen, I just thought I'd let you know that the on-going "food wars" regarding Israeli adoption of traditionally arabic cuisine seems to have once again spilled over to Falafel. Over the past week there have been repeated edits regarding the Israeli adoption of Falafel, which has seemingly culminated in User:Al-Andalus's addition of section titled "Israeli Controversy". While it does appear to be sourced and documented, I question whether or not the information is presented in a such a way that its real intention is to push a POV.
Wow. The article seems to handle that more helpfully than I would have thought. Meanwhile I'm numb to both games other than having had some brief shreds of fun kicking black and white balls about when I was in school. The brightly coloured ones look so odd to me. So, let me know when someone starts selling hummus burgers at gridiron football matches in Tokyo and calls it all the height of Rapa Nui popular culture. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
JoeTimko
How would you feel if I did an provisional unblock to assess his good faith? He's writing useful and constructive contributions on his talk page as a scratchpad. I'd be willing to look after him. If I remember correctly, wasn't his CU inconclusive? —EncMstr (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any CU having to do with JoeTimko or Wallamoose. No way does a brand new user stumble across another user who has been indefinitely blocked and then deftly put up an unblock template for them. There is a very small likelihood JoeTimko isn't Wallamoose. There is an overwhelming likelihood JoeTimko is Wallamoose. As for his contribs, Camp Treetops was a blatant copyright infringement from other web sites, mostly from http://www.nct.org/page.cfm?p=149. Every cited source would have to be combed for copyright infringements, so I've deleted the article for now. Klamath Union High School is replete with sentence fragments. Both users share the same broken syntax. This edit on his talk page speaks for itself. Lastly, I've now had two emails from an experienced editor which stir up even more worries about JoeTimko and Wallamoose. Do you truly want to deal with this kind of straightforward sockpuppetry, tale telling and dodgy editing? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed—the evidence is strong, except for the article topics by each user. But he seems to be wanting to help now. Limited capitulation in his recent edits indicate realization that this isn't a free-for-all. (I posted at WP:ANI before you responded too.) —EncMstr (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? The user seems OK, but I wasn't sure why you hardblocked that range, so I asked a checkuser for assistance before granting IP block exemption. I didn't realize you were on before. So, I figured it would be better to ask you. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Walla's suspected sock, I would just like to point out an inconsistency in the suspected sock's argument: The suspected sock claims to have been linked to Wallamoose's page from your talk page, however, after the creation of that user account, along with one day before, there has been nothing regarding Walla on your talk page. Did this user search through your archives? If so, why? How did this user find your talk page?
I do wish Walla took the time to understand his first(ever) block, instead of taking it personal and spiraling out of control and into an indef block and suspected sockpuppetry.— DædαlusContribs /Improve05:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you think it is possible to get a burnout from too much code or something? Ever since I've completed that template, well, my eyes have just been feeling tired all the time, like, tired-er than when I normally stay up late.— DædαlusContribs /Improve09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
But this kind of thing hasn't happened before. I've been able to stay up late before with no real consequences, but after all that logic, my eyes have felt constantly tired.— DædαlusContribs /Improve09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ew! Logic! :) Truth be told, if it was a task you don't often do, you might have been casting/focusing your eyes in a way that made 'em tired faster. Either that, or you're gonna need glasses! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
>.> I actually have glasses, and contacts.. which I shall resume wearing when my eyes start feeling better... Either way, I hope this isn't permanent..."— DædαlusContribs /Improve09:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't, you might try turning down the brightness and contrast controls on your screen, most folks run them way too high. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I agree that was untowards. However, most of their edits look helpful. Please let me know if there is any edit warring or straightforward disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
He is starting to go through the articles one by one again. He has now moved here stripping the quotes, and removing information I am adding, and not leaving an edit summary. Removing quotes from citations is what got him blocked before. How is removing the quote function from citations "helpful"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
RAN is incorrect in saying I have been blocked for removing his footnote quotes before. This is a content dispute; RAN inserts these quotes regardless of whether they contribute any information to the article, and occasionally I try to remove them to improve the article. This is unfortunately a dispute with a long history, and one in which RAN has shown himself unwilling to listen to reason or the opinions of others. See here for example. RedSpruce (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As you know, verifiability is not the only criterion for inclusion in an article. Whether or not the material in question improves the article or makes it worse is also a consideration, and an extremely important one. In the future, kindly refrain from giving me orders that are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking (the fuck) that you are abusing your admin powers by using threats to support one side of a content dispute. I am thinking that you are refusing to engage in rational discussion. I am thinking that you haven't addressed my point that "verifiability is not the only criterion for inclusion in an article. Whether or not the material in question improves the article or makes it worse is also a consideration, and an extremely important one." RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Gwen, this: [10] was probably a tad bit over the line. There's no need to editorialize on the issue further. Other admins have sided with you, and understand you aren't abusing any powers. Don't make us look bad with silly, rude comments like this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jayron. Trust me, I've met some brilliant folks who can barely read. RedSpruce. please, please take it from me, someone who has been through the Wikpedia maw and back again, spit out and foresaken, thou'lt not be able to ward forth thy PoV by deleting verifiable quotes from footnotes. If you want me to help you otherwise, you've only to ask and I'll be more than happy to do what I can. I mean it. What are you trying to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, you seem to have your head screwed on right, and the Swiss flag on your page suggests that your German is way better than mine. What do you think of Dubai Opera Ball? (Yes, yes, German and Dubai.) Tama1988 (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking again, yes, your take that A bunch of rich guys donned penguin suits and brought their wymmyn and performed a quaint 19th-century ceremony... also fits, culturally or whatever it looks like a big yawn to me since there's no hint the music itself was played cleverly but it's gotten some verifiable if thin coverage and yes, the German sources read as PRish and blurby as the English ones. Keep in mind, there has long been a big tourist market for Viennese waltzes played by hack orchestras for folks paying stuff prices to get dressed up, sip champagne and pretend their social lives have some wider meaning. I tend to be neutral on these borderline topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Or a bit more specifically, for [snip]. But that's by the way. When I look at the "news coverage" more closely, I discover that it's even worse than I'd realized. Tama1988 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Water One Deleted
Honestly i dont understand why i was deleted.. But ok it was. I would like to know how to get it un-deleted. That company deserves a page just as much as ice mountain or culligan does. I can recreate the info and not include any products if that would help and just leave the history.. I wasnt trying to advertise for the company and again i am not part of the company. If you can take off the protection i would appreciate it.. I dont see why this company doesnt deserve a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike810 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually i did read that page. From what i understand if i update the info from a unbiased view (which i guess since im so impressed with company) that i can resubmit the info. Maybe show it to you to see if you accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike810 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
So that’s it? No page for me? Because you* believe* I have some affiliation with the company which I do not.. In fact I don’t even have a job and never have (besides a few months in retail when I was younger), I am a freelancer.
I think that me being able to see the newspaper articles towards the companies products, (such as the "trailer" in either the Chicago tribune or daily Harold), and owning some of the products such as pure sip, make me over qualified to write a article on them.. All I did was do my research just like anyone who writes an article does. I interviewed the boss's, I read newspapers, I read product descriptions from fliers I got in the mail, and I tried samples of their products. Seriously, what more do you require? I really think this company deserves a page just like ice mountain or culligan does.
Like I said I can rewrite it and just include references, history, company info, and leave the products descriptions out. I will include citations to the www.wateroneinc.com website as well as www.calcoltd.com website. I will write it to your standards.
Again this is just the start of many articles I will be writing on wiki, but this one is important to me because this company doesn’t get the credit it deserves. Again I promise you I have no affiliation with them whatsoever nor do any of my family or friends.. I just did my research.
Mike810 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, if I may jump in (as I am wont to do)... Mike, can you show which criteria of WP:CORP this company meets? It's not a matter of this company "deserving" a page; Wikipedia doesn't award pages, or give them out based on merit, and organizations don't have any inherent right to an article here. What they must do is show they meet notability criteria, which in this case is laid out in WP:CORP. If you can show notability based on that, and backed up with multiple, reliable secondary-source references, I'm sure a page would be welcome here. Tan | 3916:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, This Company has just invented an extremely portable machine that converts dirty water to clean water in seconds for 3 cents a gallon. This company has many patents, actively donates to the community, and has appeared in news papers many times. Is that good enough or is more require? I see a page on Nestle, I see one for Ice Mountain, as well as other companies whose layout and content I based my article on.
Mike810 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You have deleted the TerrainView-Globe site I have created together with the Wiki administrator Redvers.
Please contact him for your questions.
I kindly ask you to undo the deletion. The software description is scientific and similar to Google-Earth and Nasa Worldwind.
