User talk:Gwen Gale/archive9

Question

Gale, do you not think that there is an issue with these tags [[1]], given the history? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Karl Heim easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). However, for such a short article, the quotes are way too long and there likely shouldn't be more than one. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time cleaning up the article. Firefly ought to figure out that further violations of WP:AGF are not helpful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gale, do you think that my asking this question is an indication of bad faith per [2] ? --Firefly322 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER SKY PRESS

Hey Gwen,

I set up a page for Another Sky Press in the USA (http://www.anothersky.org/).

For your own reference, you can check out: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Another_Sky_Press

So, fair enough - I decided to see if we could sort out some importance and/or significance, and got this response from Kristopher Young, who heads-up Another Sky:

"I've been researching this some. The issue noted by the mod is 'notability'. Which, on the corresponding detail page seems to require 'reliable secondary sources'.

"Which translates, I think, to the article by the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/NSG0IP23KS1.DTL&hw=another+sky+press&sn=004&sc=775

"And perhaps a few others from Dogmatika, maybe even referencing Click book club on Chuck Palahniuk's site."

Do you think we could reconsider the page? Cherrs for considering! Shareradar (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, have you read this page yet? One article in the SFC may be enough for some editors but it's not enough to meet WP:CORP. Still, it's a strong citation. I'd suggest looking for at least two more independent, reliable sources with meaningful coverage of this topic. Thanks for showing me the business website but it's not an independent source, so of no help here. Also, the article text would need some assertion of significance or importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier)

Hi Gwen, Can you help me with a very small thing, please. The Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier) page was created by Les Woodland and revised by me. It should be moved to Augustin Trébuchon but the move function will not work. I think that he is, and probably always will be, the only Augustin Trébuchon that is notable. Can you fix it and/or tell me if what I should have done. Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC). ps. This is still the best user talk page on Wiki, Reithian in its education and entertainment values, and a must for any watch-list.

Thanks Autodidactyl (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Only so you know, since there was already content (a redirect) at Augustin Trébuchon, the admin bit was needed for the move. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Based on our prior interaction, I had serious reservations that you had the temperament to make it as an admin. It seems I owe you an apology. Keep up the good work. Ronnotel (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ronnotel! It's wonderful to hear from you and thanks so much for the very kind words, they mean something to me :) If you ever need/would like me to help or pitch in with something, please do let me know. Speaking of our dear Fred, who I think you and I have always agreed has, more often than not, gotten rather short shrift as maybe the keenest aerial navigator of the 1930s (which is likely why Amelia asked him along), have you heard, TIGHAR has lately found they collected some DNA which could be hers when they were last on Nikumaroro? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, they put this up today, more about Fred's sextant boxes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In all good faith...

Hi Gwen, I'm involved in a sourcing disagreement going on at Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (see [3]). I am holding a photo-copy of the article in question in my hand. The question ([4]) here of doubt is extremely similar in scope and circumstances to [5]. In both cases there is a physical document (the first case a printout, this case a photocopy) that is being, to my mind, unreasonably disputed. Perhaps this is a massive coincidence (in which case my sincere apologies), but my evaluation of the patterns are that these two editors are mimicking each other in way that seems unnecessary. Given that I really do edit wikipedia in what I had always thought was good faith (and I respect and believe you that my faith has been weak or outright failed at times), what should I do? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How dare you imply that I am a sockpuppet of User:Hrafn with whom you were involved in an unseemly attack. I'm asking that you be blocked for this continued personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly I should block you now, since you're still finding hurtful ways to comment on editors, not content. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the behavior. Usually the way to solve something like this is to post the entire passage on the talk page in a {{quotation}} or offer to scan/email or fax the article to the person questioning it in response to a {{request verification}} template. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to get into the arcane, but really, he was creating a list of articles. Two or three of them were sufficient. That many qualifies almost as trivia. But Firefly cannot get away with his veiled threats. He's gone to the two blocking admins (you and Todd) and dropped little comments how horrible I was to work on HIS article. Actually, I really was trying to clean them up. He has no good faith. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational hammer

Though I did use my education once or twice in discussions, I was properly chastised for it, and have not proffered it as evidence in any article discussion since, meaning in over 4 months. The Essjay controversy is a burning reminder to anyone who would misrepresent themselves inappropriately, and while I have the educational background of which i speak (though mostly via comparison, and not specificity), I won't be using it as a tool in discussions. No one is the smartest person in the room whilst editing in Wikipedia, and certainly not me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! As you've likely learned by now, there is no need to talk about advanced degrees here, since they tend to yield a thorough knowledge of reliable sources (and where to find them), which when wielded along with other Wikipedia-friendly skills such as canny writing, will more often than not sway and even teach the good-faith but maybe less knowledgeable editor, along with more neatly handling COI, SPA, soapbox and OR editors. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[6] TigerShark (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This is not harassment, so I won't revert it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

OK. Let's get an outside view [7]. TigerShark (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Step Zero

Gwen, I am curious as to your speedy deletion of this article, care to elaborate? --Jarrex (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

yes "It's non-encyclopedic, it's a copyright violation, it's an advertisement (maybe even spam) or an attack page or other form of vandalism." I fail to see which guidelines it meets.

--Jarrex (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your taunting is highly unhelpful. We're all volunteers here. Had you heedfully and thoughtfully read that page, it would have told you all you need to know. The article text clearly carries no meaningful assertion that the topic may meet WP:MUSIC. See also Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not feel as though I was taunting. I did read the article I still do not feel that it does not meet any guidelines. As for the music guidelines "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Bobby Reeves of Adema has been cited, as well as fullthrottleradio.com. There is also a source from a Portuguese soldier who plays them on their radio. I really do not see how it does not meet guidelines.

--Jarrex (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you understand the guidelines or agree with the outcome, this topic doesn't even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Please wait until you've charted a hit, been featured on a national broadcast or stirred up lots of regional coverage. When any of this happens, someone will very likely write a Wikipedia article about you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

About me? I am in no way related to this article. I live in Pennsylvania, these guys are from Colorado. I don't even know who they are. I cited exactly what guidelines it met, it says one of the following not more than one of the following.

--Jarrex (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_16#Step_Zero. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Charyn Sutton

I still do not understand the deletion. The source that is a website of the person the article is about. If permission is needed, I own the website and can give it. If the is not sufficient, I can delete the reference to the website.

Websrx (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Charles

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. If you want to use this text, you'll need to release it either into the public domain or under a GFDL. Also, please see Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the everything.

Websrx (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok! If you think it's no longer a copyvio and that it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people), please feel free to recreate the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Page moves patterns of people deemed not notable

Hey. I'm now an involved editor in the argument on Talk:Murder of Matthew Shepard#Page move that used to be Matthew Shepard. There appears to be an effort to move LGBT related hate crime deaths to "Murders of" pages, for what reason I do not know but can only surmise. However, you have seen the edits and comments given by Lihaas (talk · contribs) on the Lesbian article page, and he is responsible for suggesting the move at Shepard's page, as highlighted on the ANI thread.

There is no consensus to move these pages. I'm too emotionally involved to judge if moving them back to their original names, protecting them from editor moves until consensus can be reached is a good idea. I'm asking for your input, and ultimately, your moving them if you agree. --Moni3 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a highly PoV try at dehumanization which is not at all supported by WP:Title. I've commented there. I may indeed move them all back myself but will wait a day, mostly to think it through thoroughly. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate what you can do... and have done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all three back. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Milan and Gwen Araujo

Would you please move these articles back to Murder of... The guidelines for victims at WP:Notability (criminal acts) clearly states that victims are not notable in and of themselves. These articles were renamed to be about the crimes in convention with the policies established at Notability (criminal acts). There is no agenda here. This is the policy for all victims of all crimes regardless of race, age, sex, gender, sexual preference, or any other identifying factor. Further, discussions of moving are going on at other articles involving heterosexual victims as well. There is no attempt here to target LGBT people. I was simply going through cats related to crimes. You should also have read the move discussions on the articles as well. I asked first and discussed first before the move was made. Everyone seemed to be happy earlier. (P.S. I wasn't involved with the Matthew Shepherd article).Nrswanson (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

