User talk:Gwen Gale/archive2

Paul Mantz and the 1937 Pacific search

This is the quote by Goldstein and Dillon (1997) regarding the aftermath of the Earhart/Noonan world flight: "Paul Mantz and many others have postulated that the 157-337 degree line of position Amelia had broadcast was a sun line, and on that basis Paul believed the plane had come down quite near Howland, and he so informed the Coast Guard at San Francisco." (p. 236) This doesn't jibe with a note found on [[1]]: "On July 3, a day after Earhart vanished, her technical adviser, Paul Mantz, suggested to reporters that she had crash-landed in the Phoenix Islands. Even if the plane's undercarriage was damaged, Mantz said, "the fliers could have walked away... uninjured." Do you have references on what Mantz actually said and believed? FWIW Bzuk 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

I can look into it. Mantz may have changed his opinion. Mind, lots of sources on AE can be traced back to mistaken (or made up) accounts, or newspaper articles, which then as now almost always get some details wrong. Moreover Mantz is a tricky character in this tale, since he was first and last a creature of Hollywood, always keen on self-promotion and how he was seen by both the public and his celebrity customers. Thus, his credibility to historians is not all that high (and not helped by the sad circumstance of his death, whilst stunt flying for the movie Flight of the Phoenix, which was officially attributed to both his carelessness and alcohol consumption). So while his name is cited now and then as background to the GI hypothesis, truth be told, whatever he might have said about the LOP and the Phoenix Islands doesn't hold much sway, whether or not it should. I mean, indeed, the current GI hypothesis does tend towards the notion that AE did walk away more or less uninjured (not Fred though).

Meanwhile the Coast Guard's opinion they might have wound up in the Phoenix group, along with the flyover of Gardner, "signs of recent habitation" on an island that hadn't been officially inhabited since the 1890s, the post lost signals and Thomson's careful, career-minded behaviour in the aftermath tend to carry more weight when citing documents from the week of her disappearance. Cheers. Gwen Gale 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion here, if you mean by Coast Guard, the commanding officer, W.K. Thompson of the USCG cutter Itasca which had been stationed near Howland Island, relayed the message on 2 July 1937 that by noon Itasca would "commence search northwest quadrant from Howland as most probable area. Sea smooth visibility nine ceiling unlimited. Understand she will float for limited time." Because of the strength of the Electra's last radio transmissions, he concentrated on an area within 100 miles northwest of Howland. Paul Mantz was contacted by news reporters in the frantic few hours after Earhart/Noonan were reported missing. He later regretted his initial comments as "wishful thinking" and clarifying his real prediction as to a safe water landing being "one in a thousand." He then postulated that the Electra and its crew could have survived if it had made it to one of the islands of the Phoenix Group, southwest of Howland. The Itasca was recalled to Howland at 2000 hours. A message from his San Francisco headquarters (based on an intercepted transmission picked up by an amateur radio operator) directed Thompson to search southwest. (radio logs Itasca) A further 2000 mile search was then conducted on 4 July. A new message from Rock Springs, Wyoming which turned out to be a hoax indicated that the Electra was on a reef southeast of Howland. Thompson considered this message "started the Phoenix Island Reef theory." The battleship USS Colorado after a request by G.P. Putnam covered this area in an aerial search conducted by seaplanes, concentrating on Winslow Banks, which was never sighted (believed to be under water and listed as "PD" position doubtful"). An additional radio message was received by the Coast Guard in Hawaii that seemed to indicate the Phoenix Island area but this hoax message originated from a Japanese radio station. With the procession of fake messages and speculative news reports (gained from monitoring the Itasca's transmissions), the search efforts were redirected with the USS Colorado on 6 July placed in charge of all search vessels including Coast Guard units. Because he personally believed that only their alighting on land would have a degree of success in the rescue of Earhart/Noonan, Captain W.L. Freidell from the USS Colorado continued a search in the Phoenix Group, ignoring his orders to search a radius 250 miles out of Howland. However, when the USS Lexington arrived to join the search team, its captain specifically concentrated only on the area northwest of Howland as the "most probable." The carrier based aircraft carried out a six-day search but on 9 July, the US Navy called off the entire search effort and sent the fleet home. Admiral Wm. D. Leahy concluded that "the plane was lost upon landing and that all messages reported as coming from the plane after it landed were either deliberate falsifications or garbled receipts from unknown sources." (Library of Congress)

G.P. Putnam did not abandon hope and requested the administrator in Fiji to send a cutter to the Gilberts to search but the resultant effort was fruitless as the cutter could not locate even one reef. A final search by two small cruise ships chartered by Putnam went out to Gardner, Christmas and Fanning Islands later in July. This search also proved to be inconsequential. FWIW Bzuk 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Ric Gillespie's thoroughly documented book Finding Amelia (likely the most thoroughly documented book ever written on her disappearance - it comes with a DVD bearing complete copies of most of the primary sources and documents cited) has shown that many post-loss signals were likely from AE and several were triangulated at the time to the vicinity of Gardner. Lots of old errors, myths and publicity spins were perpetuated through press reports and the many books written about her. The US government was loathe to admit they'd failed to find her, hence "crash and sunk" was at least more fitting "closure." Moreover, Thompson's behaviour throughout the search has not stood up well to historical scrutiny. He altered the Howland radio logs, for starters. As I recall, it was someone in the US coast guard office in San Francisco that thought they may have landed somewhere in the Phoenix group. Gwen Gale 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

True confessions here- I do not have the book, Finding Amelia (Gillespie 2006) but I have read excerpts from it so I will have to take you at your word here. I was a member of TIGHAR in its early years primarily because I was writing an article on the organization so I do have some background on its work. I will have to see if I can find a copy; the local aviation museum has been my main venue for reference materials but they do not have a great deal on Earhart other than a few books (Long, Rich et al) but they do have a remarkable video of Amelia shot while she was in Newfoundland prior to her solo Atlantic flight. (Want a copy in DVD form? It's all of three minutes long, email me if you want a copy.) The progression of events that were presented in the earlier search account was derived from a variety of sources and are also based on primary sources that are available. As you may be aware, there are a number of conflicting theories in play but both the "Crash-and-Sink" and "Gardner Island" theories are based on the actual 2 July 1937 flight logs/radio logs of the Electra and Itasca. Where there are differences is in the interpretation of some of the crucial radio messages received in the immediate aftermath of the flight. I was unaware that any "post-crash" radio messages have been attributed to AE; the US Navy classified all of the messages as "false" either through deliberate falsification or inadvertent errors. (One intercept was actually of a radio drama based on Earhart that recreated the final flight.) All of the transmissions were received far from the search area (nearly all came from mainland USA) and the majority were summarily dismissed as hoaxes due to obvious errors made by the perpetrators; however, one or two that were received early in the search phase were diverted to the USCG Hawaii and were the basis of the "turnaround" message sent to the Itasca. Lovell and Goldstein/Dillon have indicated that the USCG was reacting to the first messages on "good faith." Irregardless, Cmdr. Thompson was resolute in focusing on a 100 mile radius search centred around Howland Island because of the strength of the last transmissions made by AE, that came in loud and clear. Throughout the 70 years since their disappearance, there has been no substantiated evidence that points to the ultimate fate of Earhart/Noonan, just a tantalizing mystery that may haunt us forever. FWIW Bzuk 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Carol Kaye

I hope you don't mind that I put in a photograph of Carol into the infobox. When looking to respond to you, I accidently hit "contributions" rather than "talk" and came across your wonderful work on this groundbreaking artist. I was fascinated by her life's work and thought the article should at least have a photograph. I have one other photo of her but I have a muddy provenance for it as it seems to be an edited or scanned image. BTW, I like your work on Paul Mantz and I added a bit to that article as well. Bzuk 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Sometimes I wish I'd go to her website, snatch a snap of her from the 1960s and upload it to WP as fair use. I've heard a few tales of boomer Beach Boys fans who've found it hard to, erm, "handle" that a girl played all the bass tracks on Pet Sounds :) Gwen Gale 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My wife and I took in a open-air Jazz concert this evening and had the opportunity to take in a new act that was trying out its recently created CD. I immediately gravitated to the "girl in the band", a superb bassist who was equally gifted as a jazz and rock instrumentalist on a variety of standup and electric basses. I had a few minutes to talk to her after the concert where I told her about Carol Kaye and how impressed I was that someone so young would be taking up the mantle of a true pioneer in the field. Amazing how this Wikipedia thing gets around! FWIW Bzuk 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Minneapolis bridge collapse

You do nice work. This page is like flypaper, isn't it? I'd like to shake it off and go on to other things but it's hard with the blizzard of edits, mostly well-intentioned, but many needing work. Regards, Kablammo 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Carol Kaye

Gwen, I sent you an email with the photo of Carol Kaye. Do you know her? Russ Stutler thought it might be prudent to check with her before posting a photo on Wikipedia. However, he gave me all rights to the photo. FWIW [:¬/ Bzuk 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

I've responded by email on this one. Cheers! Gwen Gale 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Amelia again

Thanks for looking over this article. There are still some whoppers left in the text. For example, in describing the Electra, another editor has inserted "It could easily have been used for intelligence purposes, regardless of whether it was." This is straight out of the spurious claims made that the Lockheed L10E was highly modified for a spy mission or that even more bizare, that the aircraft was "switched" in Australia for the XC-35, an experimental pressurized research model powered by supercharged Pratt & Whitney XR-1340-43, 550 hp (410 kW) each. The "theory" was that the higher-performance Electra 10E "look-alike" was then used in the Lae to Howland leg to undertake photoreconnaissance.

This editor has also somehow combined the following: "Amy (Otis) Earhart first heard rumors of Japanese involvement days after Amelia's disappearance. [citation needed] Amy Otis Earhart believed that Amelia and Noonan may have been rescued by a Japanese fishing boat based on a report that she received during the search." I have never seen or read this claim before. Amy was completely distraught after her daughter's disappearance and had urged GP to examine all possibilities. She pushed for a further search that was undertaken after the official effort was called off. Her continued belief in Amelia being involved in a "government mission" was never confirmed but certainly set the stage for many others to ruminate over the possibility. GP even travelled to the Pacific in wartime to listen to the so-called "Tokyo Rose" broadcasts and pronounced that is was "not Earhart- never!"

Breathtaking in their wildly speculative assertions, these spy theories have been challenged by many Earhart scholars including her sister, Muriel. FWIW Bzuk 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

It's all friggin codswallop, thrown into popular culture by that Fred MacMurray propaganda movie made during the 1939-45 war. Seems like lots of people left the cinemas thinking it was a true telling of the Earhart and Noonan tale and passed it on to their kids. I'll go clean it up. Gwen Gale 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Codswallop Definition: 1. [noun] nonsensical talk or writing. Synonyms: folderol, rubbish, tripe, trumpery, trash, wish-wash, applesauce; most commonly associated with the literary genius, H. Wyss who has made a career of identifying practitioners of codswallop. IMHO Bzuk 17:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I hear she is such a bitch :) Gwen Gale 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bit, I hear she is a great writer! IMHO Bzuk 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

k, like I hear you get the inside dish from some librarian. Whatever. :D Gwen Gale 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Now don't 'ya go dissin' this gyrl, her online book, Gormglaith, is already a cult hit of the Internet. [:¬∆ Bzuk 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Hey, look what this Google search brings up. What a hag! Gwen Gale 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Want trashy? Check out this hack in this Google search He actually writes about flying saucers – talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator... [:¬} Bzuk 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Ooooh, a Canadian. That's rather dodgy, it's true. I mean, flying saucers in Canada? Everyone knows that all happened in Antarctica. Still, there's WP:V. Unless someone can come up with an independent citation showing that he's not an accomplished niche aviation writer specializing in Canadian aviation history, I'd say there should be an article about him on WP. With all due respect Bzuk, I think you should keep a more open mind about these things, after all. :P Gwen Gale 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome work on the Amelia article, Gwen! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta! Gwen Gale 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh,oh, guess who has resurfaced on the Amelia Earhart article with a complete rewrite of everything that has been restructured over the last year. One of my concerns is that the new edits are using some of my citations trying to make them sound like they are supporting a wholly different conclusion. Good grief... Bzuk 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Gwen, this editor has been cautioned twice about this kind of behaviour and lack of academic justification. I will be approaching an admin to see what can be done next. Bzuk 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Gwen (and Bill, if you're reading this; if not I'll cc your talk page), first thanks for your patience through all this. Second, in order to resolve this by establishing clearly the consensus I believe exists, I have started a straw poll on the talk page to revert Matt's changes, back to the last version you did. Your participation would be much appreciated. Lastly, FWIW, the offending editor clearly violated my instructions to him, and I have blocked him for 48 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: This kind of thing is why I no longer watch or edit high profile articles on this public wiki. There is a difference between a balanced description of an unfounded but popular myth and the advocacy of a myth for which there is no verifiable support. I had removed the Earhart article from my watchlist some time ago but Bzuk asked me to come back and have a look at the Saipain edits (and related advocacy which had been scattered into the article). I spent an hour cleaning it up (and was glad to do it), accepted the kind thanks given to me and lo, a day later the article was protected. I want nothing to do with edit wars, disputes or page protections and most definitely will stay away from any moderately determined "PoV warrior" (or whatever one wants to call a user who is editing in advocacy of a PoV which is not supported by verifiable sources). Hence, I'm again taking the Earhart article off my watchlist but wish everyone who is trying to fix this by following WP policy all my best, along with my heartfelt empathy! Cheers :) Gwen Gale 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your sterling work on editing the Amelia Earhart and related articles, If it wasn't for my recommending the Amelia Earhart article for "Good Article" status, I would have missed the crusading efforts of a newbie editor. It all appeared to hinge on two seemingly innocuous words "widely independent" that were inserted into the article that I questioned. I honestly did not see the relevance of independent witnesses enunciating a fallacy, despite their ostensibly separate statements. I had to do quite a bit of research on the Saipan theories but the overwhelming conclusions by every reputable historian and researcher was that the claims were completely unfounded and the existence of a significant classified US Navy document seriously undermined any notion of a Saipan connection to the disappearance of Earhart/Noonan. However, I was still willing to engage in a discourse, but like you, unwilling to take part in a "I said, he said" edit/revert war which is sooooo useless. FWIW Bzuk 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. "Widely independent" was "weasel wording" thrown in by that editor to imply "credibility" for fuzzy headed readers (as most are) like in, "where there's smoke, any old smoke... then... she must have come down in Saipan." What some editors don't understand is, celebrities are chattered about so much (and so much money can be made from that), it's a given, any over-the-edge claims will be made about them sooner or later (and this is much easier if they're dead). As for "Good Article" status, it's a worthy goal but as I think you're learning, "Good Article" mixed with "high profile topic" is a keen needle with jabbers on both ends. Cheers! Gwen Gale 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, on the Aviation WikiProject, one of the projects underwhich this article fall, we have our own unique award that we give folks who go the extra mile to make this place better, and you have certainly earned it:

Wikiwings For your extensive and diligent efforts to separate myth from truth, documented facts from POV conspiracy theories and generally to make Amelia's article GA quality, I hereby award you these wings...please wear them proudly! -- AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations GG

Think of the award as the equivalent of a "Barnstar" – well deserved! (BTW, Alan is a highly acclaimed author and historian unlike those quasi-sci-fi scribblers who so often frequent the 'net. ;¬P Bzuk 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC).)

Such flattery! Ta! :) Gwen Gale 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

That page isn't currently semiprotected: protection status. In this particular moment, it also doesn't look like it needs protection. Tizio 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. The log isn't clear. The link you provided doesn't seem to even show what he did earlier today, though when I looked at it before, it did. I thought he'd left it semi-protected. Please do what you think is most helpful then. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Valiant Warrior

Now bear in mind that I didn't always have this opinion, but I do want to go on record that you are one fierce soldier who I wouldn't mind fighting beside on any occasion. FWIW Bzuk 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Ta and likewise. I think as we truly teach, we're taught. As I said, let me know :) Gwen Gale 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm by the bye, having written it, I think the syntax in the line "Irene Bolam had been a banker in New York during the 1940s, denied being Earhart, filed a lawsuit requesting $1.5 million in damages..." is way sleek and helpful haha! Gwen Gale 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed King vs. Eddie Baker

(Regarding the entries on William Desmond Taylor, Ella Margaret Gibson) Ed King and Eddie Baker are not the same person. Ray Long, who had written several years ago that they were the same (based on a slight physical resemblance and the fact that Eddie Baker worked for the California Highway Patrol in later years), has since changed his mind. My own opinion that they were different people is based on:

(1) The extensive film career of Eddie Baker during the 20s at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0048417 does not seem possible for a person who was working as a special investigator for the Los Angeles District Attorney during those years. The obituaries of Eddie Baker mention his film career, but do not mention any employment by the DA.

(2) Comparison of the two individuals can be seen at http://www.public.asu.edu/~bruce/pics/EDs.jpg. (Eddie Baker on top, Ed King on bottom) They do both have a cleft chin, thick neck and somewhat similar appearance. But Ed King's left ear looks very different, particularly the top part--it's more like a shell. Ed King's face also appears wider than Eddie Baker's. Pikabruce 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I had growing doubts about this as I read the sources and wrote the text. I'll fix it. Thanks and all the best to you. Gwen Gale 16:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear Gwen

I appreciate what you're saying about the older generation. I'm part of it. It's far too early to summarise the debate, but here's what I've got for you, under supporters:

• Gwen Gale (but would prefer just a couple of sentences of policy; concerned about readability and the use of generic professional titles; would very much like warning against mass “fixes” for fear of disruption)

I'm doubtful that we can get it down to two sentences, and since it's only a weak recommendation, and arms editors with specific reasons to object to changes (not "tidy" or "sacrifices precision"), I think your concerns about mass changes may turn out to be unfounded. That is, if we can claim consensus in the end. Please keep in touch if you have concerns during this process, and certainly let me know if you don't like my summary of your stance. Tony 07:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey your take on what I wrote's close enough for me. Gwen Gale 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Hi Gwen. I'll give him a formal warning. If he doesn't respond and continues to PA, send me another message. I'll continue to monitor the page. Thanks :) ck lostsword•T•C 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, please accept my apologies!