Thank you
Interactive3d 10:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactive3d (talk • contribs)
Am I imagining it or is the chickpea paste becoming distinctly sockpuppet flavoured? I'm never very clear about how to proceed with this sort of issue. But [11] does strike me as rather similar to [12]. And if you look at my post [13][14] after the earlier of these ids turned up, I was already suspicious of it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I've always tasted a bit of sockpuppetry dribbled over Hummus. Meanwhile, non-native English speaking editors who spin highly nationalistic PoVs (of whatever stripe, both exclusionary PoVs are utterly hateful and straightforwardly clueless) can often sound somewhat alike because of their limited English vocabulary, syntax and endless use of the same boring and heedless rhetoric. When they pop up on the talk page I tend to ignore them and I haven't seen enough disruption of the article to worry about it, much. If they are the same user and keep on editing, we'll know sooner rather than later and blocks will swiftly follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just noticed I provided the wrong link to my contribution to FayssalF's talk page which I've corrected above. The person whose contributions I list is certainly not here to help write an encyclopedia. Of course, instead of it being a sockpuppet, it could be a mirror image to the JIDF at work seeking to distort mterial their way.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, with the fixed link I clearly see what you're getting at. Yes, it's overwhelmingly likely User:Avayaricoh is someone's sock and yes, I've indeed seen socks used in heated disputes as "false wiki flags" to make the "other side" look wholly bad faith and disruptive. This is another reason why I tend to ignore them altogether, as I've mostly ignored User:Avayaricoh, who hasn't edited in a few days. I didn't know Avayaricoh had been plopping tags onto so many articles, if he starts up again I'll put a stop to it. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought they were false flag puppets (though the possibility is intriguing) but that what the Zionist fanatics can do, the anti-Zionist ones can do too. That particular userid may not have edited for a couple of days because the puppeteer may be using another one, or two, or three... Which returns to my suspicion of the new poster to the talk page today. Anyway thanks for noting this and also for following up my recent AN posting re Malcolm S.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, I have noticed that you have deleted the article on Malayalam novelist Perumbadavam Sreedharan. I am confident that I can establish the notability of this person. What should I do now? Is it now possible to take the article to AFD? Please let me know. Thanks.Salih(talk)16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've put the deleted text at User:Salih/sandbox. Please try to find independent sources beyond hindu.com and see what you can do about strengthening the assertions of significance in the article. When this has been done, feel free to either recreate the article or ask me or another experienced editor to have a look. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I was contacted off wiki (not by the above editor) and asked to look into this. I think the award probably establishes notability, and hindu.com is "Online edition of India's National Newspaper" so I'm not sure what the sourcing issues are. There may be something I'm missing here -- I've not been around much lately due to work. Can you fill me in? Thanks! TravellingCari17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I told the editor the article can be freely recreated after more than one independent source has been cited. If the topic is notable (and can bear a meaningful assertion of significance which will skirt more CSD A7s), this should be a snap. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, guess I caught you online :) I think the two cited awards provide notability and avoid a CSD A7, but we may disagree. I don't read Malayam or other Indian languages, but hopefully someone who does will be able to source it to everyone's satusfaction. Thanks for the quick answer! TravellingCari18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
How do we know the awards themselves have any meaning? With one or two more independent sources, it is highly unlikely anyone will tag the article CSD A7 again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
They don't need to be, but we've been through this before. A7 says and always has, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. But like I said, we disagree. Winning an award passes A7, AfD should decide whether the award is notable enough. The article definitely indicates why the person might be notable. I have no intention of overturning your deletion, even though I don't think it was a good call. I'm on limited wiki time and to be honest, I'd never have noticed this article's existence or deletion if I hadn't been e-mailed. That said, when and if it's re-created and I think the editor by whom I was contacted has an intention of doing so, I suggest AfD if you really think it should be deleted. I'd contest a second speedy because it doesn't meet A7. Have a good day! TravellingCari18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh and FYI, there's more than enough English sourcing available. I suggest restoring the article, please? Yes, I got more involved than I intended, but I don't think that was an A7. You can list at AfD if you really disagree but I think what I found provides suitable notability. Thoughts? Thanks! TravellingCari18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already said twice now (and from the outset) that the article can be freely recreated after more indepedendent sources have been added. The asserted awards do not amount to a meaningful assertion of importance on en.Wikipedia. The article is an A7 as written, was tagged as such by an editor and deleted by me. It's at User:Salih/sandbox. Please feel free to add one or two more independent sources other than hindu.com and recreate the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it back to preserve GFDL and am working on it now. The article isn't and wasn't an A7, but we'll agree to disagree there? Have a good day. BTW, not watching, was just refreshing so ping me if you leave a note more than ~ half hour from now please? Thanks TravellingCari18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, at least we agree on the outcome, the text is no longer an A7 and is highly unlikely to be tagged as such again ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent for clarity) Agreed, Gwen. I think everyone's goal is a better article, as it should be. I've asked a librarian I know to see what he can add about library holdings which should also bolster notability. On that note, I'm headed out. Have a good afternoon or evening -- I forget what time zone you're in. TravellingCari19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I was only quoting you when I used the word gripe... (and you were quoting Mangojuice, I know). But for real, the discussion was going south, and there's no impending benefit to Wikipedia to sit around and complain about how this admin or that admin didn't do exactly what we wanted them to do. The discussion had descended into a complaint session, and all that keeping it open longer would have served to do was to hurt people's feelings... And after all, isn't that what #en-admins is for?!? Just kidding there, and I meant no offense by my closing comments, but the discussion thread had to be closed before people's feelings really got hurt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, only because you've brought it up, I didn't think the conversation was going south and I don't think the thread was hurting editors' feelings. Rather, I think the project is harmed when an editor who, with unsourced and non-notable content, stirs up 72 AfDs within a few days and then snipes at an editor who doesn't want to copy-paste a dozen of the deleted, unsourced articles into user space. I think you made a mistake in closing the thread, along with the mistakes of calling good-faith posts and thoughts a "bitch session" and "griping."Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think we have a total misunderstanding here. I saw the entire thing as an attack against Mangojuice, and I didn't want to see an otherwise good admin dragged through the mud for no good reason. It wasn't YOU I was accusing of either griping or bitching, for the record I think you had some very good things to say... If you want to unclose the thread so more people can pile on a volunteer adminsitrator, simply because he didn't want to restore a slew of articles that had no chance of ever making the mainspace, be my guest. Mangojuice acted appropriately, and the rest of the thread smearing him had little purpose... --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I mean, which edits stood out in particular. Since I haven't really been involved with FClass as of late, I can't seem to recall his pattern.— DædαlusContribs /Improve11:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, it was vandalism and I blocked your account, which is likely why you're asking through an IP. If you keep asking and make me go back and look, I'm likely to find there was something so unhelpful about it that I'll block this IP too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Harry Allen (musician), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
I think he's notable enough to stay, and certainly notable enough that AfD is the minimum required to delete. Thanks MadScot (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I declined a speedy deletion tag on the article but thought it might be borderline, so I put up the prod tag. Anyone can rm a prod tag and now we know at least one editor watches the article and thinks the topic is notable enough to stay. Thanks for telling me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Raymond Grissom
You recently deleted Raymond Grissom from WIkipedia. I am new to WIkipedia and didn't realise that I should have put under construction at the top of the page. It has more stuff now but is still under construction. He is a normal kid, who had some high school-post high school success. But he's been reported by various news,media networks including CNN on live news. He isn't just some smart kid but a source of inspiration for young black males who want to get ahead. He's very important for the movement of African-AMerican males away from crime and stereotypical problems. Please un-delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcheck20 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The article was but a collection of links with zero text and was deleted as such. Please do read this page first for some handy tips, then go ahead and try again! I've put the links on your talk page (everything that was in the article). All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been speedily deleted on the grounds of "blatant advertising". The Premio Roma is a major horse race in Italy – it has equivalent articles on both the French and Japanese Wikipedias. This is clearly a mistake, so please restore the article if you can. Thank you. -- Zafonic (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:WAX. An article about a horse race that's been running for 19 years at a redlinked racetrack, which is but a list of winners, carries hardly a shred of text, nothing about its significance, context or meaning in the sport, or its history (yes, I did see it has a flashy name). I've rs'd it but please see what you can do about putting some text into the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Unified account
Hi,my username on Hindi wikipedia is Debashish and at English one is Debashishc. I wanted to go for the unified login. Can my username at English Wikipedia be changed to "Debashish" (I see that this username has already been taken, but this answer seems to imply I can still change that)? Could you please help or please point me to appropriate Admin? Thanks. --Debashishc (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have read it and after that, I have given a long mail to you. But somehow, that was not saved. Did you see why we have started this page 'ancientindia" in the first place?
I think your main apprehension is we might be using it for the propagation of the group, which is not correct. In fact, we do not encourage non professionals to join the group.
If we were looking for propagation, we would have titled with a more search friendly title (say Ancient India, with a space in between) and not Ancientindia (without space, which is not usually searched for), which exactly is the title of our group. In fact, Ancientindia will not result in any search that asks for ancient[space]india.
A place in wikipedia will give us a place of pride but we want to earn that.
In any case, I hope you would reinstate the article and decide to continue or delete only after some discussions. I am keeping this page on my watch list so that I can immediately reply you.
Also, you can get in touch with me : [snip email addy]
I'm sorry to see you have not read the links I gave you, leading to project pages which tell everything you need to know about why your article was deleted and will not be restored at this time. There is nothing further to suggest to you, because it is so unlikely sources can be found to show meaningul independent coverage. Moreover, you shouldn't be writing an article about a website in which you are involved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, we have very much seen the contents of the two web pages – one is about notability and the other is about non encyclopaedia pages. If you restore the article, we can represent it according to these guidelines. Then you can have a discussion if it still is required and then decide what to do about it. Obviously, the group is not SO famous that somebody else would think of putting up a page about it. Who has put it up is unimportant so long as it what is presented is the truth and involves public interest and is encyclopaedia information.