and I resent "It's clearly a highly PoV try at dehumanization which is not at all supported by WP:Title. " - some of us became involved because of the mention at AN/I (where a number of people thought the move was fine) - are we also trying to dehumanise someone because we think the "murder of" title is correct? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To both of you, consensus and WP:Title say otherwise. It is understood that these victims became notable because of their murders but this does not mean the titles of encyclopedia articles about them need to fussily and very unhelpfully disclaim it, never mind lead almost all readers to stumble through redirects for the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:Notability (criminal acts) states: "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In these cases, none of these individuals were notable prior to their status as victims. As such, the articles can not and should not be biographies. They should be about the crime and the aftermath of such crimes which might have resulted in changes in legislation or other notable after effects. Since we don't do biographies of victims at wikipedia the article has to be entitled something else. That's policy. There is no attempt at "dehumanizing". Rather the intent is to remain encyclopedic and not become a place to memorialize.Nrswanson (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't read anything there about the title, only article notability, content and structure. See WP:title, which clearly supports pithy, search-friendly titles. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we name the title after the person then the article is a biography. Wikipedia does not do biographies of victims. Therefore the article should be named after the crime because that is the topic of the article. Otherwise, articles named after victims tend to focus on the life of the victim, often adding inappropriate or extranious details from their lives that are unconected to the crime and may invade the privacy of the victims and their families. The articles become either tabloidish, unencyclopedic, or a memorial. How more clear can I make it?Nrswanson (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Title doesn't support your take on this. An article's content, structure, weight and sourcing sway an article into tabloidism or unencyclopedic memorial dreck, not its title. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are choosing not to understand me. Titles named after people are biographies. These articles can not and should not be biographies. They are about crimes not people. They should be named after crimes and not people. Titles should be about the main subject of the article. Further, the moves at Amanda Milan and Gwen Araujo were made with consensus which you completely ignored. Nrswanson (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you. Wholly aside from my cites to policy, crimes are about people, otherwise they wouldn't be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are about people. But people are not what makes them notable. Read notabilty (criminal acts). Not all crimes are notable. Not all murders are notable. What makes a crime notable is its demonstratable impact, which really the victim and the murderer have very little control over. It's the people that survived afterwords that make it notable. The activists, the politicians, the media (although wikipedia is not the news), etc. Regardless, its the crime that we're supposed to write about and not the victim. And its the notability of the crime (the event) and usually not the notability of the victim (the person, unless it was a celeb, etc.) that matters when assessing the article's notability by our standards.Nrswanson (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The crime and its aftermath are being written about. WP:Title doesn't support your take on the title. Moreover, there is no consensus at Talk:Murder of Amanda Milan for a Murder of X title. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think it does support me because fundamentally these articles are not about people! They are not biographies. We shouldn't title them like they are biographies.Nrswanson (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They're crime victim biographies, under the sway and weight of the topic's notability (and hence content, structure, weight and sourcing) being drawn from a crime. These articles are indeed about people. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of victims are strictly prohibited by WP:Notability (criminal acts) unless the victim is notable for something other than being a victim. You can't have a biography of a victim.Nrswanson (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you've misread the policy, which has only to do with whether or not the topic gets a stand-alone article. Strike that as unhelpful. If good faith editors with reasonable outlooks get drawn into wonking it this deeply, I think WP:Notability (criminal acts) itself needs some heavy tweaking/clarification and input as to how these articles might be most helpfully titled, following WP:Title. Meanwhile, I'll stand by my reasoning on this: WP:Title. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen, for doing this. I appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am misreading it. Under it's current title I have grounds to nominate it for an AFD because murder victims are not notable. Not that I'm going to do that but I'm saying it to make a point.Nrswanson (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The response you would get for nominating all three articles for deletion would make a bigger and better point. I think you should do it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nrswanson, no, I don't think you're misreading it, I think there are sundry ways to read it and either way it's all too wonkish to get that far, which is why I struck out what I said. I wouldn't nominate it for AfD (as you knowingly hinted, WP:Point), although that aside, I agree with the spirit of what Moni3 posted, that it would be a wonderful way to see what happens (don't try this at home, or anywhere else, please, AfD is not the way). To say Matthew Shepherd isn't notable is highly mistaken, hence we have a flaw in either some editor's takes on WP:Notability (criminal acts), or in the policy itself (I agree spot on with everything you and the policy have to say about content by the way). I do think it's time to think about wonted biographies and crime victim biographies being different things, written under sometimes starkly different content policies as to notability and weight, smoothly and helpfully titled under their names (which takes us back to WP:Title). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Y'all, I'm going to be gone for a few hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Rickards

Oh, you are such a softie! – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If only he hadn't thrown in all those citations, he canny knew what he was doing :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

Thanks for deleting the article I marked for speedy deletion. Is there anything I can do to help the process next time? Pwhitwor (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep doing what you're doing :) Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Un bien étrange français...

:-) Kinda confusing, really. Why would someone pretend to speak another language (and trusting MT to bluff it)? — Coren ^(talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Since you're asking, I think it's likely someone's sock. When he showed up a week ago I thought it might be an over-eager teen who'd been taking HS french and was only trying to do a bit of wild creative writing on a public wiki (how's that for AGFin'? :) However, I think what you said is more likely what's happening, the latest bit seems to be English ramblings plugged into a machine translator like Google and he found ANI way too fast for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have payed attention the first time 'round; that text had obvious MT artifacts no student would make naturally. — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I recall, for some reason I had some fleeting notion it was a native Spanish speaker, I think because of the vocabulary (but only software can mess up verbs and articles like that). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BrokeNCYDE

Please can you explain in more detail why you declined the A7 speedy request for the above article. I know those edit summary boxes could sometimes do with being bigger. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Beyond the edit summary, which mentions their assertion of an agreement with a notable indy label, they assert 11.5 million plays on MySpace, which tumbles them into the foggy grey area between A7 and a likely but not quite forgone deletion through AfD. There was nothing at all untowards about the article having been given a CSD tag, I very nearly deleted it and thought hard before declining. The text, as written, can be taken as barely squeaking it by speedy deletion. This will likely be deleted through the AfD and hence, will be speediable on sight unless much stronger, sourced assertions show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure that having 150,000 contacts on a social networking site can be construed as notability. However, as you say, that is by-the-by as it is likely to be deleted at AFD. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything at all about 150,000 contacts, I brought up the assertion of 11.5 million plays. Also keep in mind, WP:N is not the same as the assertion of importance or significance needed to get by an A7. This is why I call it "the foggy grey area." Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Holober Brothers

I really dislike persons deleting my work without at least giving me a chance to rework an article, make additions, etc., it shows a lack of etiquette on your part, which goes without saying. I hope you will think about this in the future. There are many of us trying to build Wikipedia by adding meaningful articles. It makes it difficult with people like yourself who do this kind of thoughtless editing! --Robert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)--Robert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

listing an AfD

Hi Gwen Gale. As so frequently happens, I seem not to have gotten WP's processes to work for me. I initiated this [8], but it does not seem to have been filed any place. What did I do wrong? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I like the Celtic cross image you have at the top of this page. I have been working on the Celtic knot article, and may add that image.

Hi Malcom, looks like you forgot step III at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. It's listed now. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you voted too. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Business Model Innovation

Gwen, you just deleted a page I created entitled Business Model Innovation. I had put a Hang On notice and explained the reason why there appeared to be a copyright issue. The page you sited as the source of the copyright violation is a webage from the company owned by the authors of various publications cited in my article. As such, some of the wording is indeed similar given the sources are the same individuals. I attempted to go back and cite the webpage in the article's list of references but the deletion had already occured. Can you please advise me on how I can resurrect the article and demonstrate the author's willingness to release the content? I saw the GNU listing that must appear on the external source page and can have that reflected on that site in a matter of minutes. Would that suffice? if so, can you then resupply me with the article content? It took me a while to get all the tags and citations loaded correctly. Thanks for the help! Krbolen (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:COI. You shouldn't be writing an article about a topic in which you have an interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, this subject is of interest to your readers and was written without bias basing the content primarily on the published content from The Harvard Business Review article, an academic, non-commercial journal. I deliberately left off any links to Innosight (the authors' company) to avoid a conflict of interest and only sought to add the link in response to the copyright infringement notice. Subjects like Disrutive Technology and Business Model Design (both long-standing Wiki pages) have similar content that is the subject of consulting engagements by a variety of firms worldwide but that does not mean the content itself is in conflict if those firms are not promoted within the article and if the concept itself is noteworthy and relevant to a broad audience. This article is designed to help further the thinking and contributions around this new theory. If we wanted to develop it purely for business purposes we would not have written about it in Harvard's journal or opened it up on Wikipedia for others to use freely. We would have protected it solely on our site as proprietary IP. Instead, we want the community to develop the idea further and felt Wikipedia was an ideal format for this. If that is not at the heart of Wikipedia's value then I am missing something. I am happy to make whatever text adjustments are needed to the article to eliminate the copyright violation and/or place the proper GNU releases on the Innosight external page to enable this dialogue to take place. Your continued help here is appreciated. Thanks! Krbolen (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, any further reply here? Krbolen (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an audience/marketing development platform. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, if you re-read my article, can you tell me where it is promotional in nature? It was written per WP guidelines. The information is specific, it is cited, there is no promotion. The page simply describes the origins of a new business theory and was modeled on other business theory pages within WP. I am sorry to harp here but I spent a lot of time attempting to conform to those best practice and I am willing to make the necessary copyright corrections to ensure this theory receives the same opportunities to be updated and developed as a WP entry as other similar theories. Is there a reason why you do not feel this theory entry is as valid or well documented as the one for Business Model?Krbolen (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyright violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gale, I have raised this issue over on the process page G12 issue as I think there needs to be a "pause" in tge process to see if the copyright issue is due to the article subject and purportedly infringed site being the same as such circumstances can easily/quickly be corrected to allow WP to utilize the content if, indeed, the authors are the same. Once I get the GNU language onto the Innosight page, will the copyright issue be addressed such that the page can be restored?Krbolen (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations aren't ever allowed. Please don't add copyrighted content to Wikipedia without first following the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, if you go to the page Business Model on the Innosight site, you will see the GNU release has been added thus allowing Wikipedia to source content from the page. Can the Business Model Innovation article now be restored?Krbolen (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I have to be off-line for a bit but I hope you will look at the GNU release and restore the page. Thank you again for your continued attention to this article. Have good evening!Krbolen (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you recreate the article, please don't forget to cite the page on that website which releases the content under a free licence. Mind, none of this means the article will get by speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7 or G11, or that it would get through an AfD. You might want to carefully read this, but please don't try to advocate the article here on my talk page, I'm only an admin implementing keenly defined policies, the only "deciders" here are the community and the Wikimedia Foundation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdented) Unless I'm mistaken, the webpage cited as being the source of the copyvio is released under the GFDL, so is it possible to restore the page for further work? Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, thanks again for your help. I did not save the source code and it took me about two hours to get it all loaded with the correct citings and HTML links to other Wiki pages etc. Is there any way you can restore it to save me this time? In my latest version I did indeed try to cite the source website where the GNU is reflected. My update was being submitted when the page was deleted.Krbolen (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please don't forget to cite the page on the website which shows the free licence. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! The version you restored has the page cited in the references and I just added an in-line cite to the text as well.Krbolen (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Christopher James DeRaps