OMG Gwen, I am SO SORRY. I did not see the thread on my page until just a minute ago, it got lost in some other "New Message" diff with the message from EF101. I only saw it now when I got your last post from today, it came up above it in the diff. Please don't think I was ignoring you!

You know how I feel about this sort of language, I absolutely will not accept it from anyone. I thought it had all died out after my first post a couple of days ago, it seemed to for a while anyway, so I thought it wall all over and I just stopped checking. And now I get your note and see that not only did it start up again, but now the name calling is aimed at a long time and super-valuable contributer. And its over nothing! I'm really sorry I didn't get there before it rolled out of control again.

I hope I haven't lost your trust. Taking a look over what's going on around here over the last few days, it's clear I have not been spending enough time admining, If it does spark up again, please let me know and I promise not to miss it this time. And now let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope your last message was right!

Maury 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Maury it's ok! Thanks :) Gwen Gale 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Howland Island and Fred

Copyedit from my talk page: "Hey Bzuk, I'm not trying to be all that hard to work with but Howland Island can't be quickly cut and pasted into a new organizational structure. As for Fred, we don't disagree too much, but to add a formal disappearance theories section (which I do think is a misnomer anyway) would be on the edge of WP:FORK, for starters. All the best to you. Gwen Gale 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)" Response: The Howland article was waaaaaaay back on my check list, but I had noted long ago that it didn't fit into the conventional geographical style for an article in that the geography of the island was lost somewhere at the "back" instead of the standard atlas/encyclopedia style of geography, history, culture style. I wrote and rewrote the article a number of different ways before using that style- the World War II section still gets "lost" in the body so I think there's a case for identifying it. As for Fred, all I used was a simple way of breaking up a large body of text and went back to the Amelia Earhart article to use the same wording for a section title. FWIW Bzuk 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

I replied on the talk pages and I do wish you had used them :) Gwen Gale 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But I did; once the first revert was made, I posted on the talk pages so you would see my reasoning. FWIW Bzuk 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

Naw, you simply stated your opinion and reverted the article again to your changes. That's not discussion. Gwen Gale 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was first restored to where it was before the reverts started, then all changes were explained on the talk pages. FWIW Bzuk 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

You did not discuss the changes before making them and reverted to your changes without discussion. Gwen Gale 14:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I was just about to archive the massive talk page for the Amelia Earhart page. I will get to it within the next days, as I figure my way around it. I have an exciting project on the go for tomorrow that has been taking up my time. Our organization is sponsoring a "Young Eagles" flight day which will give young people a chance to fly for the first time. We have a grass airstrip on the edge of the city with a half dozen light planes and pilots lined up who will volunteer their time (and their gasoline) to take kids up for a flight over the city. (I hope to sneak aboard for a flight myself.) This is one of the programs we sponsor for young people such as flying scholarships and information forums that brings kids a feel for "grassroots" flying. FWIW Bzuk 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

That's wonderful but I can't help asking, do the parents sign liability waivers or what? Gwen Gale 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a standard waiver which doesn't mean a thing as we have had a crash within recent memory when four girl guide leaders were killed in a tragic accident in a similar "open house" event. BTW, this summer has been brutal, I've done nothing but write letters to widows. We lost a Snowbird (his seatbelt broke while he was inverted), a Blue Angel (G-lock), a test pilot (lost in a flat spin), a warbirds pilot and personal friend (crashed his P-51A Mustang into another Mustang during a formation landing, flipped and exploded), a helicopter crash with two fatalities (inclement weather, straight into the ground) and even a balloon crash (12 on board, pilot critical, four others serious condition).

As to the kids, we have them arrive with parents in tow, they sign a waiver, then our insurance package takes over. We operate under a special "Young Eagles" policy that has been successful in covering insurance for the flying of over 1,000,000 young people in the last ten years and more. BTW, did you know a run an aviation flight safety school where we teach 500 students a year on safe flying? FWIW Bzuk 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Eek.

After much study of the topic of both aviation and flying, I have come to the conclusion that for me, safe flying means a commercial airliner, very much preferably manufactured by Boeing (though Airbus is ok in a pinch) and very much preferably operated by a great big European or North American carrier. I'm not afraid of flying. I'm afraid of pilot error (and don't believe those who say pilot error is often due to dodgy cockpit design, if you're going to fly the thing, get skilled with the cockpit!). These days though, I try to avoid it altogether. Airports have become nightmares, like big high security bus stations.

How cool you teach aviation safety! Swivel and bob!

So does the waiver say, "If your kid dies, tough" or what? Gwen Gale 03:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, no teach, those that can't teach, facilitate! and I only kill adults at present; throwing them into the bush at minus 40˚C (seriously, no, I mean it)- want to survive maggot, start digging a trench and making a lean-to, see that chair under water, I want you to unstrap yourself, find the exit of the submerged plane (again, no joke here, they are actually in a swimming pool for this drill) and you got 10 seconds before I declare you drowned! and that cheery sound you hear as you're trying to land your ice-laden aircraft is not a wake-up call, but it should be, dummy, it's your stall horn going off which you have been ignoring for the last five minutes during this computer simulation. Facilitors get to do all the fun stuff and write reports about it as well. As to teaching aviation safety, my motto is to hire the best professionals I can and let them do their thing. We have had a fairly enviable safety record in my part of the world until this summer when we've made a conscious effort to kill as many passengers and flight crew as we can. You can see that I may have a bit of remedial work to do this fall. FWIW Bzuk 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

I see. It's easier to kill them in the safety class and be done with it then, cheaper too I guess. You Canadians are so handy.

I learned the word ditch (as it relates to aircraft procedure) from my mum the first time I flew across the Atlantic. I still associate the word with a bright yellow self-inflating life preserver shown off by the cheery flight attendent on a 747 who later brought me stuff to drink (the FA, not the 747). "Now pay attention to the nice girl dear, she's telling us what to do if we have to ditch." Mum's drink was a bit stiffer than mine I think. Anyway we weren't shown how to build lean-tos, what a rip. Gwen Gale 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the conversation- email to follow. FWIW Bzuk 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Lesbian utopia

Great work! Much better. --Yksin 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket Riot

The Haymarket Riot article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like straight pranking. I'll read it through. Gwen Gale 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some light cleanup, but otherwise the rvvs and semi-protection seem to have handled it. Gwen Gale 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Long ago I missed this

The last paragraph came to me as a touching and beautiful sentiment. How can I hold anything but feelings of warmth for someone who says "Let me fix it"? But just to be very clear, I harbor no resentment (even before this). But now I also have a hope, a wish that you too may forgive me for problems I caused or feelings I hurt or other injury. And also know this -- that I never intended any harm or thought I was giving any offense, but sometimes things happen even if we do not intend them or think of them. Thank you for your good example. Please feel free to delete this right away if you want to ... I will not interpret it as a bad thing, but as a desire to not retain old history on your page. (Incidentally, the picture on your page is wonderful -- one of my favorites. If you like I would share some other Romantic Era paintings that I love for the feelings they evoke).--Blue Tie 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I'm glad you stumbled across it! :)

Yeah, Waterhouse was doing all those paintings during the height of the impressionist era and for a few generations was (quietly) considered to be a "decadent Edwardian" or whatever. Either way his outlook and technique come across, over a century later, as so modern. All the best to you! Gwen Gale 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more pictures you might like:

"La Belle Dame Sans Merci" - Waterhouse (its one of my favorites of all time.)

"Yes or No" - Godward

--Blue Tie 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I know those. I like the girl's face in La Belle but mostly don't like images of soldiers (yep I do grok the symbolism of his armour haha). I'm not much of a fan of Godward, his females are too stereotyped for me :) He was clever with Pre-Raphaelite detail and very talented but I don't like what he did with it. Meanwhile, don't let me sway you from posting more links to pics I might like! Gwen Gale 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to see the original to like Godward. Reproductions do not quite get it. Interestingly the girl was my second interest in this painting. The first was the marble.--Blue Tie 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think he did utterly wonderful marble and other textures. I don't care for his takes on people is all (eyeballs to canvas or computer monitor, doesn't matter). Erm, pls don't mind me, I'm so too hard core about this kind of stuff O_o Gwen Gale 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Shamrock Hotel

Thanks for the revisions...looks great..thanks! Postoak 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta! I'm throwing in some more detail now. Gwen Gale 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Mockingbird

Maybe I wasn't clear in the AFD intro, but Operation Mockingbird seems to lack the references attesting the subject's coverage in reliable sources. Intangible2.0 03:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:V. It doesn't matter at all if Operation Mockingbird is fiction or not. With 28,000+ references to it on Google, there is zero doubt that the assertion of its existence is very widely noted, verifiable and encyclopedic. If you have PoV concerns, I humbly suggest you add references to published criticisms of these assertions to the article. All the best! Gwen Gale 04:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the first results from Google, they are not from sites that pass WP:RS criteria. See also Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies, which basically says that raw search engine hit count cannot attest to notability. Intangible2.0 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point (WP:V). Only wide and verifiable assertion is needed to make the topic encyclopedic. The Google search I linked to above is more than enough to show that there is wide and verifiable assertion of the existence of something called Operation Mockingbird. So far as a "search engine test" goes, I'll be more clear about what I was getting at: In those 28,000 hits there are plenty of primary and secondary sources which can be cited to attest to the assertion, making it notable. Again, it is of zero consequence if Operation Mockingbird never happened. The assertions that it did are in themselves notable and wholly verifiable. If a jillion tin-foil hat websites are bleating about Operation Mockingbird, or that Hitler is still alive in Antarctica, that Elvis is alive and well somewhere, that NASA never landed on the moon, it's notable.

I should add, whether or not OM is a fiction, the article has lots of stuff about it that should be fixed. I agree that it seems to contain WP:OR, for example. If OM is all codswallop, it shouldn't be too hard to find some reliable published criticisms with which to debunk it in the article text but either way, the wide assertions that it did happen make the article topic notable and encyclopedic. AfD often causes articles to be vastly cleaned up and swayed over to WP policy. Gwen Gale 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article simple lacks the reliable sources which make mention of the subject. From Wikipedia:Search engine test:"Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpetation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." The fact that the top hit for Operation Mockingird [2] comes from PrisonPlanet should set off some alarms. Intangible2.0 13:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs lots of work but the topic is encyclopedic since the existence of OM has been widely and publicly asserted. Gwen Gale 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Roberts

The information was not "blanked." If you had bothered to look, it was simply moved to the introduction. There is no need for a one sentence section, and the information fits perfectly in the intro. You would do well to actually check the edit summaries before reverting changes. I summarized well what I did, and it was perfectly legitimate.K. Scott Bailey 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This diff says otherwise. Please stop blanking verifiable content from the article, thank you. Gwen Gale 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

YOu apparently don't know the difference between "blanking" content, and removing content that should be placed elsewhere. The placement of the RNC issue directly behind the mention of L. Roberts' dalliances with young boys gives the impression that the RNC thing was improper. It was not. Find a new spot for it, that doesn't imply that the school did something wrong with relation to the RNC, or leave it out. It's as simple as that. And if you revert again, you will be in direct violation of WP:3RR, so please refrain without further discussion. Additionally, your reversion are also removing changes made after the change you so abhor. This is another reason for you to refrain from reverting for the time being.K. Scott Bailey 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed the content. Meanwhile, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:RS. Gwen Gale 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I removed content for cause, explaining the cause in the edit summary, and you kept re-adding it without discussion, in the process removing another legitimate change that had been made. You then accuse me of vandalism. ANd then YOU accuse ME of violating WP:NPA?!? I have to hand it to you. You win the hubris war.K. Scott Bailey 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of vandalism. I said you blanked content, which the diff demonstrates. Gwen Gale 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "blanking" normally refers to MUCH more extensive removal than what was done in this case. It's usually applied to when entire sections are removed without explanation.K. Scott Bailey 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any other worries about the text, which I've tried to fix following the specific concerns you helpfully brought up on the article's talk page. Gwen Gale 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking Richard Roberts off my watch list, as I had simply visited it for the last couple of days to try to keep what could have been a very heated discussion balanced. To be honest, I can not stand the man. But fairness is fairness, and even the article of a person who I find despicable needs balance. There appears to have been some significant misunderstandings in our communication, and for that I am regretful. My initial concern was that you appeared to be replacing content that I'd merged from the one-sentence "Family" section into the intro. What had happened (in looking back through the history of the article) is you had undone the changes THROUGH that one, which also caused it to be reverted. Initially, I thought that you simply weren't looking closely, and hadn't realized that I hadn't even removed the family information, just moved it. The use of the word "blanking" was what confused me, I think. I didn't realize that you were actually only concerned about the removal of the RNC portion. I thought you hadn't noticed that the content about his family had been merged into the intro, which caused me much confusion. Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.K. Scott Bailey 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, I thought that's what was happening. Meanwhile you nudged me into reading the whole lawsuit, which is truly the stuff of scandal. All the best! Gwen Gale 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Add a source, don't remove a fact tag. NNtw22 04:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Also, there isn't much doubt ORU is the largest charismatic christian university in the world. Thanks. Gwen Gale 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Find a source, so I won't doubt it. Anything that doesn't have a source can be contested. NNtw22 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You seem very knowledgeable about WP policy for a new user! Cheers! Gwen Gale 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And what was this about? I added in a source, removed an unsourced claim, and cleaned up grammar. Somehow you called it "npov"? NNtw22 04:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Please take any further questions to the article talk pages so other interested editors can see your helpful comments. Thanks! Gwen Gale 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, do take your concerns to talk pages. C56C 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Your edits keep showing up on articles in my watchlist where I have contributed photos ... and I really like them! I love your improvements to CityPlex Towers and especially Oral Roberts University, which went from a mere 15 citations last week, to 26 today! Please feel free to cast your critical eye for improvements at some of the other ORU-related articles like Mabee Center or Prayer Tower. Thanks again for all of your hard work and excellent contributions! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Do not remove a WP:RS. Removing cited material is POV. Thanks. C56C 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your edits shows you are constantly reverting other peoples work without reason. Please be more careful. C56C 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at these examples where unsupported statements were correctly removed by Gwen, it looks as though C56C is trolling, and should learn that disruptive editing is not acceptable. Hardly worth looking at. .. dave souza, talk 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite speficically these "unsupported statements." You are confused.C56C 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually C56C, you may wish to review the official policy on verifiability. In part, it states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Additionally, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence indicates "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... any edit lacking a source may be removed." --Kralizec! (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you taling about? Gewn removed sourced material, Gwen removed a fact, claiming there is no doubt before realizing there is no proof. C56C 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you bringing these scattered complaints here, C56C? Having raised two examples above where Gwen has actually acted quite properly in the opinion of myself and Kralizec!, you now put up an example where sourced gossip is correctly removed per BLP, and an example where she agreed to remove a point which at first seemed credible, but she could find no source. Perhaps English isn't your first language, but saying "no doubt" is an expression of expectation that the statement is credible, not "claiming there is no doubt". Your behaviour looks rather like harassment, so if you've points to raise please take care to express yourself in a more civil way rather than throwing up unfounded accusations. .. dave souza, talk 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You really think removing a fact tag was appropriate? Your polemics and attacks aren't convincing. Also "Perhaps English isn't your first language... so if you've points to raise please take care to express yourself..." was pretty funny. Ta. C56C 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? You asked for a citation (put in a fact tag). I thought it wasn't necessary (and rm'd the fact tag). You asked again (put the fact tag back in), so I went off and looked for support ORU was the "largest" charismatic Christian university in the world (I didn't put that line in by the way, but thought it was credible)... and I could not find a shred of support for it. Not finding any support, I rm'd the statement from the article, which WP policy supports. I still think ORU may be the largest charismatic in the world but without a verifiable reference to support the statement and since it has now been questioned (by you) I don't think the article should assert it.

• WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA.

• Please take all further questions or comments to the appropriate article's talk page so other editors can see them and comment on them. I will remove anything you post on my talk page without comment. Again, please use the article talk pages. Thanks. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AE source

Copyedit from my page: "Hey Bzuk, Have a look at this. All the best! Gwen Gale 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

It certainly is another source that verifies her role as an advocate, which I recently wikilinked in the Amelia Earhart article after reading her sister's biography which also clearly identifies Amelia's views on women. Look for an email from me about another subject, now, don't grimace, I saw that. I know you are knowledgeable in regards to the WikiWacky world of so-called experts, and have the ability to "cut through the subterfuge." FWIW Bzuk 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

William Desmond Taylor (re Norma Desmond)

(rm anon's unsupported assertion)

In my opinion, the "Norma" in Norma Desmond, comes 100% from Norma Talmadge. She was a much bigger star than Mabel Normand was, and she played very dramatic roles, as Norma Desmond did. In my opinion, the "Desmond" in Norma Desmond, comes 50% from William Desmond Taylor and 50% from William Desmond (the actor). Just my opinion.

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikabruce (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Taylor and Normand were friends, she was the last known person to see him alive and her name was mentioned a lot in published accounts of the scandal.