Sorry to eavesdrop, but I thought I might be able to help... Gwen, if you would like, I could restore these to as userspace subpages, per WP:SUBPAGE, giving him the chance to work on the article in draft form and bring it up to standard BEFORE they "go live" in the mainspace. This is pretty standard practice, and I don't see any reason NOT to give him a chance to work on the article in his userspace at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs15:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If he's unwilling to read the policy and guideline links I gave him, I don't see how userfying the content could ever lead to a helpful article. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Kishorepatnaik, I gave you at least 4 links, not two and it is clear you haven't read any of them. Moreover, with your self-described conflict of interest, you shouldn't be writing an article about this topic anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I thank you for your patience. You deserve another barn star but I did see the conflict of interest also but I did not apply it to this case. If you restore the article or send me the original article, we will find out if someone else, unconnected, is genuinely interested in presenting about the group.
Thanks but are we not making it more complicated? You restore the article as suggested by Jeyron, which is in accordance with the practices, you help us to represent the article in accordance with the rules – meanwhile, we will also read the policies in full – and then alone, we can take the appeal , if we still do not agree with each other. I hope you are reasonable.
I want to make clear that my offer of help was purely technical in nature; I was willing to perform the technical act of userfying the page in question. Gwen, who is the admin who deleted it, at this point has the ultimate say as to whether or not it should be restored. Since she has responded in the negative, this should be taken to WP:DRV for further discussion. I will be posting this there to see what other people think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs16:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
To Gwen, the rules of wikipedia. Well, I think I am facing a very bitter experience here, which I have not expected. Gwen is very unhelpful, nreasonable, very unfortunately, quite egoistic, to say the least in spite of feasible alternatives suggested by a fellow administrator.
If Wikipeida has a great name, it is because people like Gwen are less in number. I am sorry to say all this but I guess I have to, in the most possible polite and modest terms.
You can't tell me what "rules" you mean because you haven't bothered to read the links I gave you. Rather, you have tried to badger and argue your way to getting the content restored and when that didn't happen, you put me down. This is all aside from your conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, please don;t act with your nose up in the air. This is really getting on me. You seem to be peeved not because we have not read the links but because we have not read the linke GIVEN BY YOU. You are acting in a very egoistic way, I am sorry about that. Please self introspect yourself. " you can';t tell me..." intones that you want to hint that you are the boss here. One more insight into your personality. If you were reasonable, you would taken the advise of Jayron. ( A mere typo made you so upset, I have typed his name earlier correctly)
Last and final, it is very, very unfortunate that you feel presseured under polite requests. That is because perhaps, you have one point agenda – I am the girl who run the shots and this guy, KP, should act as per that. Agreed you are admin here but then, you have also some responsibility, to act in good faith and not like a small kid throwing tantrums.
I am not angered by your deletion of the article, though it is done in a hurry, but by your refusal to hear to reasonableness to resolve the issue, when the advise has come from your own colleague. I am sorry to give you an earful. If it makes you a better person, I will be very happy about it, article or no article.
You mistook what Jayron was trying to do. If you are unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy there is nothing I can do to help you. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
As a courtesy to all invovled, I have posted a new discussion at Deletion Review. This isn't exactly a fruitful debate anymore, so bringing in a wider audience of other editors seems a wise move. Please make any further comments there. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
All that I can say you are talking nonsense, showing motives and exhibiting high level of official arrogance, unwilling to resolve issues in an easier way than warranted. you have failed in your job. If I were the President of Wikipedia, I would have fired you. You lost in the good faith.
Gwen, Administration involves two parts – one is to impose the rules and see that the system runs, the second is to resolve the issues (I am an administrator for the last 20 years). I will ask myself every time, can i do this easier, simpler and in a better manner which causes less inconvenience and more acceptance to every one concerned? In other words, it is not just imposing rules and give a bunch of rules book any one and every one you come across and crib that they are not listening to you (cribbing or arrogance should be the last words in an administrator's dictionary). YOu have certainly tipped in this issue and fell flat on your nose. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, we needed help and guidance and you have not appreciated that fact at all.My requests for such help and guidance were taken as 'badgering' and arguments. It only means you are too much wrapped in your self.
I have two instances here on Wikipedia where people showed exceptionally good administrative abilities – one of my article on Hindu dictionaries was tagged for Weasel words. When the person understood that I do not know what are Weasel words (now I know), she cleaned up the article herself since she knew the value of the article. In another instance, a western administrator removed another article of mine on minor Vedic Gods. He did not see any importance. While I agreed that it did not have much importance since hardly anyone would come searching for it, it does not mean that it should not deserve a place in Encyclopaedia. The article was immediately restored and I was asked to improve upon it. I hope we all learn from such incidents. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't read this. You'll first need to say you're sorry for all the personal attacks and then show me some hint you've read WP:WEB and WP:COI. You have my best wishes either way, though, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
bullshit over at This Article, because its really not leading anywhere. user:Tocino, Marek(forgot full user) and User: Avala are the main problems. Marek edit wars with tocino and avala and alot of talk page fighting, while avala pushs some pov but also forces his stuff and tocino just plain pushs his Serbian, and might I add, racist POV into the article and abuses the fact no adminsitrator is willing to do a damned thing about him breaking rules.--Jakezing (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk page, general waring on the talk page, we have a very un wikipedia style war going on between marek and avala largely withu tocino not helpuing, and a hypocrite telling me not to break rules in a section that is already breaking rules anyways.--Jakezing (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Gwen – can you tell me what section of the user page policy applies to this page? For context, please see my talk page and the user's talk page. Note that I missed the fact the user page existed more or less "as-is" when I deleted the article page. Also, the redirect from one of the other article pages to a city that doesn't mention the school at all seems odd to me. Your opinion(s)? Thanks! Frank | talk 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, #6: It's G11 advertising for a school and can be deleted straight off. Moreover, it's content which has lately been deleted from the article space and shouldn't ever go on a main user page. You could userfy it at User:Buen-buen/sandbox but I'd do that only if the user showed an understanding of WP:ORG and promised to rebuild the article with reliable sources and a neutral PoV which it doesn't have now. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it was in there somewhere. The end of Daylight Savings Time has apparently addled my brain this morning. You think this is warning-worthy, blank-worthy, or delete-and-restore-without-spam-worthy? Frank | talk 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You are some jerk man.. I said before i have no affiliation with this company... How is this in any way advertising? Here is exactly what you just deleted... tell me how in any way possible this deserves to get deleted or how it is advertising.. Man even admins on wiki have power trips...Mike810 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok understood.. The reason why I was upset was because I did read those policies and re-wrote the content to compliment the policies and it was still deleted.
Mike810 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh absolutely. While she did not had the direct intent to vandalize Wikipedia, she was not taking Wikipedia seriously at all. — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep! This is why I didn't block her, even though she had no helpful edits, there are hints she wasn't trying to harm the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I read COI guidelines, but I don't see how it applies to what I've written. I see no conflict of interest. I am trying to write a page about a non-profit organization in a factual and notable way without promoting it or advertising it – Just the facts. What am I doing wrong? What else is needed so that it won't be deleted when I publish it? I have read dozens of non-profit org pages on wikipedia and they seem fine (e.g. Slum Dwellers International).
I'v tried to be simple with him on pure fact, he refuses ot read it and claims POV on me when he is pushing his own pov by calling my world "blakc and white" wanna warn him for me, warning is afterall a admins job.--Jakezing (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, the diff you used as justification for your block happened prior to his first block. It was this edit's summary which was problematic, in which he states "I still believe this is an accurate description of actions taken against me" referring to his striking of the word "troll." I think a block would be quickly overturned based on your diff. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Copied the wrong one is all, my botch, fixed, thanks for letting me know. Striking out some of the attack so it could still be read was about as snarky as it gets (never mind the edit summary). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I never understood the striking out thing. There's another editor who spends a lot of time attacking others, and when he's called on it, he strikes the comment, but it's still there. My opinion would be that you delete the comment and apologize. I give good faith to those who do that. Striking is not good faith, it's just pretending. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok strikeout: I've been editing that article since March April.
Not ok strikeout: User so and so is a (scathing, disruptive personal attack goes here).