I saw you initially declined my A7 speedy of Christopher James DeRaps, but I'm confused as to how you then turned around a few seconds later and speedied it as G11. Mistake or did you see something that I didn't? --Millbrooky (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an A7 because the text carried assertions of importance. However, I then read it again and deleted it as a G11, blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Figured the first bit of reasoning, and I probably should have tipped myself off that it I should have prodded the article when I did a very brief google search of the assertions. I'm not sure I agree with the G11 reasoning from what I remember of the article (unless it involves the coi), but I don't see any point in debating the semantics. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Baptist churches

I've been removing {{db-a3}} tags from all of these articles on Irish Baptist churches because they are redirects, so they are not expected to have content and anyway that criterion is only for articles. The last few I've looked at have been deleted by you. Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The redirects are meaningless, not even church-related. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or listing service. Please stop removing the tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How are they not church-related? They redirect from individual churches to the national church association. It's perfectly standard practice to redirect titles of topics that are not independently notable to a wider topic that is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That assertion is not supported by WP:Redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just read Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting and there is nothing there that supports deletion of these articles, especially speedily. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When good faith takes on these interweaving policies don't match, consensus has sway, so I've put them all back. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Are plausible redirects speediable?

Please stop deleting the redirects. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The redirects aren't plausible in any way which has to do with WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Then please seek consensus at the above page, first. TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is needed on what Wikipedia is: It's not a directory or listing service, it's an encyclopedia. There is not a hint any of these churches would get by CSD A7 as encyclopedic topics. If any can, please write articles about them, that's what we do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Churches, primary schools and many similar organisations which fail to meet WP:ORG are routinely redirected to a broader subject - a topic redirected does not need to have individual notability. Sorry, but the consensus to date is that your actions were out of process. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are also introducing redlinks into many articles by these deletions - please reconsider your actions. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You both need to cite a written policy here. See also WP:WAX. Those wlinks were useless anyway if they only redirected to an association or administrative org. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting redirects under an article speedy-criterion (A3). I suggest you take part in abovementioned discussion before continuing, it would not hurt anyone... Regards SoWhy 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The written policy is WP:CSD. It doesn't support the speedy deletion of redirects under the criteria for articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Here's an editing guideline with which you may be unfamiliar. Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. I am sorry that you choose dismiss other editors' good-faith concerns by going down the "cite policy" route. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will add that your stated justification for deletion (A3) specifically excludes redirects. "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) ..." DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't skirt the notability requirements of Wikipedia:CHURCH by creating categorized and but textless articles which happen to include redirects. You can name non-notable churches in articles about their localities, however. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is not the same as an article. There are many redirects on Wikipedia which are used for likely search terms for subjects, which while not notable enough for a standalone article, do merit a section or sub-section in another article. I am sorry that you have unilaterally decided to ignore long-standing practice, the actual criterion which you claim to be using, and the opportunity offered to you to debate this on the relavent talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What have these two threads been about? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for Criteria for Speedy Deletion (conveniently linked at the head of this thread) would be a more appropriate place for you to explain your decision to ignore both the criterion you claim to be using and other editors' concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the restorations - sometimes I can be quick to criticize so I hope I can be quick to thank you when you do something I approve of too! DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all but please let me know if I missed any. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me - again thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with DuncanHill, well done! TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you still believe the redirects should be deleted, feel free to put in a mass RFD for 'em. From what I can tell, a good many of them aren't even mentioned on the target page, so either a new target is needed, the target should list them, or they oughta' be deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep! They're churches so I'm ok about leaving them be, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

No offense but I found that comment a bit suspect. One, I only reverted twice not three times so I am within bounds. Two, User:Queerudite had not commented at the relevent discussion on the article's talk page and had not even read it prior to making the move so it was a bad decision on his/her part. Three, you are an interested party in this discussion and I notice you didn't place a similar warning on User:Queerudite's talk page which seems biased if you were merely concerned about an edit war. That aside, please read this on naming convention on articles about murder victims Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title.Nrswanson (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You've moved the article back three times in the past few days. That's edit warning. Your notion of what is a "bad decision" should be talked about on the article talk page. Edit warring is always harmful to the project. I didn't warn User:Queerudite because you did the reverting, but truth be told, I likely would have blocked you and warned him had the two of you gone back and forth on that thrice instead of twice. I don't see any consensus that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title supports Murder of X titles (it's not even policy yet). I still don't think WP:Title supports them. As for my own involvement, I was implementing editor requests, what I thought I saw as an overall consensus at Matthew Shepherd and Wikipedia naming policy. My move of Matthew Shepherd has been widely supported. You immediately reverted my move of Murder of Amanda Milan. Since my move of Gwen Araujo stirred up enough unhappiness from the few editors posting to its talk page at the time, while I didn't see a consensus or policy support for it, I moved it back myself. My admin actions have been neutral, as is my warning to you: Please stop edit warring over these titles. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spotsylvania Towne Centre

Why did you delete the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'? And what did the Article say?Morefight (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight by the way, i am starting to the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'.Morefight (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight

PLEASE CONTACT ME IN MY USER NAME TALK PAGE (talk) OR IN YOUR PAGE AS SOON AS POSSBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spotsylvania_Towne_Centre. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Per this it is stated you are likely to run for the upcoming elections, you only have a couple of days left to decide. I think you would make a great arbitrator but can understand why you or anyone for that matter would want to decline. I left a note on Antandrus' page and he stated no simply because becoming an ArbCom member is the last rail stop on the line to oblivion. Do you share the same "uncomfortable ride?" 211.30.109.24 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

why I won't run for arbcom

Thanks for the kind words. I had put my name on the "likely to run" list because at the time, I was asked to think about running since there was a lack of experienced and knowledgeable candidates. Now though, I see at least eight (and maybe more) editors I'd be happy to see on arbcom. I don't think there's a lack of the willing and helpful anymore.

As it happens, Antandrus often says stuff that canny goes for me too and I think he's more or less done it again. I made my first edit to Wikipedia almost five years ago and have been editing steadily for four. I like dealing with words, writing them, reading them, growing articles and helping out with some of the tidying tasks needed to build this thing and yes, it's fun! When I was little, wherever in the wide world my mum took me, if we walked into a room with books in it I was likely to yank one off the wall and start reading. Hey, I even sailed through my wild teens on a lake of books. My grandfather read encyclopedias for fun and I got that habit, too. Wikipedia has spun up the world's most widely-read encyclopedia because its policies, when followed by a pool of volunteers money could not buy, are fit for most folks. Ok, Wikipedia's political and economics articles tend to be a mess and deeply PoV, flawed and so unhelpful, but even that's but an echo of the wider, dodgy sources to be had on these topics: It's not so much a weakness of Wikipedia. I could go on about some other things that happen in the shadows here but again, these are only echoes of the world we live in. Meanwhile, as with most things people do, a few can't get along at all and instead of staying away from this private website, they stir up worries which can chavel Wikipedia for most everyone else. Arbcom is the last step in dealing with that. They see the worst of Wikipedia, without end and often must handle things which can have no happy outcome. Their work is thankless and the feedback they get is wontedly scathing. No wonder few arbcom members ever go back to editing.

Although I think we'll carry on needing arbcom until the community comes up with something which more closely fits the needs of what Wikipedia has become, I believe most worries can be (and are) handled through the sundry administrator boards by say, several dozen active and helpful admins, each with their own knack and talents, which we have, although barely sometimes. Many editors have emailed, asking me to run for arbcom, which has stirred me to think hard about it, for weeks. If I thought the project truly needed me on arbcom, I'd gnash my teeth (heh, I mean it y'all, I'd gnash 'em) and do it. All told though, I think for now, I can do more for Wikipedia by carrying on with what I'm already doing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Leading preventable causes of death

I would disagree that this was copy right infringement. I had changed a few things before adding it. When I was tagged I changed the wording further and added a more uptodate source for the Obesity mortality. Wondering if you could review.