Either way, your the assertion was removed as unsupported because your this opinion, however you one might reason and articulate it, is original research and can be removed with no further discussion. Now, the first step would be to find a citation (see WP:RS and WP:V) to support your this assertion. Cheers! Gwen Gale 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Either way, your assertion was removed as unsupported..." I didn't make the anon change; I only commented on the removal. I'll say no more on Norma Desmond. --Pikabruce 02:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it, thanks! All the assertion needs is a verifiable, reliable citation. I don't think I've ever heard or read Talmage was referenced in the Sunset Boulevard character name. (Staggs, Sam: Close-up on Sunset Boulevard: Billy Wilder, Norma Desmond and the Dark Hollywood Dream. St. Martin's Griffin Books, 2002 supports the Taylor-Normand origin) Gwen Gale 02:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I've seen it linked to Talmadge many times, years ago. Google book search only has this one: (Menefee, David W.: The First Female Stars: Women of the Silent Era, Praeger Pub., 2004) p. 176, "The character of Norma Desmond was named using parts of names from the famous Norma of the Talmadge family and William Desmond Taylor..." --Pikabruce 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, because I've heard Talmadge's name invoked only once, maybe. Gwen Gale 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		You do a lot of great article-writing and improving. This Barnstar is to acknowledge your work here on Wikipedia. Thank you. Acalamari 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) It's good to let editors know that their work is appreciated. :) Acalamari 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Read it. I'm wrong and you're right.S711 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neta Snook

Sorry to use the "bat symbol" again but I have to invoke the attentions of the warrior queen to an issue that involves another editor characterizing Amelia Earhart as "a student of the Koran." [3] Since I have reams of reference sources that clearly identify AE's antipathy to religion and definite agnostic beliefs, this is a claim I have challenged. Tell me what you think? FWIW Bzuk 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Done. Oh and that's bat signal by the way :) Oooh! Bats! Gwen Gale 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, my mid-1950s mythology needs brushing up, but regardless, you again cut a swath through the froth. Thanks again. FWIW Bzuk 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Hello Gwen, thank you for your kind note on my talk page... hope your Thanksgiving was good! Cheers - Alex V Mandel (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelations on images

FYI, the default seems to be right so adding right doesn't do anything. Also we're not suppose to use pixelation settings as it causes problems for some systems (instead users can adjust their own settings). The exception is when the image is simply too large or small. In this case, the double female symbol which, to me, seemed too large without shrinking it a bit. Benjiboi 13:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite the Wikipedia policy page which deprecates the use of sizing tags? Thanks! By the bye, the double-venus symbol is a vector graphic which, in effect, must be scaled with a tag. Gwen Gale 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty non-technical with images and graphics so apologies for labeling them the same. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for reasoning on pixelization. Benjiboi 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! I hadn't run across it before. Gwen Gale 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a surprise to me but I changed my preferences so images are HUGE! (lol) Benjiboi 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Gwen Gale 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ORU

I read the source and it states "His resignation is effective immediately, according to a statement e-mailed from George Pearsons, chairman of the school's Board of Regents." This is not an email from Richard Roberts, but from George Pearsons. Please see this source [4] that shows Richard Roberts did tender a letter of resignation. Thanks---DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was from Roberts. I also never said he didn't tender a resignation letter. The Pearsons email contained Roberts' resignation statement. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. A good compromise. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian sexual practices

This article that you created seems kind of unnecessary and redundant to the main lesbian article and all of the various articles about sexual acts. If you can expand and source the article so that it meets WP:V and doesn't fall foul of WP:NOR then fine - if not, I'll probably nominate it for deletion at AfD. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know but you might want to join the discussion about this at Lesbian and look into why the article was created and what the consensus is on all this before arbitrarily trying to enforce your individual notions of WP policy and readership needs. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note the article's two wholly rewritten paragraphs are now supported by 11 citations from 9 unique, verfiable sources, many of which are peer reviewed journals. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

The link to your talk page on your signature doesn't seem to work. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It works, I only ever use the standard ~~~~ thingy so whatever happened when you clicked on it was likely a bug or network glitch but thanks for letting me know! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably so. Sometimes my Safari browser can render things different. Oh well. Take care. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket riot

I removed one of the two pictures of the Haymarket sculpture because they are essentially the same. You reverted my edit with a note about the police statue which was irrelevant to my change or any changes you made. Reason? Is there a reason the blogger sculpture shoudl be on the page twice? Shsilver (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit summary, I thought I was rm'ing a recent mistake about the location of the pedestal but that was a bit further back in the history. I've since fixed that. Meanwhile, why take out the second picture? It's from a different angle and I think it's helpful. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added captions to both, however, the bottom one is so overexposed I'd go along if you rm'd it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Shamrock Hotel

Hi Gwen, You've done a great job with the article! I nominated the article at WP:GA the other day. The image looks great...I wanted to use that image myself, but wasn't sure if I would commit a copyright sin :) Take care, Postoak (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heya! Thanks! Yeah, I had a feeling it had likely crossed your mind. I had to research current WP policy on fair use and I don't like uploading fair use images but I think the rationale I gave fits: Low res, advertising image, iconic/historic building now demolished, used in an article about the building, which discusses and comments on it. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, something I totally forgot about...I have several Houston Chronicle articles from 1986 right before the hotel closed covering the hotel and the protest, including several pics. I'm going to try to scan them. Wish I could share the articles with you. I just found them in some old books I saved from the 1986 Texas Sesquicentennial. Can I upload scanned articles? Postoak (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, all that stuff is post 1923 and would still be under copyright and none of it would be acceptable for upload to Wikipedia. The fair use rationale for the photo by Hendrick's firm is very tight, publicity material about an iconic/historic building for which no free image is readily available (multiple non-free images are expressly not allowed). However, if you like, send me an email through the menu at left and I'll reply with an email address to which you could at least send me some scans? There might be text we can cite for the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me connect the scanner and I'll send you some scans. Postoak (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent a couple, let me know if they are legible, Thanks! Postoak (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know I got them all, wonderful! More detail for the article. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Shamrock houston.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shamrock houston.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: The image is acceptable for fair use under two approved, blanket rationales and I've added an appropriate, approved fair use tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Berghof (Hitler)

Please note that you improperly made a redirect instead of a move on this article. When you do this, you leave the page and talk histories behind. I have tagged the pages with speedy deletion tags so that the history merge can be processed correctly. --Strothra 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! (Don't think I've ever done it before and didn't know the cut and paste method was obsolete) Gwen Gale 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You just have to use the move tab at the top of your screen and Wiki usually moves the talk page along with the article as well. --Strothra 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I am such a bumpkin! Thanks for showing me! Gwen Gale 04:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Nick

Gwen, sorry for interrupting a winning streak, if my doing so in any way diminished your enthusiasm for rewriting. This is a person in whom I have minimal interest, and although I think the article is stunningly prolix -- do we really need to know that some article in a top-shelf magazine said that tongues wagged that such and such? -- I'm unlikely to want to fiddle further with it. So you're welcome to continue, with minimal risk of further interruption by me. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. So far as the "Later gossip" section at the end goes, truth be told I think it's more than ok so long as it stays where it is. Everything is cited, it's all hearsay gossip stuff, put in context and old Nick would likely laugh his head off. I think Dundy's a little hard on him but he knew what he was doing with the screen rags, tongues wagging (they were the lens through which he first viewed Hollywood and I think it took him years to shake that and when he did, started mis-using local TV interview shows which seems to have truly hurt his career) so... if someone wants to put back the cited fluff about his dates with co-stars maybe it would be more helpful in that end section.

Seems to me he could have settled into a very cushy career as a widely-known supporting/character actor but the very traits which got him in the door, so to speak, were what undid him too (publicity seeking, self-promotion over craft) and yeah, like his buddy Elvis he got way too comfortable with prescription drugs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

although I appreciate the exuberance. NTK (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I meant taking the flag from the infobox at Tom Mix. I was happy to see it happen, is all. Maybe you didn't click on the link... Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm told that Tom Mix is a distant relation of mine, it is interesting to see the amount of material that has gone into the Tom Mix article. He's definitely an American, but there was no need to put the flag there. NTK (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we may be "somewhat close" cousins! I've been told I'm related to Tom Mix as a distant cousin, as I recall through an American who married one of my ancestors, which mixes in, spot on, with my interest in the history of Los Angeles and early Hollywood :) Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A friendly offer

Thanks for the friendly "heads up" on OR concerning the Berghof/FHQ:s. But Gwen, how on Earth do you want me to approach the FHQ issue in another way? The only way I know is using a term and facts which are used by external sources. I did not invent the term. I did not invent the headquarters. I did not place them on the map because I thought it would be cool. I can't undo history. The FHQ:s are a fact, whether you or I like it or not. I can't use another name, that would be OR. What you are asking me is simply not to be a serious Wikipedian who contributes to history. And what's famous or not, well, that is of course always a POV, but I am of the opinion that at least the Führerbunker, Wolfsschanze and Berghof can be considered "famous", and I think many others would agree. Maybe also Wehrwolf to WW2-historians. The others, nah, not particularly famous. Perhaps the Führersonderzug is famous, don't know, don't care, I could write an article on it, but I don't feel like it at the moment. The fact that the article Führer Headquarters did not exist before, well that's apparently simply beacuse no-one had bothered doing it. The German, Polish, Norwegian, Netherlands (and some Asian) wiki-articles already existed before I created the English. I can't remember how and why I found this was lacking, but anyway, I tried to do something about it, since I'm interested and know the subject. There's a lot more info on the FHQ:s that could be added, and I have quite a collection of WW2-resources, but it's all about time and effort. Anyway, I will add page numbers for each "dot" to the info on the map as you suggest, in order to avoid future controversies. Now, this is a friendly offer from me to you: I really can scan the map which I have referred to, along with the very informative introduction by Raiber on the FHQ:s and send it to you by mail (approx 3 pages). It wouldn't be a problem, since I'm all for sharing knowledge. If you read it, maybe you'll understand my position on this matter better. Please let me know on my talk page if you want me to do this - it's really no problem. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're adding information to Wikipedia and that's wonderful. My only worry has been how you've been doing this, but I know the weave will ultimately be ok.

When you say ...what's famous or not...but I am of the opinion that at least the Führerbunker..., please keep in mind, your opinion is original research. This doesn't mean you're "wrong," only that you can't cite your own opinion if someone questions an edit. As for famous, this is a loaded word and has a pop-culture spin to it, I never use the word here since it's kinda vague and not encyclopedic: Try, if you like, terms like widely noted or widely known instead, since these are both easier to support and much more WP:NPOV.

I've already noted I think the term Führer Headquarters is too generic (note however, some editors do not agree with me on this and so far you seem to have a steady consensus for using it). For example, I wonder if any German government primary source from the era charectrizes either the Kehlsteinhaus or the Berghof with a German phrase which can reasonably be translated into English as Führer Headquarters? Something to think about, is all.

No need to send me the map, if you provide a citation I believe you! I'm not even watching the article.

Please keep in mind, I've only commented on this because of a linkback to Führer Headquarters which I found in a single article which happens fall in the overlap of my core areas of interest here. This led me to Berghof (Hitler), a very lacking article about an historically noted but architecturally non-notable house, for which I would have little lasting interest in watching/editing. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My god, are we picky or what:) 1) No need to tell me my opinion is original research, that's basic knowledge; I've been a wikipedian since 2005. 2) You say you can't cite your own opinion if someone questions an edit. Totally wrong; otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't develop at all. I can say whatever I want on a talk page that conforms to Wikipolicies. 3) The "Famous" word - that's a matter of taste. You are so very free to change the "famous" wordings as you see fit. 4) A German government primary source from the era characterizing Berghof/Kehlsteinhaus as Führer Headquarters - that's asking a lot, you know, I'm not a dedicated German historian, I'm a Swedish wikipedian, and I don't plan on writing a book on the subject. I don't plan digging up any Egyptian mummies either:) No, I don't think that any official German source from that time calls the Berghof an FHQ - but post-WW2 historians apparently usually include it as a FHQ. Forget about Kehlsteinhaus, I will clarify the matters better for it. But the sources I have available, yes it/they characterize the Berghof as a FHQ (among other things). Don't worry Gwen, I won't bugger you anymore here on your talk page, but I'd really like to have sent you the stuff I mentioned. Or what about this link: Bundesarchiv - Der Kommandant Führerhauptquartiere? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda picky, yeah :) I think what you're doing is helpful. Sorry if my remark about OR seemed nettlesome to you, I run into lots of editors who aren't up to speed on the policy, thanks for telling me you are! As for "asking a lot" so far as German gov primary sources go, please remember, I only said it was something to think about. Thanks for letting me know what you think about the word famous. You're Swedish! I'm Swiss, with some keenly narrow Wikipedia interests which now and then overlap onto stuff having to do with Germany under the NSDAP, which is to say, a few notable German women who got sucked into it unluckily for them. Wholly agreed some secondary sources have called the Berghof a FHQ, sloppy of them but yeah, you can cite it (you know that). Hey, I don't see the Berghof listed at all in the Bundesarchiv link listing Führerhauptquartier. Which as you know would be the pith of what I've been getting at. Thanks for saying you'd clarify the Kehlsteinhaus, I was much more worried about that (for casual readers) than even the Berghof. I was taken up there once when I was little, for the view, had not a clue as to its history until years later. Egyptian mummies are fascinating, amazing, I saw many way up close on a visit to Cairo when I was a teen. Now, please feel free to "bug" me here on my talk page and now, you've gotten me interested in seeing what you wanted to send me. Please do if you like, my email link's in the menu. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thought... if you'd named the article Adolf Hitler (headquarters) it would have seemed more fitting to me, only so you know, since in Anglo-Saxon culture the term Fuehrer can stir up a lot of pop culture baggage and is often associated with fuzzy thinking and Hollywood perceptions about all that (horrid) stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen, but I have to bounce back your own words to you (hehe :)). That name would be WP:OR, seriously, implying that they were/are officially/historically called Hitler's HQ:s, when they were not (the "Fuehrer" is the official term), and most likely invite people to add as many places as they want to the list. We would not want that, would we? We don't like a list like List of places Adolf Hitler slept at, painted pictures, planned world domination, spawning future controversies of what were HQ:s and not, less serious and farther low-reaching than our discussion, eh? And, I'm not surprised you got interested, I had a feel you would. I will prepare a mail for you (takes 30 min - 1 hour), and get back to you here. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe back :) Yeah, I guess my only point was, Führer Headquarters is a bit lame in its English translation/cultural iteration but yes, Adolf Hitler (headquarters) could indeed be questioned as original research (bet I would have done myself, come to think of it haha!) and I see what you mean about it being, erm... too broad. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Schade, you'll (and I) have to wait - my scanner is totally refusing (haven't used it in a while) and my digital camera batteries needs to be charged, which is currently being done. My guess is in 4 hours you'll have a mail from me (now, you will get it whether you like it or not:). In the meantime, I will make some changes/additional info to Führer Headquarters which clarifies the matter (I've already referenced each HQ). I will also try to find a better wording for the stuff in the Berghof (Hitler). You know what? Ironically, this stuff is currently taking time from a new Holocaust map which I was asked to make for the article on the Holocaust. But that's not your fault (not entirely, at least:) ) - it's my choice. Right now, Hitler is beating the Holocaust in importance. Sorry for my black humor. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever is ok with me, the "archival archaeologist" in me is a bit stirred up to see it. No worries, I "get" your black humour... one tends to immediately understand the notion and pith of a map documenting the industrial genocide of the Holocaust. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Gwen, I lied to you; I said it would be no problem to send you the stuff, but it apparently is:) My scanner refuses me, my digital camera claims the batteries are useless, my photo shop (real shop) can't/won't? scan it and the nearby friend I've called has no scanner, so wadda you know? It might not be done today, but I'm waiting for another nearby friend (who probably has a scanner) to call me. Luckily, I can do other wikistuff until then. But don't wait (today) for me on the stuff, I'll let you know when it's sent to you, today, tomorrow, who knows? Brave new digital millenium, what a sham... --Dna-Dennis (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, now and then I think to myself, do all these computers and other technology thingies scattered about my life truly save all the time they were meant to? Naw! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they often don't, I agree. But we can have and do a lot of fun with the tech stuff (and sometimes (or always?) this is their best use...). Well, now the scan man has returned to you, and he has got 5 pages he likes to send to you. But since he gathers you don't want 5 x 10 MB tiff:s sent to your mailbox, he humbly asks if he can send you 5 hi-res jpgs (totally 8MB) or if you want him to compress them further (which ain't hard)? And do you want me to put them in one packed file? Just say go here, and the scan man will do as you please. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, couldn't live without them now! Anyway go! However you like, I have a wonderful Internet connection and a happy FreeBSD desktop with tonnes of disk space and DVD burners! It eats 8mb emails for a mid morning snack, like popcorn haha! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again...:) Since I'm not allowed to attach anything to Wikipedia mails, I need to know your real mail address (no need for fear, I won't abuse it). Just reply to the e-mail I've just sent you, and I will send you the stuff we've talked about. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

All sent and done. Please read my notes in the email on some specific stuff. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick question/message for you

Hi! I noticed your discussion on the Abraham Lincoln page, and I was relieved to see some of your posts. The idea that Lincoln wasn't a great president (let alone even a good one) is something that I stumbled upon pretty recently, and now I'd like to write an oratory on it. I was wondering if you had any good sources for me to refer to to help write the speech, since you seem to know a lot of information.

Also, I'm kind of new to writing on Wikipedia, so sorry if this is in the wrong place (I'm sure you can just delete it anyway :P )

Anyway, any information/references you're willing to share would be extremely helpful. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word to Mother (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for leaving me this message and welcome to Wikipedia! I humbly suggest that you get started by looking at Wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:3rr and WP:CIVIL to get an understanding of how things work here. Then, you might try editing some lower-profile, non-controversial articles. Meanwhile, at this time there is no consensus at Abraham Lincoln for even hinting he had any flaws or unhelpful agendas as president of the US (this, by the bye, I think more or less reflects current general opinion in the US). The editors watching that high profile article don't even accept sources which don't unwaiveringly praise Lincoln, calling such sources unscholarly and ridiculing editors who offer them. I'm hoping consensus will gradually build to bring the article more in line with WP:NPOV but I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. Cheers and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it that there are a lack of reputable sources? I stumbled on a source of one of Abe's controversial positions by contemporary thinking and rushed to wikipedia to look for other dirt on Abraham Lincoln and to my disappointment found none, found the page locked, and found no serious discussion of his flaws on the talk page. --Wasspam (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of reputable sources. There are plenty of secondary sources and the primary sources are replete with direct quotes from AL which are clear enough on their own. However, Abraham Lincoln is currently dominated by editors who accept no criticism of Lincoln and call any source which is critical of Lincoln unscholarly (or worse). At least they haven't been calling criticism of Lincoln vandalism, they have in the past. The page isn't locked, by the way, it's only semi-protected. New users can edit it after they've been registered for a few days. Gwen Gale 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Shamrock houston.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Shamrock houston.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Doc^g 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on both the image page and your talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Congratulations on your efforts to make Shamrock Hotel a good article. The eyes of Texas (and Houston) are upon you! Postoak (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta! If I were in Houston and it was 1952, I'd say let's have one at the Cork Club :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great a idea! Maybe even run into Glenn :) Have a Merry Christmas, Postoak (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee cool but... don't say snarky stuff about his hotel :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden bait

Thanks - I spotted that on my watchlist days back but couldn't see it when I viewed the page so I kinda suspected it might be a bit of cheese! Didn't know you could do that. Ironically, looks like the advice was not taken :) (Sarah777 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

He hasn't been back since he was briefly blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a sighting on List of massacres this morning - testing the water I guess! - Sarah777 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who do you mean? User:Rklawton hasn't made an edit since the 22nd. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! You are right - I got the wrong one! (Sarah777 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Vandal IP - please BLOCK

This IP is vandalising the List of massacres. Please block. Though there is an Arbcom ruling stating that reverting IPs does not constitute 3RR with several Admins on the same tag-team (some with a history of power-abuse) I can't trust them to stick by the Law. Ta; and URGENT. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

PS - Are you an Admin and how would I know from your page?? (Sarah777 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey Sarah, these IP edits may be nettlesome but they are not vandalism. It looks like a content/sourcing dispute on the threshold of 3rr but I don't see anything blockable here so I wouldn't post it to WP:ANI. Moreover, please don't let whoever's doing this draw you into an edit war, which does nothing but rot article content. Besides, you could lose count and get yourself blocked. The only way to overcome this is through a consensus of other editors. If you stay cool and hang in there for awhile (days, weeks, months, whatever) and stick steadfastly to WP:V you can likely sway content. PS I'm not an admin, never had much need for "the tools" since I'm only here to edit articles on sundry topics which I'm drawn to. I like writing, researching and learning more about them. Meanwhile I'll watch the page for awhile, after a quick look I don't see anything untoward about the sources being deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My take then

Oooph!