Doesn't matter. If you have a worry about the deletion take it to DRV or start posting with your thoughts laid out straightforwardly and politely, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Could be a non-speaking, walk-on part, the text did not carry a meaningful assertion of significance or importance, was tagged as a CSD A7 (bio) and deleted as such by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Could be a non-speaking part, but it is an indication of why they might be notable, which is all that is needed to satisfy A7. It is quite feasible that this person is notable for a TV role. TigerShark (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The text contains no indication of why they might be important or significant. Lots of unknown actors show up on the BBC. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Stating that they have a role in that show provides an indication of why they *might* be notable, but perhaps doesn't sufficiently demonstrate it enough to satisfy WP:N. However, in that case, it should not be speedied. The same with the rest of the actors, models and the author has the book and the fact that she is a professor. TigerShark (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I am asking the same question of those articles? Why is that uncivil? Do you really want me to take these to DRV without discussing them with you? TigerShark (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I do not see how. Anyway, back to the articles, I do not feel that they met the A7 criteria, and would like to restore them. Do you object? TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am, the sitcom seems to have had six episodes broadcast, and although not all professors are notable, and this one may not be, it is a reasonable indication of potential notability, which therefore needs to be discussed. Same with the model and the other actor. TigerShark (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We don't agree. You're reading stuff into the text, in your good faith take on CSD, whilst I'm taking the text as it is, in my own good faith take on CSD. It doesn't matter if these articles could or couldn't get through an AfD once they've been given meaningful assertions of significance or importance (along with some reliable hints of independent coverage), although I wouldn't knowingly speedy a topic I thought was truly notable. A7 text is straightforwardly lacking in the needed assertions. Keep in mind, all these articles were tagged by someone else, so we have two editors asserting A7s. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through all five of these, wondering if there was some pattern of abuse that drew me into mistakenly deleting them. However, as it happens, the five articles were tagged CSD by four different editors:
So here we have five six editors with a take on CSD which seems to be different from yours. I'm open to talking about this more, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that simply because they have been tagged and deleted provides any proof of whether they do or do not meet the criteria. Neither does my raising of this issue. I think that the A7 definition is fairly clear that a reasonable claim of a reason why they might be notable suffices, everything else is for discussion at AFD. The whole point is that if there is not a stated reason why an individual might be notable, there is nothing to discuss. In this case there is, "was the book self published?", "where the roles sufficient?" etc are all questions that can be discussed at AFD. The default position should be to err on the side of caution and give the community a chance to discuss anything where there is doubt, which I have. TigerShark (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I never brought up any question of "proof" and neither does the CSD project page. This has only to do with the text of an article, as found, most often written by a single editor on an open wiki. Going by WP:CSD, in each of these five articles, the text does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A professor, a model, a child actor, or an actor showing up on BBC, is not alone an indication of importance or significance. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why you raised them then. Anyway, the relevant part of the A7 criteria is, I think:
"This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable."
All of the reasons I have given provide an indication of why it might be notable, if there is such an indication they should be discussed. TigerShark (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no reasonable indication in the texts of any of these articles as to why the topics might be notable. Indeed, most actors, models, professors and writers of books are not at all notable, so in truth these assertions alone hint rather more at likelihoods of non-notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry but appearing on TV show gives a much greater indication of possible notability than the average person. To say that most actors who have appeared on TV and films are not notable, even if that is true, is a flawed argument because they still have a claim that can be discussed, compared to the average person in the street, exactly the same with professors. I think that you are applying far too high a test, a test more akin to WP:N, than a simply test of whether a reason has been given to indicate why they might possibly be notable. If there is a doubt, and I think there clearly is, then a deletion discussion is appropriate. TigerShark (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not say "most actors who have appeared on TV and films are not notable." Please reread my comment and rethink your post if needed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about actors that have appeared on TV and film, I have said that give an indication of notability and you have said that being an actor doesn't give an indication. So were you talking about actors in general or actors that have appeared in TV or film? If not the latter, why? TigerShark (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Most actors are not notable. Moreover, most non-notable actors have had many fleeting and sundry appearances on TV or in films and commercials (with photo resumés and "reels" to show for it). Hence, to say someone is an actor who has appeared on TV is not a meaningful assertion of importance or significance. Since we've narrowed in for now on the two actors who appeared on BBC3, if either article had asserted a "starring" or "leading role" in Coming of Age I would have declined the speedies straight off and with nary a second thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not say "having an appearance on TV actually makes them less likely to be notable" so there is no way I can answer your question. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You said about being an actor:
"in truth these assertions alone hint rather more at likelihoods of non-notability."
Again, were you talking about being an actor in general, or about being an actor who has appeared on TV or film? (which all of the actors involved have). TigerShark (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken. As I already said above, "most non-notable actors have had many fleeting and sundry appearances on TV or in films and commercials (with photo resumés and "reels" to show for it). Hence, to say someone is an actor who has appeared on TV is not a meaningful assertion of importance or significance." Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It is probably not correct to say that most non-notable actors have appeared on TV because many never make it that far, but even if it is, a decent proportion of actors who have appeared on TV are notable, so appearing on TV gives a reasonable chance of notability, so they should be discussed. TigerShark (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Appearing on TV is not a notable event, so there's not much to "making it that far" when most of the roles (numerically) are bit parts, walk ons and extras. Thousands of non-notable actors appear on TV every year. Meanwhile, in the states alone, in 2006, there were about 70,000 people who had employment as actors. The overwhelming majority, tens of thousands, are not notable and never will be. An assertion that one is an actor is not an assertion of importance. Rather, in itself it is more likely an assertion of non-notability. Since most actors do now and then get small roles, walk ons and extra work on TV, films and in commercials, the added, bare assertion that an actor has been on TV is also more than likely an assertion of non-notability. There has to be some other assertion to lead one into thinking there even might be notability.
Hence, the two articles about actors who'd appeared on the BBC didn't carry meaningful assertions of importance and were A7s. The articles could have been written with stronger assertions. Had they been, I would have declined the speedies. However, as written, they were tagged and deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is an assertion of non-notability, I don't see how it can be. It may be that an actor is less likely than not to be non-notable, even if they have been on TV, which I think is what you are saying – but that doesn't mean that appearing on TV is an assertion of non-notability, I think there is a logical fallacy there. I understand that they were tagged and deleted, but I think incorrectly so, because there was an assertion of why they *might* be notable, which is all that is needed. In other words there is something that notability *could* be derived from, so that needs discussing before a deletion. The A7 test is not very tough to pass, and rightly so, because we should discuss if there is any doubt. I understand that you don't see it this way, but that is the way that I interpret A7. I am not sure if there is anything else that I can say, without repeating myself, because you do not seem to agree with the basic premise that the test is to only give a reason that they might be notable, not a compelling reason. If there isn't a specific way to move this discussion forward (let me know if there is), I would like to undelete these, and I guess they would have to go to AFD. Are you going to stand in my way? TigerShark (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
They're all A7s as written, as I've thoroughly explained. Moreover, having looked into them further, so far I don't think they meet WP:BIO, so I can't in good faith waive the CSD deletions. If you still disagree, please take them to DRV, as I suggested at the outset of this thread. Please don't restore them, thanks. I should say, I don't think it's at all fair to ask, "Are you going to stand in my way?" It would be like me asking you, "Are you going to wheel war?" Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You have explained, but I think your interpretation is wrong. Do you think that it is worth while wasting time at DRV? Wouldn't it be better to spend the time at AFD and give more people a chance to comment? DRV is better suited to AFDs that have been closed, rather than just going through it for the sake of it. What is gained by going to DRV rather than AFD? TigerShark (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think time would be wasted at DRV and there is nothing at DRV that I've ever seen which says it's more fit for AfDs than CSDs. I would also say, you haven't told me you believe you can show notability with reliable sources and will build each of them into encyclopedic articles yourself. Had you done, I'd be happy to at least put them in your userspace and you could freely recreate them once they were no longer A7s. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have time to work on them, and just because I don't feel they meet the A7 criteria and want these to go to AFD doesn't mean I have to commit the time to work on them. We shouldn't have such an imbalance between what it takes to delete an article and what it takes to take it to AFD. I would still like to know what benefit there is to taken them to DRV rather than AFD, to make sure we aren't just doing it for the sake of it. TigerShark (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me (and has more or less since this thread began) you don't care about the articles, but are trying to sway a take on wider policy, here on my talk page. If you did want to edit the articles yourself, at the very least I'd userfy them. Moreover, now and then I do restore an A7 to the article space if someone says they can find sources showing notability and are willing to cite strengthened assertions of importance/significance. Lacking your willingness (or for now, anyone else's) to edit the articles, I can't see any pith to userfying, restoring or sending them to DRV. You're the one who brought up DRV to begin with, almost straight off. Since I never read a hint that you wanted to edit these articles yourself, or that you believed in each of them as articles which could in truth be encyclopedic, I couldn't and can't in good faith restore or userfy, since they could likely be swiftly retagged as A7s, or stay that way in the article space. Hence, DRV would be a way for you to get input from others on this. I think it's wholly up to you as to whether you might find DRV helpful, or only for the "sake of it." On the bright side, all of this has spun off some thoughts I'll likely add here (which is linked in the banner at the top of this page). All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean regarding whether I care about the articles, or about taking a swipe at policy. I believe the deletions were incorrect and I feel that they should be reverted. I do think they could be encyclopedic, but I do not commit myself to making them so. Challenging a decision should not be made onerous on the person making the challenge, because that would have a chilling effect on good faith questioning of actions. The way to get input on whether the articles should be kept is AFD, DRV is to get input on whether policy was correctly applied. The latter might be of interest to you, but my concern is making sure these articles are dealt with properly. I think are avoiding the question here. What is to be gained by going to DRV rather than AFD? Can you please answer this, rather than just repeating that it should go to DRV. Also, if you look back I believe you will find that you brought up DRV first. I had expected a focused discussion and then hopefully for you to allow me to restore them, so that we could err on the side of caution when I have raised good faith concerns. Instead we have gone several times around the houses and I just can't get you to explain why we should go to DRV rather than AFD. Let's please make sure that we don't waste more time without good reason. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You wrote, "Can you please answer this, rather than just repeating that it should go to DRV," yet I had written, "I can't see any pith to userfying, restoring or sending them to DRV," along with "I think it's wholly up to you as to whether you might find DRV helpful..." Moreover, I never said anything about "taking a swipe at policy." Many times in this thread you've shown that you have either not understood what I have written, have not carefully read what I wrote, or are not willing to acknowledge what I have written. As for "a chilling effect on good faith questioning of actions," I hardly think my having lengthily shared my thoughts with you here (along with my acknowledgement of your good faith) can be called "a chilling effect." Truth be told, I found the way you started this thread to be rather chilling (never mind from an admin), but stuck with you. Lastly, you keep saying/hinting that "we" are wasting time. As the deleting admin I take my responsibility to discuss my actions quite seriously. If I didn't have the time to talk about them, I wouldn't take those actions and I don't see talking about them as a waste of time. However, I'm now worried that you think this is a waste of time. Hence, I'm not too stirred up to talk about this anymore.