Thanks--Doc James (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back. You might want to think of writing a paragraph or two of text, to make this into an article and skirt any worries that the stats have only been lifted from elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep

I don't see the problem with him removing the block notice, and am not sure why you were so keen to continuously restore it - nothing in policy that I'm aware of prevents a user removing the block notice. If it had been declined unblock requests, that would have been fair game - maybe this is what you were thinking of? In any case, I've removed that restriction, leaving the block in place Fritzpoll (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just came to ask the same thing. The user has e-mailed me, complaining that he is being forced to keep a "brand of shame" on his talkpage, and I tend to agree. The block notice is for communicating with the user, and he knows he's blocked. It's not for shaming him by sharing the fact that he's blocked with other users for 24 hours (please see the same policy section again). Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

He's blocked for a week, not 24 hours. When I left earlier, I left a post at ANI saying it would be ok if someone re-enabled his talk page. As for pleas from a disruptive, multiple account-abusing user about a brand of shame, please, spare me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was that comment that led me to feel ok re-enabling it. I was just confused as to why you felt it necessary to protect in the first place - more out of curiosity than anything Fritzpoll (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I only now posted why on ANI... I was still adding the diffs and writing the text notice when he started removing the template, never had that happen before. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious answer, Gwen, and sorry I wasn't entirely up-to-date with my ANI duty. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

No worries! You were following up on an email from a blocked user and cutting to the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice

I note the following reverts by him (I had no edits involved in this) [9] 20:25 21 Nov user summary "(Undid WP:Tagteam This material was added by consensus in talk. It will not be removed unless there is a consensus to do so in talk.) "

[10] 19:13 21 Nov "(Undid Undoing vandalism. Persist in this and I will seek to have you blocked.) "

[11] 18:52 21 Nov "(Undid THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN.) "

Which looks at first blush to be 3RR in 90 minutes, with rather ill-tempered comments (IIRC calling people "TAGTEAM" is unwise?)

Many thanks for looking at this! Collect (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not quite 3rr and he seems to know he's reached the bright line. Other editors have reverted him and he seems to have stopped. Let me know if he does it again in the next day or so, though. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to this complaint by another user. Collect, I notice you have completely neglected to mention to the admin that this section which Tom/ThreeAfterThree repeatedly deleted, and which I restored, was the compromise resulting from weeks of discussion on the subject. During that discussion, Tom's primary contribution was to repeatedly delete the entire section with the edit summary, "This goes in the Fannon bio, see Talk"... with the following discussion on the talk page, "This goes in the Fannon bio, deleting it", while completely ignoring the rest of the discussion. All in all I would not be surprised if he deleted that section a dozen or two dozen times. Anyway, after we compromised on the paragraph that currently stands in the article, there was no further discussion on the subject for *weeks* until Tom came along and again deleted the whole section, again without discussion, again completely ignoring the foregoing debate and compromise.

In a nutshell, Collect, 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. Nor is tag-teaming a way around 3RR. Nor are 3RR accusations a way around NPOV or other core policies. I find it strangely appropriate that both of the people reverting my content restoration have recently been blocked for edit warring on either the Palin or the Obama article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, 3rr is a very bright line and removing content outside of consensus is not vandalism. If there is consensus, there will be plenty of editors to revert back to the consensus version. This said, the ongoing, PoV removal of sourced content can be taken as disruption but even still, you can't break 3rr to handle a disruptive editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've violated 3RR -- nor do I make edits excessively, I think, as my ratio of Talk comments to actual article edits is in the neighborhood of 10 to 1, at least for the Palin article.

But I find your comment somewhat troubling and I am confused. Does this mean that editors who have discussed a particular issue must then keep a vigil over the article in order to ensure that the outcome of a debate is not reversed after many or most of the participants have turned their attention elsewhere? And isn't it incumbent upon a remover of such material to raise the issue in discussion again instead of simply undoing, without comment and without seeking consensus, what others have contributed? Finally, am I permitted to contact other editors to ask them to step in when I can't legitimately revert something myself? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't violate 3rr. As for your questions, yes, yes and yes. If you're wondering why, please feel free to ask more, I don't bite (much :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fays is under the impression that I acted improperly in this (sigh). Collect (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

>>>>>Both of you, the tea room is over there.>>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Weihnachtsgrrl yule.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Weihnachtsgrrl yule.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You twisted sister. ;-) BusterD (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that botty bot, you were too swift, I think it's all tidy now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly again

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin. I've also filed an ANI. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep on WP:ANI

[12]. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, I did. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian

We have had a discussion (Paul and I) in this regard, which you did not attend. As per wikipedia's consensus, if you want to change information take it to talk, and gain consensus. Lest those edits (w/o consensus, and certainly w/o discussion) be construed as vandalism. Lihaas (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, two editors don't make a consensus, there is no consensus for two disambiguations at the top of the article. Moreover, no good faith edit is taken as vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one editor is certainly less. But read the talk page and see what the discussion says. Don't know where your opinion of 2 came but "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved."

And it is not good faith if it repeatedly disregards discussion/consensus.

btw- Take it to talk, instead of personal pages. Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I will. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Twelveheads Press COI

I've removed the {{COI}} tag from this article - the sole contributor, Talskiddy, has been making useful contributions since the beginning of 2005, and while he/she has Cornish connections I think its very unlikely that they would have waited this long to promote their own company. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I declined a CSD on that one and as I am sometimes wont to do, swapped out what I thought were fitting tag names within the db and hangon brackets, thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved informal mediator

I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Rklawton. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, afterspending an hour reading the talk pages and the article:

• The article carries enough reliable citations to carry in its narrative an assertion that Imboden very likely had a fuzzy memory about all this and that secondary sources mistakenly retold his muddled tale for more than a century.

• Robertson is a reliable source and moreover, a heedful reading of the many other cited sources support Robertson's later take that a May 23 "raid" never happened the way Imboden told it.

• The few primary and secondary sources, with those wonderful and believable tales of witnesses seeing a locomotive being dragged through their hometowns, do not in any way support Imboden's story of a sweeping and clever raid on 23 May.

• Going by the sources, the historical title Great Train Raid of 1861 is a bit misleading, stems from Imboden and more likely has to do with a skeinish series of military events along the B&O railroad in later May and June of 1861.

• I can say the article is indeed a mess and almost unreadable, brimming with cite spanning and synthesis, all of which is clearly meant to answer Robertson.

• User:Grayghost01 has been disruptive, mostly by strayng from WP:OR. This is not a source dispute, it has mostly to do with one editor who cannot or will not acknowledge that he's trying to spin his own original research into the article, to sway it towards his own PoV.

• User:Grayghost01 is asking for more time, to gather more sources. There is no need to keep all his original research in the article while he does this. Rather, it's unhelpful to readers.

• There doesn't seem to be any consensus on the talk page(s) for User:Grayghost01's edits.

Hence, I think a warning to User:Grayghost01 is called for. All that original research should be skived from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to assist, especially since this is off your well-beaten and well-patrolled path. Be advised that I have offered to pursue this set of issues to its conclusion, even if this ends up in front of ArbCom. FYI, for context, User:Roger Davies is not only an administrator, but recently has been selected by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history as its lead coordinator (out of nine coordinators), and is one of two coordinators assigned to the task force (in our project context, the coordinator is not regarded a "superior" but has been trusted by the project members to take point on certain project functions). Unfortunately, Roger has been directly involved in the pagepspace and in animated discussion on ACW TF talk pages. I have some regard for all the parties involved (I believe you might remember User:North Shoreman from our AL arguments of last December), but I'm afraid Gg01's rabid partisanship is unbecoming the pedia. I may ask your advice about how to next proceed. Off the subject, I'm glad to see that you are well, and have become such a respected editor. Sorry for our contextual understandings of a year ago. Like wiki-siblings, we can be considered to have bitten each other in our cribs. Now that same brash honesty is regarded by myself as the roots of our wiki-friendship and wiki-trust. Hope you and yours are well. All the best! BusterD (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks BusterD :) I hope all's well with you and yours too. As for GrayGhost, I see no need for this to go so far as arbcom (and hence would bow out before it ever got there). Disruption mixed up with OR, edit warring and personal attacks is blockable. I'll block this editor if it keeps up after the warning I've left. If it carries on after a block, the blocks get will longer. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a good-faith warning on the talkpage reminding all users of the potential for blocks by an uninvolved administrator. I appreciate the time you spent bringing yourself up to speed. We have some tag-team writing left to do some rainy day... (Oh, and my mom voted for Ron Paul, no kidding). BusterD (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sounds to me like your mum's very keen ;) Only so you know, I'm watching the article along with GrayGhost's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You and my mom would like each other, I'm sure. If you're ever in the city, well, I don't want to step over any lines, but I trust you. I left an encouraging note on Gg01's talk. FTR, I like all the editors involved. We simply disagree. It's a fascinating question, and perhaps deserves its own book. On en.wikipedia, it's better to have disinterested editors help. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping GrayGhost will look into WP:OR a bit more and understand what's been happening. Meanwhile, who knows? Maybe Imboden did block a bunch of trains one day but got his dates, along with what others told him happened later in the area, somewhat muddled. Seems like he was kinda known for doing that kind of thing. So tell your mum I think you should listen to her! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fire's out for now. Grayghost has wisely userfied his version. He's totally an asset; like some others I know, he's also a handful. Wish we had twenty more like him, with equally strong but varied POVs. Thanks again for the refreshing perspective and disinterested neutrality. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user this evening because he's decided, after ACW talk page discussion just last week, to insert modern army rank abbreviations against pedia and MilHist project MOS. I consider this an only warning, since user experienced this measurement of consensus last week. If he continues to insert these modern abbreviations in ACW era articles, he needs to be blocked. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is he doing that, what reason does he give? Historical ranks, titles and job descriptions mostly cannot be translated/converted/updated for many and sundry reasons. What seems like a slick way to help readability is almost bound to mislead readers, sometimes very deeply. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User is a maverick. Here's the discussion. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User responds that Ashby Gap is outside of the purview of the ACW TF project, (which is actually true; the user is quite astute, but is also wikilawyering). MOS applies to the entire pedia, and this question has seen recent discussion. BusterD (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's wikilawyering. As an uninvolved admin I can say straightforwardly, the only way to handle historical ranks and titles is to write them as given in the reliable sources, save that periods can almost always be left off. Further interpretations as to what a title or rank might mean to a modern reader could also be put in, but only if cited to a reliable source each time, in each article. If a project MoS says to spell these out at first, this could be done isofar as there is no way to muddle an historical abbreviation or acronym with a wrong or misleading title. Any other take on this would be nothing but a path to botched content. I truly don't think the user understands sourcing, either from an academic outlook or a heedful one. As an aside, don't get me started on the often unhelpful chavel of ISO standards :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In my personal use of the MOS guides, I either use the entire rank name, or ignore rank altogether (IMHO, rank is an insignificant fact in a bio, but might represent importance in pagespace presenting an event or sequence). BusterD (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do the same. Say, if a title or rank is so meaningful that it must be given, I do so only once, as a descriptive adjective apart from the name, not as a proper noun tied to it (such as Dr Jones or Brg Gen Smith or whatever), then write only the person's given name for the rest of the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BatterWow