POV worries at AL

Here's an archive showing how I got chased bullied off Abraham Lincoln by editors with whom I do so strongly disagree both in terms of their interpretations of Wikipedia policy and sources on Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say thank you, if I may for defending my first and futile and admitantly rushed attempts to shed some light upon lincolns dark shadow. And to thank you for the comment upon my page discussion page here. If you are attempting to locate any sources I may be of some assistance.-- Thorsmitersaw-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the editors (an admin) who chased bullied me away from Abraham Lincoln was later blocked for edit warring on a different article. These editors do this, I believe, in good faith, sometimes not even fully understanding how far they're straying from written WP policy, since they honestly and truly believe they are being helpful and fair. Meanwhile, I think it would take a solid consensus of at least 3 or 4 experienced editors to overcome the strong and misleading PoV of that article. I don't see it so far, although I guess it'll show up sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above admin hasn't come back since he was briefly blocked, though I hope he does, he did lots of helpful stuff and I think he always meant to be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And lo, another editor who was in on that (after being politely asked to take a break from editing on WP:ANI because his "interaction escalates rather than solves problems") has blanked his user page, leaving behind the text, This user has decided to leave Wikipedia due to a lynch mob mentality against anyone who attempts to agitate the powers-that-be, specifically a certain high-quality content contributor. Most experienced editors, who have seen this kind of farewell so many times, will get the pith of the tale straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

fair characterization

(The wording for the above link was changed)

OK, that's not a fair characterization. If it's your intent to bait other editors, I can stop you from doing that. Conversley, if you can show me a diff where any editors state he or she will "tolerate no critical sources whatsoever", I'll retract this warning. Rklawton (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, never mind you're an admin for a tick, if two of you think it's unfair, that does worry me some, for sundry reasons. Although I thought it was fair and was in no way trying to bait anyone, to show my good faith to all three of you and to follow my ultimate, hardcore wish for peace in my Wikipedia experience/hobby, I've changed the wording. Truth be told, I'm kinda glad you nudged me because many hours later, I think this a more fair and neutral way to put it (which is what I was trying to do anyway). So, thanks for speaking up about it. If you still have worries let me know and I'll give it another spin, ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note (for the record): 11 days later the above admin was blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the wide breadth of your continuous contributions. Good work. Strothra (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I actually just noticed that you got one of these a few days ago. I would have waited a bit had I caught that, but you still deserve recognition. Some great stuff, really. --Strothra (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

I hope you don't beat your head against the wall too much with the editor you're speaking with on the talk page. This is a sock puppet of User:Dooyar, also using the identity User:Nyannrunning. I've instituted one sock puppet investigation with this user, but it was in correlation with Thanksgiving and he/she was absent over that weekend and it was closed. When he/she comes back after this week, we'll be opening another. The editor knows about WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, yada yada. It's come up on every page that he/she has edited under different IDs. Thought you'd like to know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for telling me about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ImageRemovalBot

Hi, I saw your message on User talk:ImageRemovalBot. I think you might have got the wrong bot. This bot only removes images from articles after they are deleted. It doesn't delete images or checks fair use rationale's or anything like it. Garion96 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it should say it rm's image tags from articles then. Either way, I saw no notice of any pending image deletion (I saw it there yesterday when I worked on the article, Nikumaroro). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

True, the bot only removes the deleted images from the articles. Regarding you not being notified. What image are we talking about? Either way, this bot has got nothing to do with that. It would be pointless to keep a red link image on an article, this bot simply removes that. That's all. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Nikumaroro islands satelit ikon.jpg but it is gone as of sometime late yesterday or earlier today. Anyway, yes, I do understand now, your bot only rm's tags and has nothing to do with notification. Meanwhile since the image page no longer exists I can't see who or what deleted it. Thanks for replying to me though and I'm sorry I turned off your bot! Maybe you could add something to its message, saying it's only removing tags for previously deleted images but... I know lots of editors don't read those edit summaries anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not even my bot. I just happen to have his page on my watchlist. That image was deleted per this listing on WP:PUI. Since you were not the uploader of thise image, you weren't notified of that listing. It looks like a correct deletion AFAIK. Garion96 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the rationale was likely not written helpfully or whatever. Thanks for taking the time to follow up on this for me, it helped! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried putting the new Nikumaroro graphic out on two different computers and two different monitors and the new placement works there but the old one jams up into text lines. What kind of computer do you have? (Mine's a MacBook and a Sony Viao). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Having gone through this lots doing all kinds of web pages, it's likely more to do with the browsers, screen resolutions and fonts, maybe not one of them alone, but how they all come together to display a Wikipedia page. The thing is, WP pages don't conform to W3C interoperability standards so layout glitches like this are so too likely. I'm looking at it with Firefox on a 1024×768 display (I think). Fonts are the standard X window stuff (FreeBSD 6.2 port). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Switching browsers, the new image placement works on the MS Explorer, Safari and Firefox browsers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

It shouldn't work like that with the image tag before a new section, dunno, must be the Canuk lake water y'all drink :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's the oddest swamp water! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

The only pollution we worry about here is from the chocolate factories but everything works out ok since chocolate is always helpful, come what may. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You live in Willy Wonka land? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Yep! Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arundel

We meet again! Got any photos, referrences, or a birthdate for John T.? Someone really ought to write his biography, as he sounds like an intering person. Pustelnik (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pesky cites

I'm a little scunnered by the idea that this fact needs citing. The all-woman planet, usually with males landing there and seducing the man-starved girlies, is such an old SF cliche that I'm sorta (figuratively) stammering at the idea that it needs citing. I mean - Cat-Women of the Moon, Rogue Queen (okay, not actually all-female) - the list is endless. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will note that the article Cat-Women of the Moon lists a round dozen films on this premise, from the title film to a Daffy Duck short. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering back. If they're self-evident, finding supporting citations for these assertions should be a snap (WP:V). Cat-Women of the Moon has a list, but no cited interpretation. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

The devil is in the detail. It's all about shades of meaning. Using, developing, pioneering it's all not just quite the same.S711 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

HNY to you! Truth be told, I think the way you worded this rather much answers the question I asked on your talk page. The meanings are different, although I also think your PoV differs from most citations on this topic, maybe. Either way, citations are the only way through this (WP:V). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bondarenko

• You're being unreasonable about the commas in Valentin Bondarenko. They are necessary, because without them, the sentences in question run on and are hard to read. [5], [6]. If you could read those sentences for the first time, as I did, I would hope you'd agree they are more difficult to parse than they need to be. However, you're re-reading them for the nth time, and you wrote them in the first place, and in fact your edit summaries and other bits of your writing I've seen reveal the same aversion to punctuation, which might be a fine style for you, but doesn't make it correct.
• For capitalization of the word West, I refer you to West. The sentence is worse without "in the West", because that implies the rumors of cosmonaut deaths weren't limited to the West (obviously they were; if you disagree, find a non-West source).
• As for "text follows source", I encourage you to explain (to yourself first, and then to me) what relevance that claim has to any part of my edits or yours.
• The fact that you are reverting my entire edits rather than just the parts you don't like would seem to indicate that you aren't even looking at them. There's a line break between "for" and "cosmonaut" that I have fixed and you have reverted several times.
• The word "much" doesn't occur in any sources cited on the article in the context of "speculation", which leads me to conclude that the text does not in fact follow the source as closely as you claim, but follows your opinion. There hasn't been "much" speculation. That "speculation" is referred to as a "myth" by your own source, and then systematically dismantled and disproved. In fact, the source ([7]) basically says that speculation is not notable. Yet the paragraph where it's brought up is dominated by the first sentence, which establishes the claim and casts it in a light of notability and importance, and the refutation of the claim, which dominates the source, is thrown in as an afterthought in your paragraph.

eae (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think you're PoV warring over some tacit agenda having to do with worries about the sov space program's historical reputation. Moreover, something's up with your command of the English language: Your verb conjugations are ok but you don't seem to grasp the syntax of English, so I'm afraid your input on style and punctuation doesn't hold much sway (I do see you have userboxes showing some level of capacity in 5 languages, listing English as "native" to you but this has aught to do with the linguistic characteristics of your edits). Hence, the back and forth. Please stop and think about all this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And who, may I ask, are you to question my grasp on the syntax of English (without any examples, by the way, just a blanket condemnation), or pass judgment on my input on style and punctuation? I am dumbfounded that you chose to cross that line. Do you have a degree in English? You write run-on sentences like they're going out of style. You are being patently rude and offensive, and the only reason I didn't mention the fact that your own PoV reeks of bias is because that normally offends people, which I didn't want to do first, but since we're on that path now, have at thee. What is your problem with each single comma I've inserted? Show me sources that prove those commas are wrong. I gave you a link to relevant sections in "The Elements of Style". Did you read them? Did you read what I wrote above? Or is the truth what it looks like, that you just noticed my name and decided that it's not American enough, therefore I must have an agenda, therefore revert-revert-revert?

Yes, it's true, I would prefer less emphasis be placed on some decades-old myths (your source called them that!) that Soviet secrecy is somehow to blame for Apollo 1. That being said, once you provided a source that established that there WAS such speculation, I stopped contesting that paragraph as a whole. You, however, haven't stopped reverting my edits ever since you decided that I must have some agenda. What, you really looked at every comma? You really analyzed every sentence to see if it's better or worse with my changes? You didn't even look at my edits at all, as evidenced by the line-break fiasco. eae (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article never, ever laid responsibility for Apollo 1 on the sovs, never even came close. I think you misread the text to begin with, then (by your own account above) got the notion you were myth busting when there was no myth in the article to bust. Either way, I seldom read every jot and mote edited by someone with a strong, narrow and likely misleading PoV who seems to stumble when reading English (never mind clauses not delimited by commas). The line-break would've been dealt with sooner or later. Anyway please think about trying out the {fact} tag more often, rather than deleting stuff. Meanwhile I think the pith of your PoV warring must go way beyond any worries about idle speculation on all the hush hush with Bondarenko's death 47 years ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted you the rollback right, as I believe you're trustworthy enough to use it for its intenteded use. From past observations of you, I believe you will use it correctly (i.e. to revert vandalism, not to edit war or revert good-faith edits), and your blocks for edit warring happened several months ago, and therefore don't concern me. If you would like rollback removed, just let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks. Acalamari 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome for the rollback! :) Acalamari 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Wood clnup

Hi. Awesome job cleaning up the Natalie Wood page. I went back today and didn't even recognize it! Anyway, I see that you removed the trivia section. I originally removed it because I thought that trivia sections were supposedly frowned upon. Needless to say, I got griped at for doing that and told to re-add the sections because "bad information is better than no information". I didn't quite understand that reasoning myself, but a LOT of articles I removed trivia (unsourced or not) from had it re-added so, just to let you know, it might be re-added. Personally, I think most trivia sections should be done away with, but since the trivia guidelines are unclear and no one really knows exactly what they want, I figured I'd let you know. Personally, I'd leave it out because it's mostly hearsay and as you said, unnecessary. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found sourced trivia can be kinda fun to weave into an article narrative but, when I ran across this one and saw none of it was backed by a single citation... along with two items having to do with "water fears" (ick) and the others being utterly non-notable and unremarkable... I couldn't see how any of it could ever be missed. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I often work in tandem with Pinkadelica and she wrote me to come check out the page. We'd looked at it before in reference to additions being made to a number of articles by another editor (additions we had issues with). You'd made such a broad and powerful swoop through it that I decided to dig into it a bit. I suppose I was a bit bold in some of what I did, but I thought it could stand it. I cleaned up some references, but I couldn't verify or even find one to substantiate the Washington Post reference. I'm glad to help. If there's anything you need help with on it, or backing in case anyone comes in complaining about material removed, let me know!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you Gwen! Sarah777 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And again :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know once you've answered the questions on your RfA page and I'll get the nomination started. Try to make your answers as thorough as possible. You can see how others have answered them at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Remember not to canvass, and to admit to any conflicts you've had. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget to sign the "acceptance" part too. :) Acalamari 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. :) Acalamari 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian

Every time I look at this article, I wince. It should be much better quality. If everything you wished for came true for this article, what would you include? I have access to a massive amount of research, and I'm shopping around for a few big articles to tackle. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're on to something, it's clean but sadly, has turned into little more than a portal and is no longer much of a narrative. For starters I'd put in lots more history and maybe re-integrate some of those sub-articles into the text. I'd be happy to help you. This article can be a long one, it's a big, core topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Gwen, I changed my username and adjusted the barnstar signature accordingly. Hope you don't find this intrusive. Glad to see you're up for RfA. --Veritas (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket

No problem. I'm trying to fix the problems that were identified to get it to Good Article status. Fortunately I have a lot of books about the riot at my disposal.

The first time I visited Chicago (c. 1990) I went to the old Haymarket, to Waldheim (Forest Home) Cemetery, and to the Police Academy to "see the sights". (I didn't find Haymarket Revisited, a tour guide, until after my visit.) It left quite an impression. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was 18, visiting Chicago and shopping when I got slightly lost and wandered by a post office called "Haymarket." I said to myself (more or less, as I recall), "Hmm, I wonder if I might be near where the Haymarket riot happened..." and lo, I was! The square was utterly desolate, I was alone and a bit scared so I ran off. I spent the next day in the library reading up and came back with a friend and we walked about, tracing out where everything was and so on (not a marker in sight back then). What's funny about it is, a couple of days later, by chance, I ate dinner at the Union League Club! Did I have a tale to tell! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested

Read this anon post to Rklawton's talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I wrote a suggestion on your RFA that you probably should consider.--STX 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs showing any past exchanges you and I have had? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the point. I really don't think you are ready to be an admin nor can you be trusted to not abuse the tools. What was the point of this edit?--STX 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A mistake, thanks for pointing it out. As you can imagine, I've been a bit distracted by the RFA. I think it's clear and reasonable, given your comments, why I'd want to see diffs of any interaction we've had in the past. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln. --STX 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's suggestion is driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolam

Gwen, Please refer to irene-amelia.com for updated information about Irene Craigmile Bolam. It is essential the falsely contrived and illegal biography that Wikipedia has published about Irene Craigmile Bolam either be corrected or removed. Wikipedia is displaying false information on said biography page. The photo displayed is not of the original Irene Craigmile Bolam either. All of this is provable in a law court if necessary. Thanks, Electra10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra10 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen: I'm sorry but I am willing to challenge anyone in a court of law on this matter. The information displayed in Wikipdia's nicely contrived "Irene Craigmile Bolam" biography by use of conventionally available research material, on a topic that has remained a historical debate for over forty years, is "basically false" even though Wikipedia appears to be favoring the reporting of it as "basically true." This (unfortunately) leaves Wikipedia responsible in the end for conveying and therefore promoting to the public, a "basically false" diatribe of biographical information about said person. Again, so much would be highly provable in any law court. Especially where the woman's image displayed in the photograph Wikipedia published in the article, definitely does not represent the image of the original Irene Craigmile (Bolam.) By Wikipedia openly promoting said information as acceptably true material to be regarded by the masses, based on the contrivance of its supplying entity, Wikipedia itself is promoting an overall falsehood and therefore in violation of the law. I recommend either removing the Irene Craigmile Bolam biography completely, or re-submitting said biography as a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra10 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User history

Yes; the revisions are deleted, but all deleted edits are visible to administrators. The only way to hide revisions from administrators is through use of the oversight tool, but that tool is strictly limited to libelous content. Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I told an editor on my RFA page Mr Bauder deleted the pages over a year ago because I was worried they were scattered with bits of personally identifiable information (not libelous information), and the editor said, "but with this RfA in mind it might have been better to just oversight the inappropriate information and leave most of the history intact." However, isn't it true the oversight tool would have been inapplicable to solving the problem in this case? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the identifiable information was; I'm not aware of what the problem was in your case. If the problem was a few individual edits that were quickly reverted, oversight works well. If it was something that was on your page for a while (e.g. information at the top of your talk page, that stayed there for a long period of time), oversight is ineffective; as far as I know, edits must be oversighted one by one, and would probably be stretching the rules of oversighting, because using the tool would completely erase your history for administrators as well. Ral315 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is I said to you so long ago must have been so unhelpful. Regardless of any concerns I have about bringing this up, in this way, on my RFA, I'm happy to address it. I don't know what it was I said, but I have no problem apologizing for it and assuring you it couldn't happen again. I was sharing some of my thoughts about civility with Coppertwig when I thought of you and maybe you'd like to read them here when you have time, since it might help. It's not a comprehensive retelling but it gets to the pith. If you would like to discuss this further with me (anytime in the future), I'll be glad to do so. Thanks again and all the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has sent the comment to me. First, I have to apologize, I'm laughing at the moment because your line, Ral315, is hilarious and multi-layered, as you meant it to be! Now, at the time, I was grasping about (humilated as I said in q3 on my RFA), trying to understand the underyling wiki-dynamics of what had happened, why I had been slapped with such an unfair topical ban (again, though I still disagree with the ruling, I got over all of this long ago, support arbcom and understand fully how I got swept up by the mop of what they do). Anyway I had gotten to where I was recognizing the sway of WP's community aspects (which aside from some AfD participation I had ignored as an early editor, focusing only on article content, so I was clueless). I, along with some published IT commentators back then, saw those community aspects as sometimes having the characteristics of a MUD, a role playing game. I had not yet come to understand how many users there are here who simply don't have time to edit articles because they are so busy with their administrative tasks, which are essential to keep Wikipedia going. Now, we all know role playing for its own sake has happened around here, but happens a lot less these days (there's an ironic, extremely oblique and unintended reference to this in my answer to q3, which only experienced and knowledgeable users will "get" and which I will not explain further). My response to your attempt at humurous diffusion was indeed witty (as Hoary has implied), not in the least "untasteful" in any way or anything like that, but very, very, very unfair to you, which is why there is no need to copy it back into the viewable wikispace. You were offering me the olive branch but my skepticism was turned all the way up at that long ago moment and I wince at the lost opportunity. Having seen the remark now, I'm more than happy to apologize to you for it. What I said was uncalled for and at its pith, lacked WP:AGF and lacked understanding of how Wikipedia works. You have given so much to Wikipedia. Anyway, out of 26,000 edits, that one may take it for snarkiness. Uncalled for. No way I would say something like that to any Wikipedian now (as I hope my contribution history shows). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket affair ...