You've asked if you could restore the articles (not, I should say, if I might restore them) and as the deleting admin, I decline, based on my reading of Wikipedia policy as it relates to your comments here, taken altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, but bear in mind that I do not actually have to ask your permission to take a course of action, whether that is taking it to DRV, or AFD, or any other course. You are talking as if you have an ability to prevent me from doing so. I spoke to you first because I wanted to consult you and hopefully arrive at some kind of agreement. You say that I have misunderstood what you have said. That may be so, but I think that I have extensively tried to understand and respond, and too often you have just told me that I have misunderstood and told me to read what you said again. Perhaps you should consider that I may have misunderstood because you hadn't made it clear, and should have tried to consider why that may be and tried again to explain. As for the chilling effect, I meant that there should not be a high hurdle to questioning a decision (such as having to work on the articles myself). I consider that I have extensively consulted you, but do not take that to mean that I think that I need your permission to take a course of action, I just think that it is good practice to consult with you. Just because you took the original action, doesn't mean you can dictate how it is resolved. I will consider how best to proceed. TigerShark (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the diff where I said you needed "permission to take a course of action, whether that is taking it to DRV, or AFD, or any other course." If you think I said this, you're indeed mistaken. Please note that Paul Vandervort has again been deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You said that I asked if I could restore it, and you declined. Whether you meant to or not, that left the impression that you were suggesting that I was asking your permission and you declined your permission. Remember, the impression you leave is as important as the exact words you used. Anyway, I now take it that you are not suggesting that I need your permission, so I will consider whether going to DRV is the best course of action or whether AFD is more appropriate (taking into account your comments of course – on that subject I would still be keen to hear why you feel that DRV may be better than AFD). As for the Vandervort article I will review it again and perhaps speak with the deleting admin. From the comments on this page, obviously there is more than one person who feels that it is not an A7, so the deletion is somewhat contentious and an AFD discussion may be warranted. TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Paul Vandervort has been restored inadvertantly by me; the creator had first made a lowercase version, which I moved to the proper title. However, I must vocalize concerns here; while I agree with the A7 tags on all of the other articles brought up by TigerShark above, I feel that Vandervort easily exceeds the standards for WP:BIO through his modeling connections and appearances on a notable TV show; the ample sources provided also demonstrate this. So, I'd ask you not to re-delete this one. Thanks. GlassCobra13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Vandervort may or may not exceed the standards for WP:BIO (the article cites no sources at all and has gobs of external links to mostly user-editable or promotional websites). I don't agree that the text I deleted makes a meaningful assertion of significance. Meanwhile, the COISPA editor has succeeded in getting the article onto Wikipedia by repeatedly recreating it, seeming to have made a typo in the title (a very common tactic), which was then moved over a deleted page, which I had salted against recreation, by an admin who didn't check it first (I know you're thinking in very good faith, that's not at all my worry! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are noted. If you like, take the article to AfD; however, I still do not think CSD is the proper method. GlassCobra14:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, if an AfD is called for someone will likely send it there and if the article doesn't meet BIO it'll be deleted. My only worry is that a CSD'd article was restored by mistake, but it's not a big worry at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi GlassCobra. Why do you think that the other articles do not give a reasonable indication of why they might be notable (not why they are, but why they might be)? TigerShark (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Paul Vandervort tagged and deleted again
Paul Vandervort has been tagged CSD A7 yet again. This is what wontedly happens when A7 text is restored to the article space. Created by a COI, SPA account, deleted, recreated, deleted and salted, then restored by mistake after it had been recreated a third time with the family name beginning in lower case, with no meaningful assertion of significance or importance, no cites showing independent coverage of the topic, a chatty, blurby text and external links to mostly user-editable or promotional websites, I'm not startled. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra feels that appearing on some obscure "reality" show as a contestant constitutes an assertion of notability. I understood that it was decided some time ago that there are so many of these nowadays that this is no more an assertion of notability than being a contestant on a gameshow. GlassCobra wants some more substantial reference; can you help? --Orange Mike | Talk21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (has been on one gameshow and in one documentary film; doesn't make any assertion of notability)
But you know, a substantial reference may be hard to find because the topic likely hasn't gotten meaningful coverage and hence isn't notable. I agree it's always been an A7 (and has now been tagged and deleted as such, twice). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Because there are now a couple of opinions against an outright A7 deletion, I think that an AFD is appropriate instead, as you should very much err on the side of caution with speedy deletions. Any thoughts? TigerShark (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Why Gwen? It has been deleted twice but it has also been suggested by at least two people that a different course of action may be appropriate. As WP:CSD states "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.". Surely there must be reasonable doubt in this case, so it is better to err on the side of caution, don't you think? TigerShark (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've restored and prodded it; but the damned thing is sickeningly spammy. This modeling agency has created a tool by which every one of their models is now "notable"; and we're serving as enablers if we allow this article to stand. --Orange Mike | Talk15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I know where you are coming from. To be honest, this is, in my opinion, by far the weakest of the articles in terms of a claim of notability. TigerShark (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
General apology
I just want to apologize for the friction lately between us. It certainly seems that we have ended up on the wrong ends of some contentious issues regarding admin actions. I want you to know that I am truly sorry if I have rubbed you the wrong way in any of these interactions. I do respect you and your opinions on all of these issues, and I only hope that these problems have not negatively affected our ability to work as collegues in the future. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron. I know you were trying to help and wholly from an outlook of wiki-peace and understanding. I think you may have seen "contentious issues" where there weren't any (my edgily-put throwaway comment about readers being smarter than we sometimes think, that AN thread about a request for a big block of userfications and then, the over-eager editor hoping to flog his Yahoo forum in an article). On a sprawling open wiki like this there will always be disagreements which need to be talked through in threads and while these often play out into faded, still somewhat frizzy ends, the pith is, it's more often than not helpful that it happens this way, since the pith isn't whether disagreement has ended, but whether editors can find ways to edit together whilst still in disagreement. Hence, disagreement isn't the same thing as contention and where there may indeed be an angry, thwarted and even befuddled user posting in a thread, it doesn't mean anyone else is angry, befuddled or losing their grip: It may not be a burning squabble into which one must leap and helpfully tamp everything out straight off. Wikipedia is a tangle of loose ends, this is how it's meant to be and why it spins so amazingly as an open resource to which so many readers and editors flock. The day Wikipedia ties up those loose ends will be the day Wikipedia loses its meaning to most, since it would've lost its canny link to how folks think. No worries here, this'll have no sway for me on how we might handle stuff together later on. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Thats a very philosophical, and "big picture" outlook on Wikipedia, and I am greatful you took the time to explain your wiki-philosophy. I look forward to working with you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
" the over-eager editor hoping to flog his Yahoo forum in an article)" Gwen, I know you had your way because you are technically correct in what you have done but that does not mean you can attribute motives to me. Jayron is being just a gentle man. In any case, you have faltered in our case, by refusing to look at the frantic SOS requests from our end, stubbornly sticking to your official tag line of "I tell you so, you listen" , just pathetic. No kudos to you, once again. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I can notice your glee. I did not spam Wikipedia. There are almost 1000 messages in my group and I think I must have placed the references at best in three or so articles.