Additional comment: out of idle curiosity after reading the WP:AN/I item regarding User:Angels Live, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk-page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the contrib histories I've blocked all three four accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed Messager Live12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Kww(talk) 14:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Live in Chicago

I saw you deleted the article about Panic at the Disco's forthcoming live album, called Live in Chicago, and I have no idea why you did that. It's scheduled to be released Dec 8, and there's plenty of sources to verify that. If there was a problem with the article I'd written, I'd like to know what made it worthy of being deleted so that I can fix it. Thanks! PATDalbum (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live in Chicago (Panic at the Disco album). Please wait until it's been released. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. But I added the future album box at the top, indicating it was an album scheduled for release in near future. Which is done with most albums really. So I don't really understand why this is different? Either way, could I get a copy of the article so that I can work on it, prepping it for the album's release Dec 8? PATDalbum (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've put it at User:PATDalbum/sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, wondered if you could look at Marchetti99 (talk · contribs) for an indef block as a sock of JeanLatore. I submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore, and the account replied with this. Normally I wait for checkuser to confirm, but vandalism, however mild, in article space crosses the line for me. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, there are no helpful edits in the contrib history. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Egged Ta'avura

Hi Gwen! You placed a notability tag on the article Egged Ta'avura earlier today, after someone tried to speedy it for the 2nd time. I have added a bunch of factoids and sources, which don't (yet) amount to a decent article, but at least IMO clearly assert the subject's notability (received significant coverage in various Israeli publications). These sources are just based on the first 2 pages of a simple Google search on the company, which by the way returns 7620 hits (significant for a Hebrew topic). Therefore, while the article hasn't improved much in terms of content, I believe that by now it clearly displays notability, and will remove the tag if you don't object. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Last chance

Gwen, any chance you might consider running for ArbCom? I think you'd be a fine choice to serve on the Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a vote pencilled in for you when I saw you on MBisanz's list of likely candidates. After all hummus has given you the chance to practice before you get the whol JIDF drama at ARBCOM ;-)

Haha! Truth be told, after swapping a few more emails this morning I'm still thinking about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Greymatter deletion

Re: "This band could likely meet WP:MUSIC if the coverage and radio play were reliably and thoroughly cited. However, with no charting and no notable distribution, the bare assertions of coverage were not enough to sway editors into keeping this article." .. are you saying that if the citations are made more thorough then the article can be re-instated? If so, that's something I can do (I'm just not 100% sure how to do this..?) but how do I edit the article now it's deleted? And can I reinstate it once the citations are done, or does someone else do this (do I have to submit it for review)? kiden (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If all the assertions about coverage and radio play are cited to the sources (with web sites, this would mean a citation giving the exact web page with the content about the band, among other things), then there is some likelihood that the article could be recreated and if it were nominated yet again for deletion, editors might reach a consensus to keep it. Please understand, even with thorough citations, the topic would be borderline as to meeting WP:MUSIC, but I think it could make it through an AfD if the claimed coverage is easily verifiable by editors, in the form of inline citations.

To learn how to create simple inline citations, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnote_summary and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles.

I've put the deleted article content at User:The original kiden/sandbox, where you can work on it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Your ArbCom candidacy is being discussed here. This is a courtesy note. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Gwen I should have notified you myself. Why did you leave it so late? RMHED (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had to think long and hard about this, it wasn't easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry if I came across as some rule loving pedant. I was just curious as to who makes the call in these situations. RMHED (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue :) As I said, I didn't know the statement needed to be posted before the deadline, I thought the template was enough. Wholly my botch. Heh, truth be told, I overslept a nap (!) and thought it over one last time whilst making a comment on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Gwen Gale, I was wonder if you wouldn't mind helping me navigate some type of dispute resolution with a user over a content dispute? Specifically User:Factchecker atyourservice and the article Sarah Palin. I started a RFC and have used the talk page. I really don't want to be blocked over this and would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance. --Tom 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FCays has been on the edge of 3RR for a while IMHO. You are not the only person on his sights <g>. Collect (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, there is rarely a need to remove reliably sourced content from a lengthy BLP about a widely noted politician, so long as the content has to do with politics or governance (rather than personal life and family). If you think the content spins up too much PoV, it's more helpful to find another reliable source which answers this. User:Factchecker atyourservice is flirting with edit warring, but given he's restoring sourced content, taken altogether, I don't think his behaviour is quite warnable, though his manner can be a bit edgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The problem is that there really hasn't been that much solid sourceable material about Palin's involvment, if at all, in this "matter" of charging rape victims for evidence collection. This "material" gained attention when Palin entered the spotlight, but not much really came of it after exhaustive research for a connection. This "material" has more to do with a subbordinate of hers while she was mayor. Anyways, I will continue to use the talk page and see what happens. Thanks again! Cheers, --Tom 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

See if you can reliably source the way you told it above ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Health Concerns

Agreed?Chrisrus (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to keep this on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been. Please go there and agree to the new edit.Chrisrus (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Opps...

I meant to remove that when I userfied the page, thanks for noticing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Youth

Hi,

I'm Sam.I'm trying to create an article about Jesus Youth. Can you help me..Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantony (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion was not justified

Hello Gwen,

I have posted two articles on Wikipedia and they both have been deleted.

I think it is a mistake. And here are the reason why :

First article about the Mañana (label) was considered as non encyclopedic (A7) but as the tango is one of the most important musical genre of the 20th century and it still concerns hundred of thousands people worldwide, I thought it was useful for everyone to have a page in Wikipedia presenting the most important tango producing company. Besides, this label is producing legendary musicians like  : Gustavo Beytelmann which was Astor Piazzolla sidemen during many years. Juan Jose Mosalini which is the only university bandoneon teacher in the World (in Rotterdam). And many more. It is totally unfair to consider that the major tango label in the world should not be in an encyclopedia whereas you can find a page for each record of some celebrity musicians. Knowledge is for everyone, not only for the consumer masses ! Tango concerns a few people but everywhere around the world !

Second article abour the musician Eduardo Makaroff was considered as a copyright violation (G12), which is false also because the text from which the article was inspired was given to me directly by Eduardo Makaroff himself. The text was not under any copyright. And as I used it for the article I adapted it in order to delete all parts that were compliment and not purely factual. Eduardo Makaroff is a member and founder of the band Gotan Project which sell millions of records around the world. I really think he should be presented in Wikipedia.

Please can you reconsider the deletion or at least give an answer to my message.

Edouard

PS : I just want to get involved and participate.