... was promoted to GA class. Congratulations! — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

You'll find I don't mind a bit discussing positions during an RfA, and sometimes changing them. It's meant to be a discussion, not a vote, this whole thing of saying one is "harassing" opposers by clarifying things is ridiculous.

We actually did meet at one point, though it was not under the best of circumstances. [8] That's ancient history, especially as time flows around here, as is the bit with your previous identities, so I'm not really concerned with either. Also, I see what you mean regarding the name, though with the various people I hear from with pretty silly names (and they're verified, so they're not just something someone thought was funny), I don't really presume there. I should clarify my own position as well—I see nothing wrong with consenting adults participating in the adult industry. However, many people would be harmed by someone stating that they personally have done so. (Imagine your local newspaper running an article stating how $YOUR_REAL_NAME or even $YOUR_STAGE_NAME_AS_AN_ACTOR_IN_NON_ADULT_FILMS had starred in a multitude of adult films!) It would be the exact same if the article asserted, without sources, that the person held a controversial political view, or was of a certain sexual orientation, or whatever the case may be. Many people may be quite proud to be gay, or to support/oppose abortion, or what have you, but when it comes to asserting it about an individual, it's still potentially controversial until we have sourcing stating unequivocally that it is so. At that point, it's verified and evidently already public information. I can see your rationale, though, and can certainly see where you were coming from. I'll think on it a bit more. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These are all very meaningful points and you got me to thinking about it the first time you commented on it. I'm sure I'd arrive somewhere very close to your perspective after handling only a few articles like this (for context, I've always avoided having anything to do with porno articles here!). So yes, although my rationale would be ok and reasonable when evaluating such an article specifically about a Britney Spheres, when it comes to these topics it's safer not to even ponder the name but either find verification (in your words "stating unequivocally that it is so") or delete the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at Talk:Haymarket affair.

I have no intention of reverting your change, but it seems clear to me (from an examination of the user's other contributions) that he is a troll who uses talk pages as a forum for his complaints, and has no intention of helping improve the articles, or Wikipedia in general. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing you for removing the dissenting comments and agree they're a bit irksome in their tone (never mind I don't agree with much of what he has to say) but it's a controversial article and I think comments like these on the talk page help show concerns like this have been heard and hopefully addressed. As for calling someone a troll, I understand that too, but I like to avoid using the word altogether since it can alienate an editor who might otherwise come around to making helpful contributions and a true troll will ignore being called one anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know where my questions are going

I want you to know that I have great respect for your contributions (both in quantity and quality), your project loyalty even when as Wyss you were unduly punished by arbcom (IMHO), and your excellent boldness and energy. You seem a good sort; if you lived in NYC, we might know and work with each other. You maintain a cheerful face, your edits have an enduring quality, and you edit in a difficult beat. All that said, you'll have to explain some things about your activity here and on the Wyss talk page, if you want my support. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, please ask whatever you like and I'll be open with you. You've been around here long enough to know how this stuff happens. If you need to nudge me, please feel free. My only dilemma is that I wholly, sincerely support arbcom and what they do, along with WP policy, so although I think that arbcom ruling about me was an utter botch, helpful folks do make mistakes sometimes and I see it as a glitch precipitated by my own lack of experience at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've seen arbcom botch some big ones, cases which caused (and cause) me to edit with slightly less enthusiasm. And if you're going to seek community approval, you'll need this sort of issue out in public. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we wholly agree and this is one of the reasons I accepted the nomination. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely characterize the 19th century American history interest cluster of wikipedia editors to be reflexively defensive against edits by new users, especially when the subject edited (Naming the American Civil War, rumors of Lincoln's "gayness", etc.) has seen extensive coverage in talk or when the sources provided don't pass the experienced nostrils of page watchers. My eyes were originally drawn to the Talk:Abraham Lincoln dispute because of some language North Shoreman used in an edit summary. The amhist milhist group is not huge, and we tend to stumble on each other's hard work a lot, and that builds a certain esprit de corps and reliance on each other's judgments. BusterD (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in a few similar little sets and cliques. I've also learned they're sometimes, but not nearly always, a helpful shorthand for gleaning a quick take on something. Oh and yes, "reflexively defensive" rather much describes what I found at AL. Truth be told, I found it hard to believe at first, so I made an educated guess and ignored some warning cues, which is another reason why things flashed up the way they did. Also, I thought kinda maybe one of those editors who had made comments about the lack of critical sources (there were three in all) might show up and help out. They didn't. Sigh. Which is why I call it "no meaningful consensus among experienced editors" for those sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's likely to suggest you got an easy RfA. More like old school. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's remarks are driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply note: My association with the AL page dispute began as a content issue (drawn by edit summaries of a long time page watcher), then degenerated into a conduct issue (over why Gwen manicured her talk page before archiving). BusterD (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I strongly believe, if I had happened to agree with your take on sources and subsequently engaged in the same behaviour at Abraham Lincoln whilst supporting your editorial PoV against a different user who did not, say User:Thorsmitersaw, you would would not be criticizing my conduct at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the bye, admins delete stuff from their talk pages all the time (I'm ok with what he did there). Meanwhile, I provided an unambiguous link to the whole archive. I didn't hide a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I've tended to criticize your conduct, that's because measuring a candidate's past conduct and current ability under pressure is exactly the purpose of RfA. You were doing better when you weren't indicting others who disagree. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear your tidbits of "advice" have been crafted only to lead me into discussions which have given you a forum to post wholly unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of fact regarding my contribution history. This has all been over a disagreement about editorial content and sources and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't edited my comment so as to imply a false personal attack, I'd likely never remembered you at all. I see wildly sourced stuff all the time. When I saw how you openly gamed the system by editing relevant talk, I felt a responsibility to archive evidence for my reference. Freedom=Responsibility. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop and you know it. Sorry to say so, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this last as aberrant and chiding. Sorry if I came across as a WP:DICK. I support you as a page editor 105%. As a potential admin, I only support you 85%. When you've decided it's time to run again, I pledge to act neutrally, if not supportively. Please feel free to call on me if I can be helpful in any arena. BTW, I'm not an admin, and decided not to run before my lengthy wikibreak a year ago. Thanks for thinking I'm the admin type. One day I might run, and though I feel I could be trusted with tools, I don't have a compelling need for them at my level of participation. BusterD (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was only chiding you for saying "openly gaming the system." Could you give me the diff of what you say I edited (I only want to see, so I can grok what bothered you about it and fix things if I can, or at least share my reasoning). As I've said, I didn't mind the "old school" treatment, our disagreement only came in our notions of what it meant haha! I always thought you were trying to help: Codswallop = (at the time) "stop dumping all over me whilst pretending you're not biased!" Ok that you were biased though, hopefully that other 15% will fill in as you get to know me more as an editor. Cheers! (I will not stop saying that, I canny mean it! Besides, it's my style! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to some characterization myself. Let it all cool down for a week or so and then I'd be glad to be more transparent with you. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Truth be told, going by the totality of our interaction thus far, I think there are a couple of wiki-wide things (not having to do with you or me) we can productively talk about later, with no worries about past misunderstandings, disagreements or whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

I've made a closing statement. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen - I !voted support and stand by that, but if I could provide some unsolicited advice on your next RfA (you're going to get the mop eventually, unless you decide that you don't want it) it would be to let some comments go without replying to them. You have, to date, made 199 comments on your RfA (not including the six on your talk page); this is more than five times as many as any other candidate of whom I'm aware (full disclosure: I'm not that active at RfA). If somebody says "I don't think Gwen deserves to be an admin based on her conduct at Abraham Lincoln," maybe consider just leaving it at that; not every oppose is an invitation for refutation. A lot of the time, things seem much more scandalous when there's an enormous conversation on the subject, rather than just a single comment.

Anyway, this is just advice from a user who'd like to see your next RfA go better than this one. Consider it, and then feel free to disregard it if you don't like it. And happy editing (it is my style). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! (the "happy editing" :) Thanks for everything and yes, I do agree with you about the commenting and it's helpful to hear what you have to say about it. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah...!

"(Header)Edit summaries
Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"

It is a shame that perhaps the pail will not be shared - this time. Never mind, take in those comments where there is the facility to improve, keep editing the encyclopedia and build a cadre of people who appreciate what you do. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I ought to be apologising a bit. I didn't pay enough interest in your RfA, and I didn't realise that some people were simply using the process (IMO) to reactivate some past grievances about some articles. While using diffs to indicate the reasons why they might believe you should not (yet) have the communities trust I feel that some went too far. When you next run (and I would really give it several months) I will happily clerk the request, and remind those that need it that they need to concentrate on your recent history and suitability, etc.

It may be wise, if you do decide to run again and take up my offer, that you copy this message back to me then - so I am not too confused. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that...

Yo, I just reverted a minor edit of yours; in constructions of the type the fact he, "the fact" is the object of the sentence, whereas what was meant in this case was a further proposition which was being identified as a fact. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this conjunction is sometimes needed to clarify meaning it is more often than not considered extraneous. See this usage note in a standard dictionary: "The omission almost always occurs when the dependent clause begins with a personal pronoun or a proper name, for example: The mechanic (that) we take our car to is very competent. The films (that) Chaplin made have become classics." It gives other examples. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant that it's not cut and dry and I am not a prescriptivist, but this case differs from the examples you correctly cited above. In the above examples, "the films" and "the mechanic" are both the objects of the sentence (having the car-taking and classic-becoming "done" to them) whereas in our fact case, "the fact" is not intended to be the object i.e. the fact is not supposed to be not matching eyewitness descriptions, he is. This is clearer if you take your version of the clause as its own statement: "Despite the fact he did not match eyewitness descriptions" - it's ambiguous, and needs either a comma or a "that" after the word "fact" to be made clear.

But the real reason I've spent ten minutes working through this is because I am a closet grammar nerd and enjoy geeking out over unimportant minutiae instead of actually improving the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Skomorokh ^confer 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This made me think the sentence construction was lacking elsewhere, so I've tried a wording which skirts this altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that this edit (if it's what you're talking about) is an improvement. However, let's be precise in our grammarnerditry: "the object of the sentence" is a slightly odd notion: in English, verbs and prepositions routinely take objects. (Occasionally other things do too; in "He's just like his father", "his father" is the object of the adjective "like".) Above, "the mechanic" is the object of a preposition, not a verb. This has been an unsolicited message from supernerd 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! It's not at all a grammar error to include it but as grammar.ccc.commnet.edu says, As a general rule, if the sentence feels just as good without the that, if no ambiguity results from its omission, if the sentence is more efficient or elegant without it, then we can safely omit the that. No ambiguity= no that. The conjunction is wholly unnecessary in this one. Drummed into me little head first year in college and I've never looked back :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

if the sentence feels just as good without the that: But to Skomorokh and me, it doesn't. I can't speak for Skomorokh; but for me this isn't a stylistic (non-)issue (as that in for example "She said (that) she'd be late"); instead, it's cut and dried. I mean, as a linguist I wouldn't preface the "that"-less version with a "?", I'd instead preface it with "*" for ungrammatical. So we actually have different intuitions here. I don't say "You're wrong, I'm right"; I do say that what's right for you is (here, and rarely) very clearly wrong for me. Whatever this may signify. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, truth be told, don't you think, we don't wanna dig too deeply into what this conversation signifies for any of the three of us ;P Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I hope you are not too disheartened and will take onboard the concerns raised by those opposing and will consider running again in the future when you feel you have addressed them. Best wishes, WjBscribe 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to have gone through it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about what happened. I still think you'll make a great admin, however, and I plan to support your next RfA. Just take the entire event as a learning experience; just listen to what the opposers had to say, improve yourself, and try again in a few months. Don't worry, I didn't pass my first RfA either. Good luck. Acalamari 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Acalamari, that means something to me. You know, lots of helpful things have happened because of this so I'm more happy about it than anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I'm glad you're taking a positive additude to this. I look forward to your next RfA. Acalamari 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this RfA process work? I can't seem to find the answer. I noticed that you had 43 supports and 27 opposes. Does this process go by what the different members say or by the numbers in each column. I guess I don't understand what constitutes a consensus. In other words if 100 people suported you but were not very detailed in their reason for support and 2 or 3 people gave detailed reasons for opposing, would those 3 outweigh the 100? Sf46 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Famously, it is not a vote. Actually, it's pretty much a vote. Consensus means that everyone agrees. Actually, people don't have to agree. What it generally boils down to is an 80% approval rating, plus or minus a few percent. That plus-or-minus-a-few part is one place where the "bureaucrats" get to exercise their judgment; otherwise, a person votes as forcefully as possible not in order to impress the vote-totter-upper but instead to sway later voters. The whole procedure is pretty dodgy but not obviously more dodgy than any alternative I remember having read about. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen, for your kind note on my user talk. I assure you that, were your interactions between yourself and others to show that you truly are avoiding unnecessary confrontation, I will personally lead the charge to get you adminship. Nothing established here today was final. Wikipedians are a really forgiving lot, on the whole, and believe it or not - despite the fact that my !vote was not in your favor - I want you to succeed (both personally and for the sake of the encyclopedia). Best wishes, - Philippe | Talk 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Gwen, a few people really gave you a bollocking there. Some seemed close to adding "and she's my enemy for life". I fear that it means that anyone who might later think of running for mop-pusher can only make anodyne edits to any of the many articles on issues or personages about which lots of people tend to get emotional. (Which isn't to claim that all of the complaints made were baseless. But a number did seem overegged.) Oh, and that changing your ID and having your previous one deleted mean very little.

On the other hand a lot of the people voting "support" would have kept the AfD on their watchlists, would have seen the "oppose" votes mounting up, and chose not to change their minds. This in turn might have resulted from voluntary blindness, wishful thinking, pigheadedness, etc.; but it might also have come from a feeling that the complaints were over the top.

Take my own case, for example. Before my RfA, I edit-warred to some extent. I think I did so following the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines, and also (so far as I'd bothered to read and remember them) following their letter. (Certainly I was never had up for 3RR.) Perhaps as a matter of dumb luck, nobody brought that up in my RfA. Since the RfA, I've continued to edit-war to some extent, again following ditto. But I keep separate the roles of (a) "scrappy if conscientious editor" and (b) admin. I've had complaints (some perhaps justified) about the former but I've rarely heard complaints about the latter. Of course there's been the odd moment of "rouge admin" / homicidal fantasy, but I don't recall ever having seriously considered using my superpowers to zap somebody with whom I was having a content argument, and I see no reason to think I'm unusual here: I'm disappointed by others' degree of certainty that potential admins would do this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to agree with your take on this Hoary. Meanwhile I do understand what happened and I was rather happy at the end, with how things wound up with almost everyone so I think a bit more time will do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Takes some class to thank your opposers. :) I also appreciate the kind note, and barring anything bad in the interim, I believe next time around I'll be supporting. Regardless, I certainly like the new you far better than the one I met almost a year ago, and I really hope you keep up the great work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just slip in here with the other respondents to your RfA... Thanks for your kind "thank you" note and that wonderful Waterhouse image...

And as the boat-head wound along

The willowy hills and fields among,

They heard her singing her last song

But let's hope not, eh? That was certainly a very aggressive process, but your attitude of taking the "criticism" on board is admirable and I hope/expect that your next RfA will be successful. In the meantime, I look forward to crossing paths with you on some articles. All the best. Pinkville (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta! The Waterhouse image has been on my user page "forever" so no worries about any foreboding symbolism there. I picked it because I like so much about the image and it ties in with my Swiss-English background (both cultures were swayed by Celts). When I thought about the "last song" symbolism (a year ago?) I was able to twist it about in my mind into a fitting notion but otherwise it's meaningless, since I'd have done the same with any allegorical image I liked enough to put on my user page :)

I'd noticed the Waterhouse image on your user page some time ago... but hoped Tennyson's words hadn't suddenly become appropriate! The Swiss were swayed by Celts? I knew of Galicia, but not this. Fascinating. Pinkville (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Helvetii then! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Of course! I've read Asterix and Obelix...! Pinkville (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks...