I don;t understand what is meant by userfying. This in itself indicates your undying penchant for not helping people. Any way, Wikipedia should have a help desk and I hope itf such help desk is maintained, people who are more helpful than you will be manning such desk. This is not a personal attack, I don;t even know who you are, but just my comments on your behaviour. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have deleted a new article on this game on the ground of advertising. But, it is a game and the reference used was governing body of the game in India. Why do suggest that it sounds like advertising? I understand that there was problem in the article and it probably could have been copied from the website. But, the topic seems to be notable. Isn't it? I am planning to add article on this topic with legitimate text. So, I though it would be good to discuss it with you. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your speedy delete. Just because the article was in all caps at the time of nomination does not necessary imply a speedy deletion. I went through the first revision and it was pretty decently written. Also. we *do not* delete articles because they point to the official site that has created the rules. Just for the record, throwball is a popular women's sport played in schools in India. I know my school had a throwball team so its not as if the sport is a local creation. If you had issues with it, AFD would be the right procedure. If it's ok with you, I'd like to recreate it, and mark it for cleanup. A reference to convince you that the sport exists. =Nichalp«Talk»=12:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The article was tagged and deleted because it had most of the signs of blatant advertising. With this and a lack of references the assertions were not believable. Since you're an experienced editor and say you plan to build the article yourself, I have restored the A7 text to the article space. Please do something soon, since it could easily be tagged again by an editor and deleted by another admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the recreation. Much appreciated. I still do not believe that the article is an advertisement or that there was no notability (for deletion). What's given are the rules of the sport by someone not familiar with wikipedia done in good faith. GDibyendu has expressed interest in doing up the page, so I'll leave him to work on the expansion. Thanks once again for the undelete. =Nichalp«Talk»=12:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Only so you know, the article was not deleted for lack of notability. It was tagged and deleted because as written it seemed to be an advertisement written up by a new user who did not yet understand en.Wikipedia, which made the assertions less than believable. Your post as an experienced good faith editor was enough to make one think the article wasn't meant as an advertisement, so I waived the CSD. Hopefully you'll help GDibyendu as needed? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen. I am submitting (an) RfA and if you could write an Op-Ed (Co-nom) on my contributions and understanding of Wikipedia, it would be very helpful. I have also asked Arthur Rubin. Your time is really appreciated. I have learned a lot from you and I thank you for that. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Looking over your contributions, I see you've mostly been doing very helpful editing with Twinkle against vandalism, along with watching and editing some list articles? I think adminship mostly comes down to trust along with a contrib history which shows an understanding of policies. Trust doesn't seem to be a worry here at all :) Since you haven't done much editorial article work, some editors may wonder about your depth of understanding having to do with editorial and sourcing policies, which are the core of what Wikipedia is all about and are much needed when dealing with content disputes and the disruptions which can sometimes spin off from those. Also, I don't see many AfD edits. This could be a worry for some, since AfD participation hints at experience with and an understanding of deletion policy, which for admins becomes very meaningful. Since you've been editing for three months almost to the day and are now talking about adminship, some editors may also wonder about that. Given the lack of article and AfD edits, taken with the time you've been editing, it may be a little too soon. Some vandal-fighting-only editors have become admins, but so far as I know, only after having edited for much longer than you have. If you have an RfA now, there could be meaningful opposition. Lastly, if you wait unasking for an RfA nomination, when it comes it's wontedly a strong sign you're either ready to be an admin, or getting very close. en.Wikipedia is always in need of more admins and there are indeed some who prowl all over the wiki looking hard for what they think and hope are fit editors to nominate, so there's little worry you wouldn't be spotted by one of them sooner rather than later. I want to help you, but I don't want to mislead you into doing this too soon whilst maybe unaware of what editors who participate in RfAs look for. Do you have any thoughts on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Very accurate discerption! (kidding), I mean description. :) Thanks for very nice comments and thoughts. I agree on almost no work on AfD or any other administrative work. For this reason, as before, I will be submitting the RfA in December, yes I have started it very early. Actually, I have almost read and learned all of Wikipedia policies and have been looking over many administrators and many administrative tasks. But the thing I should have done, was to participate. I didn't participate because I wasn't an administrator (quite ironic, eh?). Also, I was actually reading and seeing what user Fclass was doing, being blocked, other admins arguing over block, and the sock-puppets. I learned a lot from that special situation (I agree as the block looks unfair, but not after you know the history of its doings and blocks). Also, this, and the history. Thanks for adapting a user, me, without ever knowing. But, what I really loved was, Since you've been editing for three months almost to the day and are now talking about adminship, some editors may also wonder about that. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Anthony Pollina, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
I see you prodded in lieu of a CSD. I think there's enough about him to justify AfD. While he's a failed candidate, he's been running for office for 24 years now, and I found some NY Times coverage of a past campaign. MadScot (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I do hope that you do read the whole article before you actually delete certain articles.
Do search in google, yahoo or live.com about the contents in the specific articles before you saying that as spam or anything!
Although some people is not famous in your place, but that particluar person is famous among his/her country. So please do not judge without research! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlee foo (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just a little bit confused of why this was deleted, I dont see why it is divisive or inflammatory. cheers.--Burilu (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The current series of edits are in response to the the large content changes made by G2 to the Canada/History section in the guise of "copyediteing". He does this often when he in fact makes content changes. I'd originally reverted to consensus version, but G2 asked that edits be adressed individually. Fair enough.
G2's edits are difficult to trace. The idea here is to carefully document the content changes that G2 made as opposed to simply reverting the section. It is in fact an attempt to be more fair and transparent. I'll stop until this issue is resolved, but the original edits he made seem to be an attempt to make a point about something I'd said about the history section being to long (see Canada talk page).
What is the problem? The first edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debunker&diff=prev&oldid=250206711
was my evaluation of the article. I used a meme from Bill O'Reilly as indicated, but the thought was mine- article sucked and should be deleted as per the proffered reasons. *Edit: both mine and the nominator* After looking at the pages you directed me to on policy I don't see what the issue is, so feel free to let me know.*
The second edit: this was a reply to a message someone inserted on a talk page assigning terrorist acts to muslims saying such behavior was typical. I stated that we shouldn't use the availability of news in popular media to influence our perception of a group of people that are innumerably greater than the number of people mentioned in such popular news articles. While this seems to be correct, it also seems to be a pertinent observation in light of the person's comments. What was uncivil? I suppose I was giving my opinion of the section that user started on the talk page, so maybe I was soapboxing, but what should I do in the future? Not comment on a topic I found offensive and silly on an article's talk page? Let me know
The third and fourth edits appear to be the same thing. A user was going around vandalizing pages I was looking at. Looking at his edits it appeared to be common. I told him he appeared to be being a dick and that he should stop and be happy. Doesn't seem to be soapboxing or uncivil, and seems appropriate given the policy I read entitled "don't be a dick", or similar sounding name, on wikipedia. Since the guy appeared to be being a dick and I told him it did appear so and asked him to stop, I don't see the problem. Feel free to fill me in.
Thanks for the comments. Let me know if I'm incorrect in thinking I've not violated any policy with the indicated edits.
--Δζ (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Please tone it down. Way down. Don't call editors dicks. Be very wary about how you use the word fuck on an open wiki (this is not the biggest worry but taken with the others, it's something to heed). Don't rant about your personal takes on stuff, talk pages are for discussing sources and article building. If you carry on with these kinds of edits, you'll get yourself blocked, quick. If you think civility has to do with mindlessly smiling away in the songs-by-the-campfire-happy, hive-mind controlled cult of Wikipedia, ok, grin, grit your teeth and think of it like that if it helps you get along and make helpful edits to articles. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Infobox kaput in Boston Tea Party (political party) article
Gwen: You graceously added an infobox to the Boston Tea Party (political party) article at 14:01, 1 November 2008. I am talking about the second infobox in the article, the one with the heading "Part of the Politics series on Libertarianism". At that time, it was working and it was beautiful. For some reason, it currently does not display correctly. Even if I display the 14:01, 1 November 2008 version of the article (or any later version), the infobox displays incorrectly. Wideangle (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen...ukexpat suggested I get in touch with you regarding a recently deleted article on TxtVox. Have to admit I was a bit discouraged since it was my first article in a series on mobile marketing companies in the US. I have found very limited information on text message marketing on Wikipedia and wanted to provide information on key players, trends and considerations.
Perhaps you can undelete the article to my sub page and provide some guidance on how to re-write it or have other editors involved in writing this and few other pieces on mobile marketing companies such as 4INFO. One in four people have received text message marketing last year and it is becoming both an opportunity and a nuisance along the lines of what happened to email and spam early on.