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwen,

Yes I've read this page. And I decided to write to you after that. Both arguments "non-encyclopedic" and "copyright violation" are wrong to me. Do you think there is any hope to put these articles back online ? Creation in tango today is what I know best, and this the way I can bring my little contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway thank you for answering me. All the best. Edouard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manana2000 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean you're unhappy with Wikipedia policy, since the outcome has been the deletion of your articles? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

lesbian reverts

Have you already forgotten the last time we had this conversation? PaulB and myself had a debate a discussion. Read the talk page and discuss your changes. If and when there is agreement to change, THEN we can change it. The two of us did discuss and amongst others there was not other discussion. If you continue to disregard the ability to discuss and talk then don't change it.

ps- Don't reply to my talk page b/c it's pointless. Take it to the talk page. Lihaas (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we due for a 3RR for Lihaas? --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

3rr no, edit warring on the edge of disruption, yes. I'm too tangled up in it to give the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours by William M. Connolley, was even removing chunks of your AN3 report. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw it (pointed it out on AN/3RR). This only makes the need for improving the article more urgent... --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the pumpkin pie ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I of all people won't!  :) --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, spot on what I was thinking. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice

Right after his block ended(and right after he logged back into WP(He has periods of being inactive for about a few days)), he reverted all of my, and Grz's courtesy blanks of the IP users' talk pages, with the edit summery of reverting vandalism. Before that, he removed our comments on his page with edit summaries suggesting they are personal attacks, even though they aren't, and lastly, he removed your block notice with the edit summery of: removing attempt at censorship.

This user clearly does not understand our policies.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

He can mostly blank what he likes on his own talk page. The edit summaries and IP talk page messages are rather off but for now, not enough to get stirred up about. Let's see how he does. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hey!

Does that include the AN/I thread?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep ;) There are plenty of eyes on this now. Cheers and thanks Daedalus, for all the truly helpful things you do here! Also, please feel free to ask me for help, anytime! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this now. But I need to ask, what if JoJ accuses me of various things, am I not to defend myself?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he quite groks the sway words can have online. Mind, if he strays into personal attacks again, I'll block him straight off. Don't let him raise your hackles. As I said, plenty of editors are watching this now, there are no worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Alright, I believe I shall get some sleep then. Also, what is the word groks?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Grok. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite interesting... Is that a good book? I'm currently reading the second book in the sub-series, The Silver Wyrm(at least I think that's what it's called), by... .... It's either Katherine Kerr or Elizabeth Kerner... Always get those two mixed up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I picked up that word from the IT world but yes, SiaSL is a worthy read. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Candidacy

Good Morning. I've posted the General Questions list to your Questions for the Candidate page. You'll want to answer those when you get a chance. The individual questions already posted were moved to the bottom section, which matches the format of the other candidate's questions pages. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do to assist you, and - again - Good Luck! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Calleaa

Hi Gwen, what do you make of User:Calleaa? I'm thinking the first edit and second edit were by two different individuals with access to the same account... ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Or could be a middle-school aged boy doing some back and forth role playing. I've deleted the user page for reasons which should be clear to any other admin who looks at those two edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me. ϢereSpielChequers 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good wording, but still coud improve.

I like your wording here. But I confess I'm still unconfortable with the undue weight given to Heim Shepard's thoughts at the leading. Note, contary to what have been said or perceived, I had never claimed that that information should be removed because it was "unsourced". My problem is really with the weight it's given. --Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And this was really good. --Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy my edits may be helping. Asking from a neutral outlook here, both as an editor and an admin, why do you think the sourced Shepard quote in the lead gives undue weight? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your're welcome. Basically, that the murder's media attention "helped "galvanize the transgender community" and that it "instigated change" is not a fact. It's Heim Shepard's take on what happened. Other people could have said "lgbt lobbyists took the opportunity to short-circuit public dialog it their advantage", and while I am much more in accordance with the former opinion than with the latter, I don't think wikipedia is entitled to express such accordance. By putting Shepard's opinion on the lead, even when properly attributed, the article is giving an overweighted importance to that point of view (while still not explicitly defending it). --Damiens.rf 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a fact, that it's a verifiable quote from an author who is noted for writing about this kind of topic. If there are other quotable, verifiable PoVs to offset this one, put them in the lead too. It's far more helpful for an article to openly echo the controversy in a sourced way, rather than trying to hide it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for hiding it, just for putting it (or any other attributed opinion) in some place other than the second phrase in the article. The first sentences should be for informing the reader about what the article is about (a murder), and further sections could cover the opinions notable people had about it. --Damiens.rf 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more helpful for the article to inform readers of the controversy and notability straight off? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but citing one of the side's opinion is not the neutral way of introducing a controversy. Can you come out with something on the lines of "the murder triggered a series of manifestations and responses that...", and move Mr. Shepard's valuable opinion to a section detailing the controversy? --Damiens.rf 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What sides are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? If there's a controversy, there is more than one side involved. Those people organized rallies and wrote books to spread the world about their point of view. Consider the "other side" as those not having Mr. Shepard's opinions imbued on their veins. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do they have any opinions? If so, what opinions do they express? Can you reliably source them? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Shepard's has a theory, but the fact that nobody has taken the time to oppose his theory doesn't turns his theory into fact. Don't you agree that using someone's cited opinion as the second sentence (a topic-defining sentence) in an article is giving undue weight to that opinion? --Damiens.rf 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Shepard's theory/opinion/take/whatever is published. Can you cite any published theories/opinions/takes/whatevers which disagree with what he has to say? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any at the moment. Don't you agree that using someone's published opinion as the second sentence (a topic-defining sentence) in an article is giving undue weight to that opinion? Or is it justified by the fact that no one ever took the time to dispute his sayings? --Damiens.rf 03:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, so far, you don't have a controversy to cite and hence there are no WP:WEIGHT worries in the lead owing to that quote. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned a "controversy"[13]. Should I take this last comment as a "No" for the question you seem to be avoiding: "Don't you agree that using someone's published opinion as the second sentence (a topic-defining sentence) in an article is giving undue weight to that opinion?"? --Damiens.rf 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As you were typing the above, I was leaving warnings for both of you to stop edit warring over those two articles. From here on, please deal with it on the article talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That dispute was led to the talk page. Thanks again for the wise intervention. Would you please now address the question I've been posting in my last 4 edits on this talk page? --Damiens.rf 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wholly neutral as to how this might be handled through editor consensus. All I care about, is that the edit warring stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not asking about the recent edit-war (over the use of the peacock term). I'm asking about the use of an publish opinion on the second sentence to define the article's topic. --Damiens.rf 11:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's within policy but it would be up to a consensus of editors as to where the quote might be put. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And what would be your opinion? --Damiens.rf 11:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm neutral. I truly don't care where the quote winds up, or if it's in the article at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I mistakenly though you had an opinion about it based on you saying "It's far more helpful for an article to openly echo the controversy in a sourced way, rather than trying to hide it" above. --Damiens.rf 12:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism & Sources

I'm pleased to discover that the content dispute had been previously settled, and the addition was already known to be non-RS. With the core of the ANI dismissed, could you possibly look at the TalkPage vandalism, unpleasant personal labelling and outright attacks on other editors going on? PR^talk 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To save time, could you please give me some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the diffs. I've reverted the damage to the TalkPage and I'm very grateful to the efforts that have probably made sure it'll not happen again.

The accusations are tiresome and unpleasant (actually, these seem to have started sprouting across the project - here's a sneaky one). At this article, this is the worst so far.

The ethno specific labelling is borderline, but it's effectively happened here and when I've protested (politely) it's immediately been repeated here. Perhaps we could leave it on the back-burner and see if it happens again. PR^talk 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. The offhand comments about "anti-semites" smear anyone who doesn't agree with him. Let me know if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry to bother you, but it's happened again here. And for the first time it's targetting me specifically. I have serious RS concerns over a source (and the clip from it) in use at this article (and elsewhere), and this kind of personal attack can only make it very difficult to do good work on articles.

Please note, I count myself a really careful editor, normally using sources that should be totally acceptable to others. I don't recall ever using a source that others couldn't be expected to trust (except sometimes in error when the actual facts referenced didn't seem to be seriously disputed). PR^talk 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I left the editor a warning. If the block log hadn't been clean, I would have blocked for 48 hours, it was so beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, very funny, he moved the warning to his awards page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoponpop69

I hate to ask you to be an arbitrator on an issue, but User:Hoponpop69 seems to have taken it upon himself to nominate a lot of long-standing record labels as non-noteworthy (see Special:Contributions/Hoponpop69). While I cannot speak for other articles or their creators/contributors, it seems that this user has a personal agenda with the deletion of smaller, yet significant punk-rock/alternative music labels. A review of his user talk page will show that he has a history of personal attacks, multiple complaints of erroneously nominating articles for deletion, as well as several of his own articles nominated for deletion. I feel that his intent for nominating articles for deletion may be a knee-jerk response to his own articles being nominated for deletion.

What sparked me to this was his nomination of the article I started about Eugene Records. If that sounds familiar, we discussed its viability as a Wikipedia article back in July of 2008 and it seemed to be decided that it was appropriate to rework. I've reworked it, included third party references (though it could use more) and I feel that it fits quite well within Wikipedia's standards. The label is 13 years old (as of this writing), published music from multiple nationally touring bands, has appeared in publications from sources in the same field (akin to trade journals), and has fulfilled a niche market in Central Kentucky, so I believe it meets requirements as far as notability.