Hey, are you sure you meant to post this edit to this page: [9]? Or am I missing some hilarious wiki in-joke? Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

Argh! Thanks so much for telling me about this! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome for the support. :) I'm sure that if you address the concerns listen there, you're next RfA will be a success. I responded to a some opposes for you during the RfA. Good luck. :) Acalamari 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw them and they were very much appreciated and yes, I think so too. Thanks again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't make it this time; I've seen nothing but good work from you. Next time, however...--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck on your next attempt! WBardwin (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gwen, I'm sorry to hear about your RfA. Better luck next time. You have my support again the next time around. Take care, Postoak (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. We couldn't have brought the article to GA without all the hard work you've put into it over the past few years. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're so welcome and thanks for the kind words :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also thank you for your thoughtfulness, but would humbly stress that I was not nearly as significant to the development of the article as Malik, or yourself. Still, I accept your appreciation for what I did contribute, and hope to work with you further in the future. If you are at all interested in contributing to other articles of significance to the philosophy of anarchy, please feel free to join the Anarchist Task Force. We'd be happy to welcome you.--Cast (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome! The quantity of your edits wasn't high but their helpfulness was overwhelming, both on the talk page and in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you also. Good luck.--Ѕandahl 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that your RfA is over, I hope you'll take a moment to read and think about this post. First of all, I am neither male nor, as you put it, an "SPA." Under my registered account I made well over 1000 edits (a pittance compared to your contributions) in a variety of history and science articles, most of which are directly related to the two doctorates I hold. Since you're obviously mistaken about who I am and where we interacted, you might also want to revisit your allegations that other editors have found me disruptive--it's patently false and if I choose to comment (under my own account name) on your next RfA, it will be at least nominally embarrassing for you. Finally, my assertion about your use of sockpuppets was not the paranoid ravings of a madwoman but rather informed opinion after being made privy to several Check Users (I believe that's the term, forgive me if I'm mistaken) that were run on your aliases, which were provided to me by some of the others that do indeed belong to a "Wyss Survivors" group, though you may not wish to believe it. My advice (take it or leave it) is to stop prevaricating and shifting focus in this regard as there are obviously others far further up the Wiki food chain who have run these checks who may comment themselves on another RfA. Also, I am not one of the two people who posted "graffiti" to your talk page, which is easily verifiable using WHOIS (unless you believe there's one individual flying around the world to post from country and region specific DSL accounts). I do want to make clear that as a Professor I am used to peer review and even challenges, but in the halls of academia one is usually treated with a modicum of respect, which most likely plays into how appalled I was by your treatment of me. Cheers. 24.22.24.202 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks are obscure, IP. You were appalled by Wyss's treatment of you, but you ("me") here surely means not yourself but your username. So what was your username? Please provide some illustrative diffs. Your list of contributions as this IP shows a grand total of one edit to the sandbox and five edits to three user talk pages, period. So what assertion of yours about GG's use of sockpuppets are you talking about? Not only was there no contribution by 24.22.24.202 to that RfA, there's not even any obvious sign of any contribution by any IP starting with 24. By saying that your remarks were "not the paranoid ravings of a madwoman", are you implying that Gwen or somebdy else has said that they were; and if so, where? (As I view it, that RfA does not contain any mention of "paranoid" or "ravings".) Anyway, you seem upset by evidence that Gwen Gale has used more than two other usernames. So what is this evidence? Or, if you're not prepared to divulge this damning evidence (let alone argue convincingly for its veracity, avoiding suspicions that it has been cooked up), why should anyone start to believe your dark if obscure allegations? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections

Why is it I thought trivia sections were helpful when I first started editing here? When I see one now, I merge it straight off. Could it be because I played so much Trivial Pursuit when I was little and learned to deal with disassociated facts, putting them together in my own head? Fun to think about, anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When I see one, I just move it to the talk page and let others work out what, if anything, is worth integration into the article. Trouble is, what to me is mere celebrity trivia seems to be terribly significant to others. (See for example Talk:Omega SA, passim.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wontedly, I've found I can get about half-three quarters into the narrative and rm what's left as nn, uncited nothingness. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trudy

What's the proper spelling? You spelled it Trudy in the header and Trudi in the section, IMDb says Trudi, and do you know what drugs she was doing when Vincent called Lance and you see her on the couch?--The Dominator (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about drugs but that's a bong, so she's smoking something... could be hash, marijuana, mushrooms (it's California, after all), anything. It's Trudi, I'll fix it, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

before the redirection

Oooh. You're in big trouble now. Pinkville (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

'Twas a humour malfunction! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's any comfort to you, I don't believe Janet's career is any worse off now than it was before the malfunction! :~) Pinkville (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think she added millions to her lifetime earnings with that one... some malfunction. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Cause for Alarm!

Hey Gwen. I do a lot of work in film noir articles, so I was so glad of your excellent work on a film that I've edited. Super job! My best to you! ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 14:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta! I'd never seen this one until over the weekend. I think it's been a bit misunderstood since the day it was released. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing, however, I'm going to do a couple of bit of eduts on your finme work. I trust you do not mind. Just for clarity sake!. Best Luigibob (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me what you think needs more clarity? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I used a wrong word. My fault! The huge para needs to be broken down a bit. Luigibob (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Luigibob (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The machismo of steak

Gwen, do you have any lingering appetite for AfDs? Cause if you do, I have a fragrant one just for you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Always willing to pitch in when asked :) As for those two, I think they could both be speedied. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Though speedying them too speedily would deny the not-yet-admin [sniff!] population the pleasure of searching through their contribution histories. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I almost hate to say so but I did have fun looking at them :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Splendid! Well then, here's one and here's another. -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Born in Flames

Hi Gwen, Just wanted to let you know that several sources, including the film's Netflix profile, refer to characters in this film as separatist. - N1h1l (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added her to the list of individuals in Separatist feminism. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ringo and Yolanda

You do have a point but this could technically apply to any place including liquor stores. There was probably around 15-20 people in the restaurant and I don't think it's that likely that somebody is armed, think about it, in real life you probably know a few hundred people, out of these people only a few have a gun license and out of those people I don't think there are very many that carry a gun to a coffee shop, personally I don't know anybody who regularly carries a gun in the city.--The Dominator (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on where you live I guess. The city where I live has almost no violent crime and one of the many reasons cited is that there are guns everywhere. Meanwhile (WP:OR) I've spent some time in LA and from my experience there and what I've been told, I think it would be reasonable to think it likely someone eating breakfast in a coffee shop in Hawthorne CA might have a gun. This said though, however self-evident this element of the plot may be to me, your thoughts on this make me think other readers would question it too (without a source directly commenting on the movie). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I'll be damned! How did you dig those up so fast? But if you really think about it, all of those happened at the register (therefore could have been a liquor store, gas station etc.) and they were attempting to rob the store. Ringo and Yolanda were actually robbing the customers, and that's the reason why they thought they're so smart.--The Dominator (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but customers intervened (erm mostly anyway, I think!). I'm kinda biased maybe, I think criminals who walk into crowded rooms waving guns are mentally challenged to begin with and I've always intepreted this as being Tarantino's take too, but again, this is clearly not as self-evident as I thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though I haven't ever done anything like that, but I have met some people who have and it's mostly just a money-needing sort of thing. It's really fun discussing with friends, how and where you would perform a heist, I don't think there's a human male 10+ that hasn't ever thought of going on a heist. And yeah, it's ridiculous to do it in broad daylight.--The Dominator (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I'd say when girls get dumb and desperate (without dumb and desperate boys about), they shoplift! Speaking of which, in the news..., though what she was desperate about, who knows. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, $16, she probably makes that much per minute. Shoplifting is underhanded, on the other hand, a heist in the sense of Reservoir Dogs or Heat would be cool, and is something I would definitely do if I was diagnosed with "24 hours to live".--The Dominator (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, I have a day off tomorrow so hopefully I'll get around to fixing the page up a bit.--The Dominator (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

24 hours to live, you might like this movie if you haven't seen it. 1950 noir, way! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographers worth writing up

Gwen, you're doing a great job with Vadukul. I did a bit out of a sense of duty: after all, when you've nominated somebody's article for deletion and are then reliably informed that the New Yorker is gaga about them, you feel some sort of obligation to do something. But I tired quickly. I guess it's partly that, though yes, he deserves an article, Vadukul already has a PR squad elsewhere. (Plus, why should I be interested in pics of frocks or celebs?)

Well, I'm busy turning crappy stubs into mediocre articles (Katsuji Fukuda), and creating mediocre articles on people who might otherwise get no articles (Vytautas Stanionis). I therefore generally don't bother with people who are sure to get articles written by others. However, the continuing non-existence of an article on Eugene Richards continues to amaze me (and to darken my view of this "encyclopedia"). If you're in the mood for writing up a photographer who really deserves being written up, then this man should be in your top five. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Way, his "PR squad" did such a bang-up on his Wikipedia article, they almost got it deleted :) It looked like an utter hoax to me when I first saw it. Meanwhile fashion and portrait photography can be under-appreciated. Mind, I don't know how much sway he's having on the profession, but he's at least notable enough for an article.

Ok, I'll take the hint though and start a Eugene Richards stub today. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, um . . . it wasn't an order or anything!

You're right about the hoaxishness. But the fashion world seems to be so full of mutual adoration that I suppose this kind of thing is to be expected. (I've seen photos of fashion shows in which the models kiss the leathery-skinned designers. All that lurv, urgh! it's as revolting as soccer players.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know ;) Anyway it's started (Eugene Richards).

The fashion business is brutal, unbelievably competitive in myriad unhappy ways, drug-ridden, nasty, worse even than the music or novel businesses. Still, now and then some cool photographs get thrown off from all the noise and kerfuffle. As for models kissing those leathery-skinned designers, when a girl's making £500-5000 an hour and smooches for the cameras it's called "showbusiness" haha! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's just that I'm still in shock over the way Martin Parr's uninteresting photos of fashion won an exhibition at the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography. (The museum rarely has a show for a living photographer: Tōmatsu Shōmei, Nagano Shigeichi and Tsuchida Hiromi are the only examples I can think of offhand; and they were all well over 60 at the time.)

I was just about to slap a template on Talk:Eugene Richards when I noticed that it had previously existed. I restored it. (Just wait a few months and then you really must get these [modest] superpowers.) As a result I found that there were already pages on Richards in Hebrew, French and German. Those people know what's what.

Perhaps I should go through the gimmickily designed but modestly priced and rather pleasing Phaidon "55" series. Actually I hadn't realized that Richards was in it, but Chris Killip is; his stuff is wonderful. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you know museums put together their exhibits with some mind towards how they'll draw and Euro-American fashion draws in Japan! I'm not startled Eugene Richards had an en.WP article before, so much junk gets thrown up, if an article about a notable but not widely known topic is written and (un)sourced by an enthusiast who doesn't grok how things work here, it might be mistaken for vanity but even so, didn't someone Google it? I guess the mind does boggle a bit there.

Anyway fashion photography, for me, is rather much like anything else (more or less), 90% or more bores me, but the other 5-10% I might find thrilling. This said, Max Vadukul may be notable, barely, but the snaps of his I've seen (maybe 50 in the past day) leave me a bit cold. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

HUGE changes to the The High and the Mighty (film) article

G/H, can you check this article. One huge wallop of editing was slopped in and it really changed what I believe was your original edit. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

This looks like it was a very helpful wallop, which rm'd some WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to keep the main portions but just rewrite for grammar and format errors. Taking out the images and references did not make sense. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

I'd only started to work on it (after being alerted by you above). The article was and is still a big mess. The text has not only lots of syntax and even grammar worries, but is written with sentimentality, like ad copy. Let me know when you're done with what you're doing and I'll be happy to pitch in from there. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to edit another professional writer's work in this way, but it is sloppy, full of formatting errors such as dates and places and reminds of when I have to put on my editor's hat at my magazine and actually "slash-and-burn" some so-called professional's work. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk, I didn't write it, I tried to help out there long ago but stopped watching the article because I was being reverted by someone who had lots of passion for the film and wanted the WP article to reflect that passion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

G/H, I was referring to another editor as the professional in question (the aforementioned afficienado to which you have alluded was the primary editor), not yourself as I always consider your work as very impeccable in terms of basics. FWIW, feel buttered up enough to be a piece of toast? Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Ha! Glad to see there's hope the article may not read like a fanzine blurb anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

G/H. You are making some major changes but your refs/cites are incorrectly given. Tell me when you are finished. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

Could you please clarify what you mean by "your refs/cites are incorrectly given"? Also, they are not my citations, I didn't put them there. I'm going through a cleanup and clarification process of the existing citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to go into huge detail but the article established the use of a Harvard Citation with a MLA style guide link in the references. Removing exact page numbers to a general area, eliminates the connection to the quoted section of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

I did not remove page numbers from any citations. If one wants to use the H cite style in the article that's open to discussion. Meanwhile, you've obliterated the identifying information for most of the article's citations (and some of the information you restored is not accurate). Did you mean to do this? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal over the use of a Refimprove tag but I can't see many more citations being available. I kinda dug through everything I could find on what turns out to be a bit of an obscure film offering. I believe that the original citations were mainly my additions and I have revised them to a "standard" (what the heck does that mean on Wikipedia) format for reference citations and bibliographic records. FWIW, can't see what you mean by "not accurate." Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

I'll replace the citation content you deleted then. As for WP's citation formats, there are several choices available. Given that this is an online resouce, the Harvard style, which was developed for the printed page, is not always the most helpful or clear way to express a citation. Lastly, there are swaths of text which appear to be unsupported by any citations. I'll have a look at the existing provided sources and look for others, however, unsupported text should be removed. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, it looks like we were both editing at the same time; I'll restore anything that was lost. FWIW: Put a fact tag where you see a problem. Bzuk (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

It now has to be inserted after a dispute between editors at the WP:Film group and is a compromise given that entire lists are inappropriate but it prevents inexperienced editors (like myself who ignited the firestorm) from adding large numbers of cast and crew to the list. FWIW, when you get "bitten" once, you have to go along with the group. Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

I think maybe that one should be talked about again. Editors who have experience working on film articles either know straight off, or learn fast, that listing the hundreds of folks involved in most notable films is neither helpful nor practical. Either way, thanks for telling me about the background on this but truth be told, the statement is still superfluous and un-needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Depo-Provera

Just wanted to say thanks for your help in staying on top of the linkspam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see they tried again. I think you handled it very helpfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the image source, thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've updated the page with a template that seems to follow the current requirements, as I would hope that correctly used images such as this one can be retained. Rossrs (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit more to the purpose line, to show the non-free use illustrates the subject in the role for which this actor is most widely noted. However, if you think it's not needed, please feel free to go back to the version you put up. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I believe the Queen of reverts is talking to the King of reverts! (LOL) No problem, but I do not consider my edits as reversions, as they merely revise, and I make it a point never to revert but to rewrite – see the edit history which I use as a shortcut to the talk page which is also now established as a means of "quick" communication of intention. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Truth be told, I rarely revert good faith edits, only vandalism, pranks and very seldomly, apparent carelessness like this or hasty reverts other editors have made of good faith, sourced edits. All I ask is that instead of reverting a good faith edit, please give it some thought first and consider discussing it on the talk page. Edit summaries are a must but they are not a substitute for dialog on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely and when there are major areas of contention, I always initiate a discussion "string" as you will have noticed in The High and Mighty article. I do not consider our "back-and-forth" editing as a revert-edit war, rather more as a collaborative effort. You may or may not be surprised to know that you are one of many editors that I work with in a "bantering," "taffle-pull" editing exercise and they include editors from Italy, Germany, Scotland, the United States, Canada and even Switzerland. I always consider you at the "top of the heap" as you certainly keep me sharp in a "WII Brainwave" way! FWIW, whenever, I see your name crop up in the edit sumaries, my first reaction is to have a chuckle, as I know, "great fun" is ahead! Bzuk (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Haha! I know what you mean! Thanks for explaining your thoughts, it's helpful. However, I've found (in my long experience here) that almost any revert of a good faith edit is likely to be taken, in effect, not as happy, friendly bantering, but as the opening of a stinging revert war, whether intended that way or not. This is doubly true since reverts are routinely and helpfully used to tidy up vandalism, blatant WP:COI edits and so on. Hence, when a good faith edit is reverted, the unavoidable message, intended or not, is "I equate the urgency of removing this edit with the urgency of removing vandalism or unsourced, wholly unhelpful PoV meant to push some outside cause and not help the encyclopedia." I don't think that's the message you want to send! I've found most editors (and almost all experienced ones) respond very helpfully to open and polite (you're always very polite btw and already use the talk pages so this is no stretch for you!) dialog on the talk page. I've found that even vastly different takes on a topic can usually be worked out on a talk page without much fuss. Given our disagreements tend to be of the nitpicking kind (format, word choices and so on rather than over substance or sources), there is no reason we can't quickly deal with them through bits of back and forth on talk pages :) You do so much helpful editing here, thanks for listening! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In the strict sense, reverting is removing a submission and replacing it with an earlier version which is something I only do when there is vandalism. The revision or rewriting a word choice or passage is the usual editing exercise of finding a suitable flow, or in establishing context. I have found that my editing is relatively rapid and that is because I "sneak" time away from other tasks to work at Wikipedia. I find the juxtapositioning of many experts in a single piece can be a complex exercise in sashaying and it does take a bit of massaging to eventually arrive at a consensus-driven decision on how to proceed on a particularly difficult passage. The edit summaries for me work so much faster than the talk page which requires the other editor to be appraised to check there first. However, I reiterrate that whenever major revisions are required that talk page discussion is essential. FWIW, again, I have to retreat back to the real world, I have an upcoming aviation convention to plan and expedite. See 'ya. Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Ok, ok. Then would you please, slow down a bit when you edit with me? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

William Desmond Taylor

Can you state which military unit William Desmond Taylor served in? The article states British Army, you state Canadian Army. Which is it?? Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He was a Canadian officer, thanks for pointing this out, I've fixed the text and provided a couple of cites. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, spotting a blatant mistake in one of the sources, I dug deeper and found citations from the Los Angeles Times shortly after his murder that he was indeed a British officer. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He is there under his full name, page 3 of the search results. I was having trouble accessing the PDF so didn't add the link. I'll have another shot later Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 27 JANUARY, 1919, 1333