Hi Gwen Gale, the request was to make way to add Energy technology to Wikipedia:Translation/Energy technology, which is impossible if there is a redirect, as far as i know, we never redirect article space to category space, that creates problems for the interwiki bots, and what is a cheap redirect ? thanks Mion (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap means only that if a redirect is in any way helpful, it adds almost no server load to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think, the difference in approach is that the DE article handles it as a discipline in engineering, which might prevent it to become a copy of List of energy topics. I'll put it up on translation, with the comment "a discipline in engineering", hope it works. Thanks for helping out. Cheers Mion (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
it used to work, "To propose a page to be translated, type the name of the article in English below after the slash ('/') and follow the instructions" .to fill the name in after the / , it seems to be broken, however i'll try {{Translation}} in the talk page of the English article. Mion (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen can you delete the page again ? i figured that instead of adding Energy technology , following the howto, which has an example it should be /Energy technology , its still a mess, I give up on it, Cheers Mion (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'd already done. I could translate it myself but it would take me 2-3 hours of steady writing. Maybe I shall, in bits... Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
oh, if you have time please, but you're bizzy with other helpfull work, so np, its more, that page used to function, i added in the same way on 15 sep Wikipedia:Translation/Buoyancy compensator (aviation), that worked, this week its not working, and looking at the translation activity, it suggests that the translators moved to other places, thats all. Mion (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've translated the German article. It was fluffed up with lots of loopy wording and shreds of screeching PoV but I skived that down. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, just trying to understand why being a subsidary of a listed company (or Moog in particular) makes another company noteworthy. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, Bongomatic15:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! It doesn't make them noteworthy, it's but a strong assertion they could be, hence not a speedy. Next step would be either a WP:Prod or WP:AFD for input from other editors. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You seem to imply that any topic that could be notable should survive A7. The criterion is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", which I read to mean that the article must assert (though not prove) notability. Assertions of facts that may be correlated to notability (such as being a subsidiary of a notable listed company), but that don't make any notability claim, don't seem to me to actually meet the (extremely easy-to-satisfy) standard. I'm not trying to play a game of semantics here--am I missing something? Bongomatic16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the forever foggy and fun neighbourhood of borderline CSDs, with their neon signs glowing through the brume :) I wasn't at all implying that any topic which could be notable should get through an A7. Rather, the claim of being owned by Moog and having been once owned by Fokker, along with other descriptions in the text, are in themselves believable assertions of significance or importance which led me to think there is a reasonable likelihood of notability. There are still worries, though, the writing is fit enough but there are no independent sources showing independent coverage, this is why I said WP:Prod or WP:AFD, to get input from others, would be next. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen -- I don't have the sources in front of me, but are you sure about the edit you reverted here? Though poor, Ban Ki-Moon's family was never so destitute as to eat cardboard. That looks like vandalism to me, and if it's supported by sources it's not supported by those used to write the article. As for the other point, as I recall, it was indeed a fertilizer plant (though it may have used manure). --JayHenry (t) 23:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
People have been known to eat all kinds of things (rather much anything organic). However, at the time, I was very neutral about that edit and had the same thoughts as you. I reverted all of that user's edits as part of a username block. Please handle it as you think fit (following WP:BLP) and all the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What is all this nonsense about?
The Order of Jehova wa a genuine Swedish order of knighthood. The article was well documented with four books, a drawing and a source on the internet. Who are you to remove it? Are you an authority on orders of knighthood? I get very annoyed with yoy!
23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The article wasn't sourced at all, there was no drawing (it was a heavily cropped photograph of an 18th or 19th century European award necklace of some kind) and there is not a hint that this award exists. If you can come up with reliable sources here on my talk page, showing that it does exist, I'll be happy to restore the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
On my computer4 there are several pictures and the text "Karl IX (*1550, +1611) tvekade länge innan han antog kunganamnet 1604. Hans kröning ägde rum först 1607, men då med stor prakt. Han hade låtit tillverka nya tecken på kungens makt: Jehovaordens kedja och kröningsringen.
Karl IX instiftade Jehovaorden. Ordenskedjan som bars vid kröningen är ett konstverk i emalj, bergskristaller och granater. Den är tillverkad av myntmästaren Antonij Groot d.ä. i Stockholm. Karl IX:s kröningsring användes inte vid senare kröningar. Den är i guld med svart emalj, prydd med sex små bergkristaller. En stor rökkvarts är den dominerande stenen. Den skadades i ett fall i stengolv 1955. Ringar användes vid engelska kröningar och hade använts även av Erik XIV och hans bror Johan III. Denna ring är den enda bevarade kröningsringen i Sverige.
Karl IX:s kröning var tänkt att bli ännu ståtligare. Till kröningshästen beställdes dyrbara täckplåtar och plymhållare (se bilden). De betalades först 25 år efter beställningen men troligen användes de i alla fall vid kröningen 1607.
> Till kröningar"
If you do not restore the article I will report you as a vandal.
Your computer isn't reliable source. Moreover, the text you pasted above is about a coronation ring, not an "Order of Jehova." Your account has been active since 2005. Do you have anything to say for yourself before I block you for disruption? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
When I open that page its a picture of the order of Jehova , an order described in the books that i mentioned and a tekst that clearly states that King Karl IX instituted the
Order of Jehova or in Swedish "Karl IX instiftade Jehovaorden" Are you blind? I find your attitude very arrogant. Maybe we need the help of an administrater to settle things . I find it unacceptable that you handle my well researched article like this. Robert Prummel (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I did give the internetsource and several books. Maybe my edit got lost because you removed the article as soon as i wrote or rewrote it. I studied several books and I spent hours drawing the collar. I have made drawings of a lot of decorations. As you willl notice it is not the same as the pictures on the internet or the black/white illustrations in the book by Rudolf Cederström;. You should have had more patience. It is the Wiki-style to discuss and ask for sources, not to remove articles and block someone just like that... Robert Prummel (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Order of Jehova (admins only) cites zero sources. You'll get much further next time if you cite your edits, link non-English terms to the English ones and don't call admins vandals. The image looks like a copyvio to me, although I agree you might have spent hours retouching the smaller image which appears on the Swedish gov website. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, And I feel absolutely justified. The article has been accepted in the Swedish and Dutch Wikipedia and it has impeccable sources including the Royal Swedish Armoury. Robert Prummel (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken. The Dutch article is much more detailed and is cited. An English translation of the Dutch article would never have been tagged and deleted. You did not source your edits in the en.Wikipedia article, yet still claim you did. Again, you'll get much further if you cite your edits and bring up questions in a civil and polite way. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Humanity in Aciton
Hello Gwen – was about to create a page for Humanity in Action, when I noticed you deleted a previous page for blatant copyright infringement. If you'd reinstate the page, I'd be happy to create original text and provide citations, otherwise, I can start from scratch. Zjfstout (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding [16] your recent block: 1) Please sign your posts. 2) How does it violate the username policy, how is it profane, what person does it attack or impersonate, or how does it suggest an intention not to contribute to the encyclopedia? (Note: I share your doubts that this vandal has good intentions, but blocks should be policy-based and accurately labelled). Thanks for your vandal whacking efforts. Edison (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you asked another admin about signing and added the same "Thanks for your vandal whacking efforts." I always sign my posts. You're talking about a template. I don't sign uname block templates because an account blocked by me for its username can't contact me on my talk page. If the user reads the uname template, they'll learn that the thing to do is post an unblock template. Moreover, if someone is blocked for having a dodgy username and has either no (or a very, very short) contrib history there is no need to lead them to my email link. I watch the talk page of any user I block and always answer. Is there anything else I can help you with? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
They are doing it again
Hi Gwen Gale, you deleted two weeks ago an article about TerrainView-Globe written by the user Interactive3d and his sock pupped Viewtec. The company seems to be persistent with trying to get an article on Wikipedia. Look in the user profile of Interactive3d. Now the whole article is back on Wikipedia but this time as a user page. Not enough that they spam every virtual globe entry found on Wikipedia with links to their product (watch out for edits from AS41715 and especially from 91.138.108.44 and look at what RRDNS ([17]) they resolve), they now start to advertise about their product in user profiles as well. IMHO one should ban the whole company from Wikipedia for always and eternally since all of their contribution falls either into WP:ADS or WP:SPAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.36.52 (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree they're firefighters or whatever but the odds you saw that edit by happenstance in RC are a bit too low for me, most editors who say they've been "lurking" for a long time are socks and your follow up edit was so disruptive, a lurker would more than likely have known to source it and write it much more heedfully. In other words, you fail the duck test. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. Personally, I was unable to see how it met WP:MUSIC when I did NPP yesterday. My bigger concern surrounded the creator removing the CSD tag, rather than using hangon and fixing it. Thanks again. -t BMW c-17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! The only reason I declined it was, the article asserts they were featured on a US national television network broadcast many decades ago, which canny meets WP:MUSIC. The article is clearly COI and I did see that :) By the bye, I try never to look at who tags those, so as to stay unswayed, so I didn't even know it had been you! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, you're not supposed to remember me anymore :-( You had caught me on a bad day (the flu, plus the same article being CSD'd, PROD'd and then being told I had copyvio'd had put me into a bad mood – accidentally putting {'s instead of ['s) way back then. In fact, the "thanks" above was my way of burying a hatchet. -t BMW c-17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What hatchet? I don't/can't/am unable to hold grudges so maybe I've forgotten something but I think you're a wonderful editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree the term Hindu terrorism can be widely sourced at this time. However, the article I deleted as a CSD G4 was wantonly PoV and unsourced. In other words, nothing about it supported recreation after a deletion discussion. If you can create it with reliable sources which at last skirt the reason for the AfD and do so with NPoV writing, please go ahead. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
How I can learn to clear autoblocks properly
Hello Gwen. I have a memory of you helping out with an autoblock. I just unblocked User talk:Londo06. He hasn't complained about the autoblock yet, but his most recent block had autoblocking enabled. If I go to Special:IPBlocklist and don't see his name, does that mean I don't have to worry about the autoblock? (I tried Eagle's autoblock finder but it didn't respond). Thanks for any advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
They only last 24 hours, so unless he tried to edit in the last day or so it would be expired by now anyway. Also they supposedly only kick in if the account's IP (or another account coming from that IP) tries to edit after being blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I saw you blocked that IP, and it looks like the author of the blog – Kirstein himself – called you out on a blog post. Don't know if this could lead to any sort of trouble, but I thought you might want a heads-up on that. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole blog seems unavailable, but Google (no cache available) has "Peter N. Kirstein » Blog Archive » Censored on Wikipedia Academic ...9 Nov 2008 ... I have tried to merely include this blog in the bibliography of “Academic Freedom” on Wikipedia and some CENSOR removes it because it is too..." dougweller (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that's odd. It's the top post on the main blog, for what it's worth. I'll quote it here for you.
THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS TO ALLOW FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND IN EXTRAMURAL UTTERANCES AND HERE I AM CENSORED AND SILENCED BY A PERSON WHO DARES TO VIOLATE MY ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN A DE FACTO IF NOT DE JURE MANNER!!
I have tried to merely include this blog in the bibliography of “Academic Freedom” on Wikipedia and a Gwen Gale self-appointed CENSOR removes it because it is too “radical” and a “private” blog. Insteaad of behaving in a civil manner, this “owner” of Wikipedia has blocked me from further editing. Such cyberpower is abusive and worthy of condemnation but I will not be silenced by this Ms Gale who dares to censor me. I have this blog, I have my website, I have many vehicles of expressing my views!! Who are you Ms Gale to determine who is politically correct and meets your ideological litmus test of approval before they can put a link on Wikipedia? This is America! What do you know about academic freedom? Are you a university professor or otherwise an expert on the subject?? I would never censor you but defend your rights of speech. I am willing to conduct in an adult manner a civil and polite exchange DIRECTLY with you. This is my e-mail kirstein@sxu.edu.
Goodness, many of the entries are “private” if there is such a categorisation on the Internet! On Saturday, November 9, 2008 and Sunday November 10, 2008 I professionally linked this blog under the bibiliographic category “Web Resources and Support Organisations.” Someone twice removed it for ideological reasons–a kind of sub rosa vandalism–within minutes! This person clearly cannot claim ownership of that site and in the absence of vandalism, vulgarity, libel, ad hominem remarks or abusive commentary, had no legitimate right to remove it. I am a specialist and published author on academic freedom and will not allow such egregious interference with my first amendment rights.
Repeatedly Censored For Being "Radical" by Gwen Gale on Wikipedia Academic Freedom Site... HERE I AM CENSORED AND SILENCED BY A PERSON WHO DARES TO VIOLATE MY ACADEMIC FREEDOM... !!
Says he's a "tenured, full professor at St Xavier University" but he seems to have muddled Wikipedia, which is a private encyclopedia website with sourcing and behaviour rules grown through consensus and supported by its private owners (the WmF), with what he thinks is the "Wikipedia Academic Freedom Site." I don't know what he means by academic freedom. In a free market, folks should be able to teach and learn what they please, which also means each private school in a free market would be able to choose wholly on their own whether to offer their teachers and students whatever they thought "academic freedom" might be, swayed only by their own goals, means and whatever market tides might flow upon them. As for state funded schools, any notion of academic freedom is but a lie: The lack sometimes helpful, but often utterly unhelpful and misleading. Does he know his IP was blocked only for edit warring (over a link which didn't meet WP:EL) and nothing else? I'd think he must have read the block notice. Or is he rather stirring things up with a bit of handy polemicpropaganda? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it is a uni domian so the claim that he is a professor is probably legit but the blog focuses far more on hard left opinions than any discussion of Academic Freedom. While of course he is entirely free to do this it does mean that the blog has little relivance to the article thus we have no reason to link to it. This does not mean that academic freedom is not a perfectaly legit practice.Geni16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I think it's likely he's a tenured prof and yes, I've thought he might more than likely be talking about an academic freedom to teach Marxism, which is to say, making even private schools follow his notions on this under sway of the law. Not that it has any pith at all here, he was blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Charter Drive deletion
Hi Gwen
I can understand why the entry for Charter Drive was deleted in terms of the Wikipedia Guidelines, but NOT in terms of precedent and consistency. If your job here is to help make Wikipedia a better online encyclopedia I respectfully request that you review all other articles on Car Sharing companies.
Please note that I copied the EXACT structure and in large part format of an approved article for two other carsharing companies (Streetcar and GoGet), so if my article is unacceptable then so is theirs – if consistent policy is a priority at Wikipedia.
Please explain the process I should follow to either (1) get my article relisted based on the grounds that it is unlike other approved articles on carsharing companies, or (2) request the deletion of other carsharing companies' articles on the grounds upon which mine was deleted.
Other articles on carsharing companies that are almost insignificantly different to the Charter Drive article:
Pourquoi enlèveriez-vous cette histoire de Jason ? Tout le Jasons partout le grand pays de la France longtemps pour lire ces mots, et nous, nous marchons environ comme les hommes minuscules sous les jambes du colosse de Rhodes, et le piaulement environ, rapetissée par Jason et son histoire.Cahiers du jason (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Where is the article, the discussion and the talk page? Much work went into making this contribution to the Scouting Portal project.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, I was going through my deletion log looking for recreations and somehow didn't see this one had gotten through an AfD after its third recreation. My mistake, thanks for letting me know (I do remember almost letting that 3rd recreation slip by). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any hints in my talk page archive that anyone ever asked me about this CSD, as they should have done, before recreating it twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Promise Rings
How did you come to delete Promise Rings as A7-group. Its a film, and films and not subject to deletion as A7. It's given as a 2010 release, so deletion is not inappropriate, and Im therefore not going to ask for deletion review, but I do not see where it fits into any speedy category. DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Had a little more time to look at this. Unproduced films are not films at all, they are projects and hence can fall under the CSD A7 group/business category which indeed is what I was thinking at the time. I think this could be deleted under three CSD categories, A1 because it's but a shred of text, A7 because it's a group/project with no assertion of importance or evidence of coverage (not a film) or G11 because it's nothing but a promo blurb for a film project which is at most in early pre-production. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
RE: Joy Castro
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to let you know that, following our recent discussion, I restored the other articles (all of the apart from the model). I know that you didn't agree with restoring, but I believe that I fully consulted you and gave good reasons why we shouldn't go the speedy route, so I hope that you are OK with the decision. TigerShark (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because you contacted them. What I did was not wheel warring because I consulted you extensively, even though we disagreed. Accusing me of wheel warring is highly inappropriate. TigerShark (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
No. The edit history, if you care to look at it, will clearly show that the deletions happened before I left a note on User:Islander's talk page. I left the note there because Islander had already deleted them. You have wheel warred, which is not allowed and is very unhelpful to the project. You can't wheel war only because you didn't get your way. Please revert your actions now, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, please stop accusing me of wheel warring. An admin action is not protected, another admin can reverse it, they should just not do it without consultation. When I discussed it with you, you seemed to be insisting that I go through DRV. When I asked you, you said that you weren't insisting (and you have no right to do so). You don't own your admin actions any more than you own your contributions. TigerShark (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are the diffs which show you are mistaken in saying, "Yes, because you contacted them.":
The articles were deleted yet again without a shred of contact from me. You have wheel warred, which is not allowed. There is nothing else to talk about until you revert your actions.Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen you have a responsibility to discuss these things with me without setting pre-conditions. Again, you do not own you admin actions. I discussed it fully with you and you said that you were not insisting that the deletions went to DRV. Why are you so insistent on keeping these speedy deleted, when I have raised reasonable concerns which, in conjunction with erring on the side of caution (as speedy deletions require), should mean we follow the other deletion processes? TigerShark (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have replied on my talk page. Might I suggest that we end discussion there, and carry on here, or vice-versa – splitting the discussion in two will just cause even more problems. TalkIslander22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wheel warring
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gwen. As you know I reverted your deletion of the articles, after having a fairly extensive discussion about the merits of the original deletion. Islander reverted my undeletion of the articles without any discussion, and the only notification was his undeletion summary. You have now classified my undeletion of the articles as wheel warring several times. Can you please confirm whether you would also classify Islander's re-deletion as wheel warring? If not, why not? TigerShark (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Wikilawyering, I am not arguing whether my actions were or weren't wheel warring. If you are going to accuse me of wheel warring I want to see if you are being even handed. If you classify my actions as wheel warring, do you classify Islander's as wheel warring? TigerShark (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You tried to badger and wear me down last week and when that didn't come out has you hoped, you waited, then wheel warred. Now you're doing it again. If you have further questions about Islander, ask Islander, I've said what I have to say about Islander. I've never reverted another admin's actions without an overhwelming consensus on a fit project page and even then, it's been so rare I can't cite having done it even once. I have no time for wheel warring admins (happily, they're far and few between) and have wasted too much time on you already. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You have still not answered the question, and it is a very simple question. If you classify my actions as wheel warring, do you classify Islander's actions as wheel warring? I cannot ask Islander whether you consider his actions to be wheel warring, only you know that. Why will you not answer? TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deletion of Suthan Article
Dear Gwen, i wish to ask you to reinstate the Suthan article on wikipedia as he is a role model and inspiration to sri lankan tamil youths across europe. As tamil youths are embroiled in the stereotype of gang warfare and crime, i as a sri lankan wish to express the general view that we are proud of such a youngster making a name for himself for good reasons and i ask you to help promote the good name of such youngsters, as he is truely one of the most talented tamil people to walk the earth.