All I'm asking of you, as an Administrator, is some intervention. I think that Hoponpop69 has a vendetta about one or more of his articles being deleted and wants to make it a juvenile situation of "if he can't play, no one can". Sorry to write such a long entry, but it's a situation that I hope to convey clearly and have resolved in a timely and courteous matter. I don't know what you would do in this situation, but I stand by your call on this. Thank you. - Team4Technologies (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I won't be able to look at this much for at least half a day. Meantime, let the AfDs be, if the noms are WP:Point or WP:Disruption, the editor will stir up lots of kerfluffle either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I await any help you can lend whenever you can. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, he has only added prod tags to articles, which you can remove yourself without further ado. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:DumbBOT has completed the nomination. Should I proceed to remove? - Team4Technologies (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't remove that AfD, only the prod tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

edit conflicts

Please revert the edit you just made to my talk page. After having your questionable block overturned, you've immediately reverted his edit. This is extremely questionable in the circumstances. Rebecca (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to (it wasn't a revert), I was trying to fix your unblock template so it would show up quickly on the review list. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Gwen Gale/Questions for the candidate

Out of curiosity, why the deletions? What's going on?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be a very unhappy editor posting as an IP, please see the project talk page for diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Yay you went for it!:) Sticky Parkin 02:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns over a block you placed

I'm reviewing the block of NWA.Rep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last week, and have some concerns that I thought best to bring to your talk page.

The incident relates to events of Nov 21 2008:

• NWA had added inappropriate content to a bio article [14], and had edit warred on this with another administrator two days previously (19th). The admin gave a "final warning" at 12:47 Nov 21 [15].
• NWA did not post the same edit again, and took the matter to ANI at 19:46. His view was roundly rejected by the community at that venue.
• Shortly after, at 20:25, you blocked him for a week for disruption [16]. A short while later (20:35) you locked down his talk page, preventing him editing it [17].

There is no question that NWA.Rep had issues as an editor. The discussion immediately after on ANI covers disruption, possible community ban, and so on. But reading the case it seems he was potentially open to following communal norms given help or mentoring. he had not been blocked for a long time, and in this instance at least, he had switched to seeking dispute resolution when warned, drew imperfect conclusions from policy but appeared to be trying (poorly) to follow it, and so on. His last prior blocks were in June 2007 (another account had block logs but these were from 2006-07 or were tagged as impersonation usage by known vandals).

The concerns I have are about the decision to block, the terms and duration of that action, and a guideline used to explain the latter:

1. Active reason to block - You blocked him at 20:25 for disruption, citing five diffs [18]. However four of those diffs were 2 days previously, and the fifth was posted at 09:56, 3 hours prior to the final warning at 12:47 which he had respected. Having been warned, he took the matter to ANI (19:46), and was rejected; he had not reposted the problem edits, nor seemed to have acted disruptively. Nonetheless at 20:25 you blocked him for disruption because of those edits. They all took place prior to a warning he had evidently heeded.
2. Duration of block - You blocked for a week, which is quite a period. But his last block on either account appears to have been almost 18 months earlier in 2007 [19][20]. (Another account listed July and October 2008 blocks [21], but had been identified as "impersonation use" by grawp on Nov 15, and at that time this was not linked from NWA's block log.)
3. Locking of talk page - You stated that you would consider removal of the notice as edit warring. That was the sole action which led to his talk page being protected [22]. Wikipedia:User page and communal norms suggest that any user may remove a notice once read, if they wish (it doesn't affect validity). Locking down a blocked user's page is not usual unless they are truly disruptive. There was no apparent disruptive editing to the talk page, and the only warning given was in an edit summary [23], not a visible post on his talk page itself.
4. Guideline recital - You explained your use of page protection at ANI on the grounds As late as last March, the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice [24]. On checking, there is no substantive change between May 2007 [25], March 2008 (your cite) [26] and November 21 2008 [27], in terms of the norms related to removal. Removal of warnings and comments is endorsed with the text "removal... is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" (this has been stated since May 2007). The current version of that guideline cautions against repeated restoration and adds some "important exceptions" only, but those aren't very applicable here. I don't see which part was added since March 2008 that affected the previous norms. Alternatively, it doesn't say much different now than in June 2007 for this.

Can you review these and let me know if in hindsight you feel that the user was handled well? My focus is not so much "blame", but more 1/ if there were issues then I'd like to make sure others aren't similarly affected in future, and 2/ while NWA may have had issues, I'd like not to see a user blocked or "blackened" if they had not really merited it in their actions.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2, NWA put the same word-for-word text, noted for her large, natural breasts, into at least 5 BLPs, sometimes sourced to a tabloid/gossip site, sometimes not, giving no hint at ANI or anywhere else that he would stop making these kinds of pointy, disruptive and unencyclopedic edits in the long term. I saw meaningful harm looming before the project (mostly as needlessly wasted volunteer time for clean-ups) and a a dodgy block log (I know he would disagree with my calling it that) along with a growing consensus at ANI for a block and I didn't know NWA was a candidate for arbcom at the time. I only blocked for a week because the last block in his log had been so long ago.

Nonetheless, three hours after blocking him, I offered to unblock NWA. He chose neither to contest the block nor to take me up on my offer to unblock.

I must say, had I known he was a candidate for arbcom, I would not have blocked, however, in not blocking, I would have quietly thought to myself that not going ahead with a block was wrong, that I was needfully playing Wikipedia politics and skirting a kerfluffle. Should we ask the developers to put a notice on the block dialogs of arbcom candidates, members and former members that it might be untowards to block them for anything at all other than straight vandalism without, say, an RfC or a few days' discussion on a board?

Do you think you'd be reviewing this block if NWA were not a candidate for arbcom? If you think not, then I don't think there's much more to say, since I know you and I agree all editors on Wikipedia are under the same sway of policy (if anything, arbcom candidates, members and former members are under much keener sway) and it would be unfair to the community to handle NWA's block otherwise. Truth be told, I can't see any likelyhood at all that you would be reviewing this block if NWA had not been a candidate for arbcom. While I think you're mistaken (wholly so) in very, very good faith and that you don't mean to be unfair (rather, I think you're trying to be thoroughly fair, thoughtful and widely helpful to the project), I believe the outcome is that this review is very unfair to the community and very unfair to me.

As for my having disabled his talk page, I was still trying to write a thorough block notice, with diffs and fit reasoning in addition to the block template, when he began deleting it, which looked to me like a blocked user edit warring over a block notice before it was even done being written. I was leaving to go out for dinner and so I clearly posted at ANI that any admin could re-enable his talk page if need be, hence I don't think worries about this are worth the fuss, never mind he then posted a string of personal attacks on his talk page. In almost 5 years of editing this website I'd never seen a removed block notice that wasn't quickly restored during the block and hence, I indeed thought it was policy or at least an acknowledged, uncontroversial practice. I was much startled to learn it wasn't written down somewhere and my comments in the aftermath, about the history of the policy page, can be taken as nothing more than my trying to grok the missing branch between what I'd always seen in practice and what was written in policy all these years. I still learn something new and helpful almost every time I edit this website in the volunteer time I have to give. Anyway, if I've missed something we can talk about this more if you like. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more like, I noticed him because of Alex from L.A., and as you say because of his cadidacy (I posted questions, went back to read them, found he'd retired, went to see why). But the "how it got noticed" is secondary.

My concerns were when I read it, I went (as automatic) to check the backing diffs not just the posts - and found they didn't support a block (he'd stopped after warning). I noticed his talk page was disabled and was familiar enough with norms on notice removal to think "that's very odd". I looked for the rationale, found it referenced March's WP:UP and checked that for myself and found nothing unusual seemed to have gone on there for 18 months. That's when I figured "huh. let's ask." None of these fitted with what I'm used to -- blocks being necessary, shorter blocks if no recent history of issues, notice removal allowed, and so on. Hence... questions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw a meaningful likelihood of further disruption, given his answers after the warning. The disabled talk page, I've told you about, I might also say, I'd never had someone rm a block notice while I was still writing it. By the way, he's now put a suicide metaphor (at least I take and hope it to be metaphor) on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If a similar situation comes up in future, in most cases wait until the further problem conduct has actually happened (or is threatened), not "might be going to happen". Wait till someone posts a further attack, or ignores the warning, don't "jump the gun". Generally, a week for the first block in 18 months for something like this, is probably a bit long. 24 - 48 hours maybe. Enough to give a hint, then watch what happens. They learn, or they repeat, basically. As regards talk page lock-down, generally I'd reckon don't unless they are a "reincarnated" abuser who is unlikely at all to use the page productively, or is actively abusing it (repeat attacks, abuse of unblock requests, threats, etc.