Canteens.—William Desmond Taylor to be

•temp. Lt. (without pay or allowances). 15th

Jan. 1919.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Can you look over this film article and especially concentrate on the claims made on the talk page that there were demonic images subliminally inserted in the film. I would like your "take" on what has become a particularly strained discussion. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, G/H, I knew you would "cut to the quick," and the fact that the one-second or less screen image was recognizable to the audience as anything other than a doodle is highly unlikely. As I had mentioned in the talk "string," my concerns were not over the image but in the virulent assertions made by an anon to castigate anyone who didn't see the significance as undermining a "great discovery." One absolutely "loopy" comment made on another editor's talk page was "I ask you not to submit to Bzuk's frivolous accusations any longer. His above posting and removal prove his inconsistency with Truth, Justice, and The American Way." I couldn't have said it any better. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

See the latest comments on the talk page which now interpret your remarks as validation for the claim. AN ANI has been initiated. Bzuk (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for your comment on the Mr. Deed's page. In your assertion that the symbol was "..not self-evidently 666," a guess would be that it is not, also self-evidently 999. This would be in light of the writing where the face's mouth would be, if the image is supposed to be a face. When the picture is inverted, the writing is rightside up. The symbol is then 666. As this is the only writing in the image, a supposition is that the image is meant to be read, and when it is position where it can actually be read, the 666 symbol appears. And no claims were made by anyone other than Mr. Bzuk that the movie contained "demonic images," a comparison was merely made between the 666 symbol in this movie and The Omen. Thank you again for your educated input and your patience with this controversial discussion.--75.55.39.225 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no published critical commentary (that I know of) about this image. Without support from a citation, there is no way a discussion of this image in the article will last, since editors can remove any assertion which is not supported by a verifiable citation from a reliable source. My opinion of what the image contains is not citable in the article, since my opinion is original research (so is yours, apparently). Moreover, I don't think the contents of the image are encyclopedic or notable and I do not support including any discussion of the image in the article. If you can find a reliable published source which supports your assertions about the image, please provide it. Otherwise, I don't see how going on about this could be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll supply a citation, thank you. But I'd like to ask again, if the image isn't self-evidently 666, then how could it self-evidently be 999? Seems to be the crux of the argument, doesn't it?--75.55.39.225 (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the image self-evidently shows any 999s either, since they're used as a block to depict hair along with other blocks of graphical stuff which also depict hair. Either way, your interpretation and my interpretation (which do differ) are both original research: We can't cite our own opinions in the article (nor do I think we should). If you can find a reliable source which discusses this image, we can put it in the article. Further, I strongly doubt your assertion this fleeting glimpse is one of the first times this biblical symbol (if that's what the artist meant it to be) was ever used in a movie. You might be surprised at the content of some silent movies from the 1920s. Either way, if you want to help the encyclopedia, please track down a source for your assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thank you for your post on my user page, but this isn't a "note;" apparently I have to pick my phrases very carefully here. In order to avoid controversy, I haven't mentioned any biblical references at all, and when I supply a citation, I'll try to avoid it there, also. I'm attempting to illustrate the use of 666 in cinema, as it's a symbol that has made the entertainment industry much wealth (The Omen and Ozzy just a couple of examples). Tracing the beginnings of it could be interesting, and this movie may be near the source. Sorry if it gets some of the Wikipedia users upset, but I'm sure you admins are used to that by now, and I'm sure you can circumvent major conflicts. But this isn't a "note." I wish I could remember the name of a British movie where the protagonists had to pass off an arcane note before a certain hour tolled; whoever was caught with it was prey for a demon of sorts. This isn't a "note," I'm not writing a "note." And thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.158.1 (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC) --76.212.158.1 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post on Mr. Deeds, why haven't any of the concerned editors contested the "pixilated/pixy" inclusion in the article? That is an inclusion made merely by supposition, no supporting evidence is given showing how pixilated came from pixy. Is there any difference between this inclusion and 666? I believe that this post is far more unsubstantiated than the 666 post, as 666 can actually be seen in the movie. Are there any pixies in the movie repeating the line "Pixy!" that can be as easily seen? I haven't seen them, but I have seen the 666 symbol. So all this ANI excitement of Bzuk's can now be seen to have been self-serving in some way, it was made with partiality evident to serve some other cause or purpose, not just to remove a questionable post. But not all people are like Bzuk, I wouldn't consider requesting a block to hinder his editing. It's just important to be aware of tactics like this, they become easily avoided after learning of them. But the Etymology section should be cleaned up--76.212.153.191 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You wonder why haven't any of the concerned editors contested the "pixilated/pixy" inclusion in the article? Then ask them on the article's talk page. When you do so, remember: Concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the pixilated/pixy/etymology thing, as odd as it reads, is indeed sourced and has been since I first saw the article a few days ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the original source merely stated the word's roots were "probably" from "pixy;" that's quite inconclusive. The recent experience with 666 shows that Wikipedia doesn't allow supposition and conjecture on its article's pages, why is the "Notebook" reference still there? Perhaps the "Chambers" dictionary is valid, but not the former. And the question is asked on the movie's discussion page, thank you. And concision is only a virtue when truth is evident, when truth is lacking concision only makes an uneducated mob. Thank you very much.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First, you might want to have a look at WP:Point. Then, if you still want to discuss this, please bring it up on the article's talk page, thanks. Articles can always be nudged along towards more helpfulness, verifiability and clarity. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hummus

Apparantly someone labeled my "undo" as vandalism on the Hummus article, and then made some comments in the TALK about "Allah destroying" Israel etc..etc. The food is served in Israeli cities and in Jewish restaurants world wide, as well as Israeli/Jewish households. In the U.S. it is often found in the jewish/kosher food section of grocers. So, aside from political reasons, I'm not sure why this issue keeps popping up.

However, in light of the personal accusation of me committing "vandalism", I'm going to back out of the debate at the moment, as I feel that any comment I make might be considered bias. Your thoughts??

Peace -- Nsaum75 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that talk about Allah and Zionism is utterly unhelpful. I reverted the IP because the word vandalism was used in the edit summary. I've requested an WP:RFC (on the content dispute, not on any editors). I think it will be helpful to have the input of otherwise disinterested editors. My own take on the history of hummus and available sources is towards crediting hummus as an Arab food with a much later and notable Israeli version (and handling the article text to explain all this clearly, with supporting citations), along with kosher versions found in Jewish restaurants and households. I would be interested in seeing sources which discuss the history of hummus in middle eastern Jewish culture. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Template placed by IP removed) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I have added notices of the Hummus RfC on the talk pages of Za'atar and Lentil soup. They too are being "revised" in a similar fashion as Hummus was, so maybe those articles editors can offer input. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all these articles need more sources on their history. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in helping make the Hummus article more accurate and creditable. This will surely encourage my Arab brothers to scrutinize articles for factual correctness and show other people to not just accept misleading Zionist propaganda at face value. 172.167.185.120 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IP, I think calling edits to an article about mashed chickpeas Zionist propaganda is very unhelpful and hateful. Most cultures tend to be a bit centric, it's human nature. I'm only doing what I can to apply Wikipedia sourcing policy to the article, mostly WP:V. I think including the article in category:Israeli cuisine and category:Jewish cuisine would be ok and is supported by the sources I've seen. Meanwhile the history of hummus along with its Arab origins should be much more thoroughly sourced. I've supported the notion of using wider, non-country-specific cats only as a way to stabilize the article. It's quite possible, even likely, that Jewish people in the middle east have been eating hummus for centuries, maybe even back to Roman times, I don't know. I do know that both Jewish and Arab culture have long and deeply intertwined histories in the middle east. Can the earliest origins of hummus even be documented? Are you aware that Judaism has influenced Arab culture since long before Islamic times? I'm happy to encourage your Arab brothers to scrutinize articles for factual correctness, but I would also very much like to encourage your Arab sisters to edit Wikipedia, following the sources as they see fit. Please, let's not enable any bickering over something as yummy, healthful and wholesome as hummus. Instead, let the sources have sway and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I should say, the more I look into the sources, the less support I find for either Arab or Jewish origins for hummus. More modern recipes aside, the earliest evidence of it so far seems to trace back to ancient Egypt. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Berghof

Another noted Hitler project: Auschwitz II-Birkenau extermination camp. Roll call in front of the camp kitchen. SS photograph, 1944

I have just recently met a man who has a salvaged brick from the Berghof. I have printed this article for him to read. What an exciting piece of history. He was a soldier from WWII. I will let you know what he thinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.187.82 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy the article has been helpful. You might also want to send him this article, which deals with another archtectural project of the high-living Mr Hitler. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheery article

Try this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm floored! No scandal, no sniggering snarkiness? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the NYRB for you. Hugely more interesting to me than some Canadian TV station but then perhaps it's me that's strange. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone in one of the only shows on the telly I could ever watch all the way through once said... "people's lives..." Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job editng hummus

If we keep editing with NPOV we are not going to get any vandalism. We just need to take all sides conserned into account. I wish Israeli and Palestinian people would sit down together and have a plate of hummus, there would not be so many problem in the Middle East. Keep up the good work, Igor Berger (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

touchy feely

Hi Gwen. I'm one of that tiny number of people who's always been uninterested in iPods, mainly for the simple and Apple-irrelevant reasons that (a) music via miniature earphones rather nauseates me, and (b) I greatly enjoy reading stuff that demands concentration. But I recently observed a friend websurfing on something that I first assumed was a Palm or similar but found was a glorified iPod. So it was that I surfed on over to iPod touch, simply as somebody looking something up in an encyclopedia. The prose struck me as turgid, so of course I clicked the "Edit" tab ... And Here My Troubles Began. There are some misunderstandings -- I'm not a member of the "iPod generation", so maybe they're all mine. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I don't think they are. I'd welcome you as a fellow-editor there, of course under no pressure to agree with me on anything whatever. ("Hey Hoary, get with the program: Blow the dust off your Powerbook, stop asking questions, let the somnolent prose wash through you, and consume mindlessly and happily!") -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's turgid :) Seems to me,

• Someone likes/is imitating the heavily latinized English one stumbles across in expensively written user manuals these days. In my experience by the bye, when writing corporate stuff for pay under a deadline, Latin comes in very handy, never mind it's such an ugly cheat, IT and marketing execs are thrilled by it.

• Someone likes Apple products. The lead reads (to me) like an advertisement in a technical magazine, I know cuz I've written a few haha!

• So yeah, there seems to be some WP:OWN happening there, maybe some evangelizing, though as a FreeBSDgrrl I'm a bit surprised to see someone called a linux fanboy over this when Apple has gone so thoroughly UNIX and Mr Jobs has such a long history with unix-like OSes.

• Can I say, one reason music sounds so crappy these days is, it's produced in the mixing room to punch through those ghastly little earpods? Either way, the cool industrial design of Apple's iPod stuff does not carry through to how those little thingies sound. Eek. But. I'm showin me age here, way. Teens n tweens don't seem to care a wit about sound, they want portability (freedom), they want cool, they want to be socially knit at the hip (I do remember how that feels :) Never mind these things may give you cancer, die young, stay connected! I too felt immortal at 18.

• So, with my PoV drippin off my sleeve, I'll be happy to have a go. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience by the bye, when writing corporate stuff for pay under a deadline, Latin comes in very handy, never mind it's such an ugly cheat, IT and marketing execs are thrilled by it. I plead guilty to having written the stuff myself. It wasn't "IT" baubles, it was globe-warming vehicles and large and expensive consumer durables. I'd resort to long and latinate locutions within catalogues because it was obvious that that was want the client wanted. And I understood this: After all, a company has to lull a potential customer into a particular kind of stupor to increase its chances that he [yes, male], driving along asphalted roads well over 99%+ of the time, will suppress any thought that might conflict with his imagined need for a 4WD. (I cringe when I think of this. My excuse: This was in the infancy of the "SUV" boom; in common with most of the world I'd never heard of global warming, or for that matter of Al Gore.) One gem: No "safety feature" was ever "improved" from older model to newer, as this might be read to suggest that it previously wasn't good enough: other things might be "improved", but safety-related stuff was "enhanced".

Incidentally, the music-unrelated side of this toy look interesting, but I don't understand either (i) how it's better than some hugely cheaper USB memory stick with bootable GNU/Linux (or BSD), or (ii) how one can expect that computers in (ugh!) internet cafes and the like will allow rebooting off any device brought in by the customer. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, these gadget niches are so hard to spot, businesses fling all kinds of hardware on the market to see what might stick (so to speak). For the IT clueless (and I think it's ok to be like that), I mostly say "Get an Apple and be done with it." For the willingly alert, Linux can be so fit but for the hard core who want the very most, BSD and X are more or less the way to happiness. Meanwhile I don't worry much about global warming (I think it's an utter scam launched by parasitic politicians who only want to gobble up power and money for themselves and their friends) since wide, long cyclical swings in the weather have always been part of what the earth's all about, though I do think it's more than helpful and wise to cut pollution of all kinds and lower energy use wherever/whenever doing so is within reach (which is almost always and everywhere). As for 4WD... boyz and their toys, whatev, yawn. I don't like cars much to begin with :) Oh and safety features! Ha! Erm, don't get me started on those :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, my inner Responsible Citizen points out that swings in the climate have rarely if ever been this rapid. But let's leave that matter aside and instead concentrate, in a suitably manly way, on consumer durables. I actually rather enjoy driving for my average of about three days a year and am fascinated by my mixed competence: most of the time I suppose I'm an averagely good driver (passengers don't complain or turn green, people don't toot at me, I don't scrape against things) or anyway I think I'm just as good as I ever was;* but whereas I used to be above average at parking (I lived in London, after all), I'm now utterly hopeless at it, scared to attempt to insert my rented Polo in a gap big enough for a Hummer. BSD sounds good, but I've already got Debian DVDs all ready for my next big installation (replacing Kubuntu). I've had a Powerbook for a couple of years but have never warmed to it and seldom use it: I greatly prefer using my other laptop, a seven- or eight-year-old Toshiba running 'Doze 2K but very little else by Microsloth. * I would say that, wouldn't I? Have you ever encountered a man who described himself as a below average driver? -- Hoary (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Debian's fit, dozey woes 2k on older machines can be ok (eek) if it's been cleaned up like you say. No, truth be told, I don't think I've ever heard a man say he was a below average driver but mind, you only said you were once above average at parking and now say you're lame at it which I'd say only means you're not 20 anymore haha! Meanwhile I haven't driven a car in years and am happy about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As for anthropomorphic global warming... Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tramway & Light Railway Society

Hi Gwen,

You have once again removed the external link to Tramway & Light Railway Society's Tramway Information website from the trams page.

Can I please point out a few facts. Firstly and most importantly you state COI. I agree that I contribute to this site (with others) but I did not add this link. Someone else did, about two years ago I think. All I was trying to do was change the title which used the initials TLRS to the full Society name to show who the link actually was in line with the other entries on the Wiki page.

The Tramway and Light Railway Society is the UK national organization which deals with tramway history and tramway modelling. If you look at the site you will see that as well as articles on models (which are also covered on the Wiki trams page), there is a substantial amount of tramway history (Historic tramways and postcards sections of the site) including much original research. It is one of the Society's charitable objects to make this type of information available to the public, free of charge, in the same way that applies with Wiki.

As I have said TLRS is UK registered charity number 272961. This is an educational charity and is non-profit making. None of its officers or members (including me) are paid in any way. Yes the website does make available specialist books and sells membership, but not for profit, just to raise funds to support the objects and maintain their historic archives. You will see that most of the other museums and societies on the Wiki page do exactly the same.

Can I draw your attention to the links the other two major tramway societies, the Light Rail Transport Association and the British National Tramway Museum (which is actually the Tramway Museum Society under its other name). The former deals with modern trams, the latter with museum trams. Both these websites sell books and/or subscriptions. Why do these two links seem acceptable, whereas the TLRS, which deals with the third aspect of trams - their history, is not? It is most unfair to single out the TLRS for removal when it is only trying to help people with information.

I am going to add the link once more, just as it originally was before I edited it, i.e the status quo. I would respectfully ask you to leave it there this time.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramwayinfo (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your addition of external links to Fondue and Postcard (either as User:Tramwayinfo or as an IP) were clearly inappropriate for sundry reasons, which led me to take a closer look at your edit of the EL http://www.tramways.freeserve.co.uk in Tram which was originally added by an IP in August 2005. I still don't think it qualifies under WP:EL since the site is on a free hosting service along with a very amateur look and presentation. Moreover as an aside, the copyright notice is behind an individual's name ("© Copyright John R. Prentice Software, not a charitable org). Lastly, there is already a link in the EL section of the article to another, specialized and apparently informative page on the same site. Altogether, I still don't think this second link to your website belongs in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your point of view. Hadn't considered that other link. I did not put that there either. Do you think a change to the title of that to say "Compressed Air Trams from Tramway & Light Railway Society" would be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramwayinfo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the site name to the link. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the job. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramwayinfo (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And now falafel

Hi there. I noticed your involvement in mediating at Hummus. I'm rather sad to report that Falafel is now undergoing some of the same problems. Could you take a look and offer your opinion? The editor I've gotten tangled with has little respect for my views and I think a third party comment might help sort things out. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Soon we going to have to open a restaurant on Wikipedia. You guys making me hungry for all this Middle Eastern food. In Japan we do not have it..:( Try the best to keep NPOV on falafel. Igor Berger (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Food Wars: Episode III, Revenge of the Chickpeas... --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was only a food fight..:) It is a total wiki melodrama and more! Igor Berger (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sigh. Sadly, these spats have nothing to do with food or even its sourced history. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In a way I agree, but in a way I also disagree. This "debate" is a prime example of how the Arab-Israeli conflict runs much deeper than the idealogical and territorial dispute played out in Western media. Sadly, it has grown to encompass everything, including how the history of poor little smashed chickpeas is presented and recorded (and "re-recorded"). Even when I lived in Tel Aviv (which some jokingly argue is a "bubble") not a day went by that I wasn't keenly aware (and reminded) just how tense the situation is. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When I visited Israel in the 80' for a few months the situation was not escalated. I use to stay in this cheap hotelthat had many Palestinian people stayed at. We use to join together and eat in our rooms, even Israeli soldiers from Masada would join our party. We would share food eat and joke about life. How sad the situation in Israel is so tense now. The political fighting destroying both people. And we are brothers! I just visiyed Israel 6 months ago and stayed in Yafa - Jaffa. I ate in Arab Israeli restaurants every day, the food is great and the people are worm. Even with all the politcs people are still people. Igor Berger (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I dare say, get rid of the politicans and ordinary folks (who tend to be smarter and much more honest and trustworthy) would find ways to get along with each other very quickly. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Too many rules too many bosses hurts the society, not helps the people. We need to unprotect Israel not build wall around it! Let Israeli people and Palestinian people find communality with each other, that have existed since the beging of time.

If only the world worked like Wikipedia...

Policeman! You protected the wrong version! Igor Berger (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, as you so pithily imply, so far none of the versions have been very helpful :( Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to give it a one two and revert, see what happens! Maybe we should do the dice thing. If it hits this number that part goes to that place and so on. Or wheel of fortune would be great as well. Anyway any chance solution maybe better than what the politicians are trying to come up with now. That is just stale mate. Need to lose something to gain something. We can do an exchange latter on and see if it fits better. I think a compromise is a language I am looking for. Much better than Wars are resentment on both sides. Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert the politicians, anyway. Anyone with a lick of understanding knows local Palestinians and Jews got along in Palestine for centuries. Meanwhile I think the only way to stabilize these ragged food articles is to steadfastly stick by WP:V and WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree! I have a plan! I should go to Gaza and Israel border and open a falafel shop. The customers can come eat falafel and debate who invented the falafel first! I am sure to get visitors from both sides of the fence. Nobody will want to lose out on falafel debate. So I will make tons of money, make lots of friends, and promote peace in the region. Igor Berger (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CE

I do agree with using AC, but if you look at other article on Wikipedia we use CE and BCE. So we like to keep a similar style through out the Wikipedia project. Take a look at this here Igor Berger (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You meant AD? Anyway, yes, CE (common era) is secular, which is why I put it back after the IP changed it to AD. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Mix

OK. I did not understand. Then my mistake and I will self-revert. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's a selection of cakes for you! Cakes somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Virgil Ivan 'Gus' Grissom

Hi,

The entry re Grissom is still wrong. He was the third, not the second American in space.

Before him went Alan Shepherd, who made a suborbital flight, and John Glenn, who was the first American to make a full orbital fight. Then came Grissom, on the 2nd manned american orbital flight, hence he's the third American in space.

I think I see where the confusion arises - in the page for the Mercury Programme, the table lists the flights in the wrong order. John Glenn made the second Mercury flight in Friendship 7, and Grissom made the 3rd in Liberty Bell 7, yet the table lists them the other way round. However, the dates on the table are correct, it's just the placement of these two flights are transposed.

So, can you please correct Grissoms entry to reflect the great mans true place in history - the third American in space, and the second American to make an orbital flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.205.97 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, IP, you are still mistaken, both about the flights and the contents of the Project_Mercury table. Shepard flew May 5, 1961, Grissom flew July 21, 1961 and Glenn flew February 20, 1962 as the first American to orbit the Earth. Please stop re-adding unsourced and mistaken information into the article, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddened for Falafel

Since the "preferred version" for Tiamut is now up, I highly doubt she'll have any reason to participate in the workshop page at all. This is unfortunate. I wish you had left it to get sorted out in workshop, where both sides would have had equal reason to work out a compromise version. M1rth (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut asked me earlier today to have a look at the article and I was not aware anyone had asked for protection. If I'd known this, I wouldn't have touched the article or entered the discussion. Given the long and sad background which I see in the article's edit history, if you want to ask Alison to revert the protected article back to the version before my edit, I would support it. Thanks for letting me know about your thinking on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I would prefer the contested section be edited away from the main article; that way, both sides are forced to come to an agreement before it is re-inserted and we hopefully get a neutral (and edit-war-free) article. There's less of a chance for that if one side thinks that "their" wording is the "default" for the locked article. I've asked Alison to do the revert based on your agreement. M1rth (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you can unprotect it like we have done with hummus. Just take all sides accounts into affect and the edit warring will stop as it has happened with hummus. It is all about mutual respect of the participents and the moderators combined. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Only a note, since it doesn't fall in my core areas of interest as an editor, I am not watching Falafel. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why you removed the reference to the Israel Defense Forces cookbook from Hummus. It looks like it was sourced from a major U.S. daily newspaper. Was it perhaps because the IDF is found to be controversial by many Arabs? Thanks :-) Lchaimgirl (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it but this diff will show you which editor did so. Everything about this food article seems controversial :( Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I looked at the edit history and am amazed! Very sad indeed! I'm reading the talk page right now and am saddened by all the hateful language. I came here looking for a link to maybe a hummus recipe or two and ended up discovering a battlefield! Lchaimgirl (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me, I stumbled onto it through Chickpea. Eek. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a minefield that you have to navigate gently, or Boom! Igor Berger (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a separate, sourced section in Hummus about the nationalist controversy itself would help funnel the PoVs of the edit-warriors into something more encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re Cause for Alarm!

Hey. Please Gwen, I was going to do a few minor copy edits, since I've worked on this article, and then I saw the critical reception section? Is a reader supposed to read the whole section. Right away! Come on break up or it will never happen. I was going to but I got lost, please... Mr Noir Luigibob (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You do sound like her scene with the postal supervisor :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, funnny, just break it up and no ad homs. I just told it was, in my opinion, wrong. That's all. Luigibob (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no ad homs at all, I thought you were trying to be funny (humorous). What's wrong? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)

An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was the speediest keep I've ever seen and the nom was blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

I just reverted this; the editor appears to be a brand new account and likely is a return of Jamiechef2 (talk · contribs) from earlier. Simply keeping you apprised. M1rth (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a Palestine section but I'm ok with removing unsourced content. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a source has shown up. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, see above. This is not good conduct, and the source appears invalid. M1rth (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What conduct are you referring to? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it: Felsner2Art (talk · contribs) is absolutely someone's sockpuppet. There is no longer any doubt in my mind after this diff. I have filed for a CheckUser based on the earlier case of the amazingly similar Jamiechef2, here. M1rth (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a sock it'll be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Turns out I was right. not just Felsner2Art but Encyclo221. I'm starting to wonder how connected this sock might be to others on that article as well. Seems entirely possible there's some meatpuppetry.M1rth (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's been dealt with I hope things calm down some. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Haven't seen you around my neck of the woods before. I edit Planet X (and other Solar System-related articles) and was wondering what brought you over into my region, as our areas would not at first glance appear to overlap. You seem interested in debunking myths, and I am very interested in keeping "Planet X"-related guff from overwhelming the internet. I just wrote an article on the subject in fact. If you feel there are any other myths that I might be of help debunking, let me know. Serendi^podous 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my editing interests include some articles about some early US aerospace projects/people along with bits of astronomy, the latter when I think an article truly needs help. Often, I find that science myths are the outcome of very sloppy sci-fi/fantasy on the telly and in film having far too much sway on some folks' notions about the world. Anyway, likewise by the way, let me know if you run across something and need some help! Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete hummus

I hope you realized, I was being sarcastic on the article's page. I have no intetions of nominating it for deletion, but the radical POVs needs to stop, it is a real shame that some editors are trying to promote their political agendas on article hummus. You really have a lot patience in dealing with the trouble makers, on both sides of the fence.I hope one day Israel and Palestine does not get deleted, and Jewish people are forced to go live in America, while Palestinians are expelled to Europe. The land becomes a nomenland! Peace! Igor Berger (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I soon understood you were being metaphorical, as I think you're being above :) I've found that when Wikipedia sourcing practices like WP:V are steadfastly followed, NPoV and consensus do show up and things calm down. Hummus may be slowly getting there too, now (though many more sources are needed, recipes too!). Likewise, most people tend to be cool, Jewish and Arab folks lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for centuries, here's hoping they will again. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummus in Palestine

As the gatekeeper of the Hummus article, you must fix an inaccuracy that is currently there.

The problem is that there is a section on "Israel" and a section on "Palestine". However, the "Palestine" link points to the article about the historic Palestine region, and not to the Palestinian territories as intended.

I can fix it myself if you let me do it. In any case, the kitsch anecdotal part about the hummus vines will have to go. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think the link to the historic Palestine region is far more helpful and fitting (I did look at it before). As for the bit about chickpeas eaten off the vine, I do not support removing it, the cited source mentions this and it gives context (I don't find it so kitsch, but even if it is, this is an article about food, after all). Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will rewrite it soon, with your comment about the Palestine region in mind. However, the cited source unnecessarily mixes eating green chickpeas and making hummus, which are two different things. Fresh green chickpeas are eaten wherever they are grown (namely the Mediterranean, western Asia and the Indian subcontinent), but the article makes it seem as if the hummus is made from green chickpeas, which is incorrect. I will rephrase it appropriately. -- Gabi S. (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do agree these are two different things, so if needed, maybe you could mention it, to skirt any ambiguity. Since this is a food article I think details like this do offer helpful context to readers. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

concerned about hummus

Hi Gwen,

I just wanted to drop a note of concern to you regarding the hummus page. I have used wikipedia in the past to browse articles about Arab / middle eastern stuff in general. Unfortunately, I see a general anti-Arab sentiment on a lot of these pages. I am really surprised this extends too food articles as well!

The most recent edits I find are bordering on absurd. While I commend your efforts to bring calm to this page, I noticed the policing seems one sided on the issue of including the phrase "Arab cultural influence". One which has been removed and brought back (over and over).

As one with background from that area, I think it is important to note this. I also noticed you allowed this initially. I understand the desire to keep everything calm, but this should never be at the expense of leaving out useful and pertinent information.

I read the newspaper article that is cited, and it is in the article too:

""The Arab influence is very strong on our food. Give my kids a meal with good hummus, pita, salads and grilled fish or meat, and they are in seventh heaven. That is a regular Israeli `happy meal.' " Yehuda Avni

Just my 2 cents, thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CindifromNJ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two things to keep in mind here. First, I've seen nationalist bickering and and bias from both "sides" of this: "Pro-Arab" editors objecting to any reference to Israel at all and "Pro-Israeli" editors attempting to credit Jewish culture with the invention of hummus (and sometimes calling any different PoV "racist" or "anti-semetic"). All of this has been so hateful and wholly unhelpful. Happily, there are reasonable/encyclopedic-minded users editing from both PoVs too, so there is hope. As for mentioning modern Arab influence on the consumption of hummus in Israel, I tend to think the sources will show this has happened and there is a source cited in the article to support this. However, I'd like to see more sources to support the assertion. Moreover, I would very much like to know if there are any sources available which note the consumption of hummus in Jewish culture, say, two thousand years ago. Meanwhile, a sockpuppet farm has been re-adding the "Arab influence" assertion into the Israel section and the article has been protected. This sockiness has been beyond unhelpful. Once things have calmed down, perhaps editors can discuss how the article might address the modern Arab cultural influence on the consumption of hummus in Israel, in a way which is both ok with a wide consensus of editors and unambiguously supported by sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing, and I do not know if it is a coincidence, but most of the hummus and falafel joints in Israel that I have visited, are owned and operated by Israeli Arabs. I do not know if the Israeli Jewish people are just not interested in running a falafel and hummus place or if the current day hummus and falafel perfusion and influence in Israel is done by Israeli Arabs. Igor Berger (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Likely a bit of both? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly... Pita is usually considered greek (an essential component of sandwiches like the gyro), salads and grilled foods are common the world over... hummus is alternatively described as "middle eastern" without needing to push a nationality quite easily. If anything that's not a description of an "arab-influenced" meal but one heck of a multicultural one, which is what you'd expect from a culture reuniting after something like the diaspora. M1rth (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair and reasonable to characterize hummus as a multi-cultural, very ancient food. The earliest reference we've found so far is ancient Egyptian but this is not to say the Egyptians were the first to mash chickpeas: This more than likely wholly predates not only semetic culture (Arab, Jewish), but Nile culture too, stretching back to Mesopotamia. Outside the ME, flat breads are more associated with Greece than with Arab cultures but I think this has as much to do with outlook as anything else. From what I understand, although Pita and Arab flat bread are very similar, there are slight differences in the recipes and preparations. I think it's understood that hummus likely predates both Arab and Jewish culture, neither can call it their own. As for a modern Arab influence on Israeli eating habits (hummus and so on), there may be a paradox. Jewish people have lived in Palestine for 2,500 years, alongside those who later adapted sundry spins of Arab and Islamic culture. All of them share common ancestry and much cultural exchange. Europeans who settled in Israel during the 20th century would have taken their dietary cues not only from Palestinian Jewish culture, but from the region's Arab culture too. I think more sources will continue to arrive and clarify this. In the meantime, there is a source to support the assertion that modern Israeli consumption of hummus has been influenced by Arab culture. However, the sockpuppet farm which had been continually re-adding this assertion without allowing open discussion and consensus on the talk page made the assertion itself look like vandalism. Rather than comment on all the ins and outs of what the sock's agenda may be, I'd say let's wait for things to calm down more and then talk about how to deal with all of hummus' cross-cultural influences. Also, more sources are bound to show up, making things easier for everyone. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Gwen Gale. Regarding the amove statement, yes, the quote points to a diverse meal, but it unambiguously emphasizes the Arab influence in it, namely, the first item mentioned, hummus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CindifromNJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :) See above, I do think there has been an Arab influence but it may not be supportable to simply write a sentence which implies, "Israeli people eat lots of hummus because Arabs showed them how." The influence has likely come in skeinish layers through the centuries, winding up, so to speak and pithily put, with another recent boost from lots of Arab-Israeli sandwich shops. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gwen, sorry to say this but it appears you've been bamboozled - CindifromNJ is yet another sockpuppet of Jamiechef2, confirmed by Thatcher using CheckUser. M1rth (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know. I wasn't bamboozled, I assumed good faith. I think all sourced PoVs should be carried in the article (following WP:NPOV and WP:V). Meanwhile I wouldn't be too quick to make any assumptions about what's behind all this sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having been targeted by several of these (as well as by users I suspect are meatpuppetting the sockmaster), I'm wondering where your accusation that it's a "false flag" comes from. M1rth (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's an observation. The socks from this single source are so many and so blatant, it's a bit hard to imagine how any sockpuppeteer could think this would help the PoV the socks are pushing (by now it seems as though the sockpuppeteer is both expecting and even hoping to be CUed and unmasked with each new account). So, rather, it makes that whole PoV look like vandalism, thus "helping" the "other" PoV. For example, the socks have succeeded in removing the sourced "Arab influence" text from the Israel section without any meaningful discussion since even neutral editors like me are now inclined to revert it, which I did (and was happy to do) before the page was protected. Hence, I begin to wonder. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That line of reasoning tends to fly in the face of Occam's Razor... not to mention that this latest sock came to you "acting" more reasonable, apparently trying to garner your support and fly under the radar. I think it's far more likely to be one of the existing POV-pushers acting out in frustration, especially since the sock took the time to attack me personally for the arguments I've made about some of Tiamut's poor sourcing and WP:SYN problems. M1rth (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me M1rth, but I think it's rather inappropriate for you to charge me with "poor sourcing and WP:SYN". I've made two edits to Hummus, both of which have withstood the test of time. I added a bunch of material to Za'atar that ended the problems there, and I've worked hard to respond to the concerns you raised at Falafel. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put down my editing on other people's talk pages. It's really poor form, especially when it's not even close to being true. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I might also add that your comments seem to imply that I am the master of these sockpuppets. For the record, this is my only account on Wikipedia and I haven't been editing much these days because when there is conflict in the real world at such high levels (as has been the case of late in Palestine-Israel), the last thing I need is to engage in ridiculous battles like these. And on that note, I'm out of here. Tiamut^talk 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think it's by far the simplest explanation for what would otherwise appear to be rabidly irrational behaviour. I've seen this kind of sockpuppetry before. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Let us be warned, if we go off tangent hunting socks and proving who the masters are, we will detract from the productive building of this article. If there are socks, let them be gone by their own accord, but we shall not be entangaled in their evil snares and forget our united cause of brotherhood. Hunting for socks can be very disruptive and hurts the colobarative atmosphere. No one wants to hear, "you are a sock, you are a puppet master!" If we go down that road, the POV pushers win and Wikipedia as a community loses. Say no to Inquisition! Igor Berger (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm not calling anyone a sock, I'm only offering my opinion as to what may be behind this disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gale, I never said you did. The message is directed towards all of us as a community, as to what not to do. Even socks have feelings..:) Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but sockpuppetry is much frowned on by Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the letter of the law and its spirit. As much as our policy condemns socks, we should not make it into a crusade to catch them all. But, if we see a sock being disruptive, again and again, we have away to put two and two together to figure out who is the problem. So no one should think they are above the law and they can get away with whatever they want. They try to play their games, they will be caught, banned and blocked from the project. Their IPs will be blocked! So please do not take advantage of our friendly hospitality! Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "a crusade to catch them all"? I only said, "I wouldn't be too quick to make any assumptions about what's behind all this sockpuppetry." Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read the article before commenting. And you are right, we should not jump to conclusions. Igor Berger (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eva Braun

Gwen, does it matter if the source is a Holocaust denier or not? The information that I added supports other references about Eva. Igor Berger (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Add this source here. Igor Berger (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply (since he has been very much otherwise discredited), if someone told you there was no holocaust, how could you believe anything else they said without confirming it elsewhere? Irving is a wholly unacceptable source on Wikipedia, editors familiar with his work will not form a consensus to cite him anywhere. Moreover, the wording of your edit implied she was not free to leave which is not true. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think anyone could leave Hitler of their own free will? read this. I was trying to show that she was a play child for him and nothing more, and she assumed that position. She was not a Nazi, but a kept toy for Hitler. If you think you can write that in better words please do. My addition was reverted by another editor. Igor Berger (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to help but you might read Wikipedia:Original research first. If you want to characterize Braun as a "play child" you must find a reliable secondary source which uses those exact words, likewise if you want the article to assert Braun was not free to leave. Either way, I don't think the sources on Braun support the conclusions you wish to include in the article. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think her article asserts the two already. I was just adding additional words to that assumption. So I will leave it as is, because to find the exact words as I have written them that would be plagiarism. Thanks Igor Berger (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)