Some tips if this kind of thing comes up again :)

Last, would you be okay if I dropped NWA a note on his talk page or by email saying that I don't fully agree, but it's history and hopefully he'll learn from it? Or how would you reckon's best? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok that you don't agree there was a likelihood he would carry on disrupting articles, given my reading of his posts after the warning. I hadn't said earlier, had his block log had something recent, I would have blocked indef, pending talking it out with him. Also please keep in mind, a consensus was building for a block at ANI and afterwards, the only worries were not over the block, but the disabled talk page, which, again, came about only because he removed the block notice while I was still writing it: I said at the time, any admin could re-enable the talk page at need (since I was going to be gone for awhile). He never contested the block and didn't take me up on my offer to unblock him, which I made 3 hours after the block, when I got back in. Either way, thanks for the input FT2, it has made me think about this more, which, whatever sway it may have for me, has been helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we're all in this project together, so it won't always be 100% agreement. Its not so much he would or wouldn't have, more that as a norm avoid blocking unless there's an active need. That someone's done it recently may mean nothing if they have apparently stopped. if they aren't doing anything but you're concerned they might, warn them ("I see you have done X, I am concerned you might continue, if you do you will probably be blocked") - if they resume, then its easy to use the tools. Anyhow, good to chat about it - thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• The one week block for disruption was not unreasonable at all. User:Friday had suggested a community ban, and there was substantial community support for the block. These are judgment calls where reasonable administrators may differ on how to handle matters. I the discussion, I said, "Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. See WP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later. " On two prior occasions I have gone to bat for NWA.rep, so you could say that I am sympathetically inclined towards them. (Once I investigated User:Ideogram who had been harassing them, and got Ideogram community banned, and in the second case I endorsed a lifting of ArbCom sanctions against NWA's former account.) The matter seems to have been resolved through discussion on the noticeboard. I am not sure it is productive to rehash things again. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Except there was no disruption going on and hadn't been for a while - at least since having been warned. Instead the user's response to warning was, they had taken it to dispute resolution (ANI in this case although clumsily). This action evidences that as at Nov 21, they had seen the warning and decided to seek help appropriately rather than just repost the offending edits. A user who has visibly ceased disruptive edits is not usually later blocked for them (unless they look likely to resume). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "clumbsily" may be an understatement. Those posting attacks on ANI are in grave risk of exhausting whatever patience the community might otherwise have for them. Note that I was on the scene myself and thought about whether to block the user, and decided not to. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is sad that there are still bytes being wasted discussing this editor, who has been edit warring (and playing the victim) for more than two and a half years now. The block was perfectly justified, and the next block should be indefinite. Kusma (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Wikipedia:AN#Conflict Of Interest

The above section is devoted to you, and considering the accusations of impropriety and disregard of policy directed at yourself I am rather surprised that the ip neglected to advise you that your actions were being commented upon... I shall be raising just that point, but otherwise am content for you to respond (or not) as you choose - that is, I am not concerned to investigate further as I doubt there is any substance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Don't think I'll even bother answering, it's linked with the thread above this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some content from that thread and emailed oversight. The IP user has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy by some other administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Following the open proxy thing up (bear with me, I don't understand the techy bits of proxies), is it certain this is a proxy? I ask because it was the ip themselves that placed the template; and I expressed concern at the AN discussion that the ip was baiting a trap to be blocked as same, which may have been a ploy so they could say they were unable to respond. If it was a proxy, I still wonder why the ip should make it their business to advertise the fact. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The template was placed by me at the same time I blocked it. Trust me it's an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You connected to it and added the template, didn't you? ;-) Very clever. Jehochman ^Talk 07:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Danny Choo

Hello Gwen.

Did you read my comment in talk page of Danny Choo before speedy deleting it? I restored the article after seeking advice from two admins: my Admin coach Revolving Bugbear, and the previously deleting admin, Stifle, who gave me permission to restore the article on his talk page archived here.

In summary, I was advised by Revolving Bugbear that "if your article is substantially different from the deleted version / addresses the reasons for deletion, you can simply recreate and it's not eligible for CSD-G4". Stifle acknowledged that he had overlooked significant changes and gave me his blessing to restore the page. Do you disagree with his assessment? DOSGuy (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I looked it over and didn't think anything meaningful had changed. However, since you're an experienced editor and had already talked about it with two other admins, I'm more than happy to waive the G4. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this and let me know if you need any more help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your speedy reply. When I can approach an admin with my concerns and see them so swiftly acted upon, that tells me that the system works! DOSGuy (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, happy to hear I fooled ya! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yevgueni

Hello, You've deleted the Yevgueni article I created - don't worry, I have read your guide for people whose articles have been deleted and I can understand why you did it. I'd like to ask you if you can deliver me the text that was already written so that I can try to make it harder, better, faster and stronger. Cheers, Jellevc (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've put it at User:Jellevc/sandbox. It needs some kind of believable assertion of significance and some sources would help a lot. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP with a vengence,

Since the attack on your userpages here, I've added a small list to the discussion you noted in the above thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)`

Edits

I studied the edits which you blocked Rebecca for, and I believe that she is working to actually help the article as she has a history with these types of articles, and improves them very well. So I unblocked her.

I did let her know however that she is not entitled to three reverts a day just because she didn't break it. I'll also let you know that templating regular users is not very nice; she's been here nearly five years now and you can talk to her specifically about issues. I don't wish to be rude about it, but if you're going to plop a template to shush up a dispute instead of engaging with unique thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with it. All disputes are specialized and need our utmost attention to solve. Mike H. Fierce! 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't template her. I don't agree with your unblock and since you unblocked her, she has reverted both articles again. Edit warring over content isn't allowed, even if it's content the unblocking admin agrees with. You've made a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You did template her (unless you went out of the way to add that little "stop!" hand that's usually in templates), and I went to look at her edits just now and she went to the talk page, exactly what I told her to do to continue dispute resolution. Also, don't say I "agree with" certain things; you're not in my mind and you don't know my stances on issues. I unblocked because it looked like a really bad block, and considering you're throwing out statements that don't seem to have logical conclusions...I'm thinking you made the mistake, not me. Mike H. Fierce! 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not template her. I typed out the warning on the fly and added a {{stop}} image. In your unblock notice, you said her edits were "helping rather than bring the article into disrepute." That sounds to me like you agree with her edits. As it happens, I think her edits are ok, but she was edit warring over them and edit warring isn't allowed. Note, she was blocked three weeks ago for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole "3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement" is both true and important for people engaged in edit-warring to recognize. On the other hand, it was a pretty simple back and forth slow edit war. Another warning, or an attempt to engage Rebecca on her talkpage, may have been better than blocking a fellow admin and former arbitrator. Avruch ^T 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that admins and former arbitrators were exempt from WP:Edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not, but having been around a long time and held various positions of trust on Wikipedia means that the issue isn't ignorance of policy. She should have responded to your warning, and she should have tried other tactics besides edit warring, no question. But one warning and a block is less even than vandals get - given her history, if anything she should get more consideration instead of less. I'm just saying that there are other ways to stop an edit war, like discussion, and people who have been around a long time and held policy enforcement roles are very likely to respond to that sort of thing much more effectively than they will to blocks. Avruch ^T 22:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't have been edit warring, given her experience. There are much more stable ways to sway article content, moreover when it's helpful: I'm startled she didn't use them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen was completely justified in her block. And just FYI for those who aren't aware of it... WP:DTTR isn't policy. I think that regulars need to be template from time to time. I'm so damned sick and tired of the "You can't do this to me! I've been here for X years!" mentality. I have very little doubt that the unblocking editor would NEVER have even considered an unblock in this case had the blockee been an IP address or an infrequent editor. Rebecca shouldn't be held to less of a standard because of her time and position here, she should be held to a helluva lot stronger standard. At least someone who just started editing yesterday has the excuse of ignorance. Trusilver 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Excuse me, uninvolved user here. I kind of agree with Gwen here. If Rebecca has been here long enough to know the rules, it translates as a deeper understanding of why they are there in the first place. Someone who sidesteps them makes them worse than some jackass who adds 'Toney is teh gay' to articles. It doesn't matter whether someone is adding Hloy Writ to an article; unless they are reverting clearly disruptive or vandalising material, they are constrained to three reverts per 24-hour period. Admins get precisely zero extra rhythm because they are admins. They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. If they find the stress all too much for them, they can always voluntarily de-sysop. They choose to pursue the mop, they aren't knighted with it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the block was horrible, or violated any policy, etc. etc. I didn't say that admins and arbitrators should be immune to blocks. All I said, and all I mean to say, is that if I were an admin and in Gwen's position trying to stop an edit war on those articles I would have handled it differently. Maybe you guys have a totally different view of the world, but if someone involved in an edit war has been here 5 years and worked on ArbCom that would give me pause prior to issuing a block. I would think to myself, is there something I don't know? Is there a history here? And then I would ask, and I probably wouldn't link to the edit warring policy or use a stop sign. People who have been here a long time often get upset at being treated like they're just ignorant - so while DTTR isn't a policy, its good advice when trying to rein in someone who is as familiar with policy as you are, and it is the same principle when it comes to writing a warning. Gwen's point of view obviously varies, and she's free to disagree. Just thought I'd chime in with mine, since I happened to see the block/unblock. Nothing much more to say for me. Avruch ^T 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

All I saw was that she'd already been blocked three weeks ago for edit warring, along with her back and forth edits. I didn't know she was an admin or a former arbitrator. Admins rarely edit war, I'm amazed I blocked a former arbitrator for it. This is clearly the only reason she was unblocked. I must say, maybe we've stumbled onto one of the reasons so many editors have so little faith in arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Brief comment here (having seen this while posting something else below). In general all users are equally expected to follow communal editing norms; none are exempt. As an admin I warned a former arbitrator over 3RR; I see no problem, if the editing is of concern, in any user or admin doing so (though I'm surprised it would be needed given such users should be very aware of editing standards). I haven't reviewed these blocks, so I can't comment on them, but yes - normal norms would apply. There are very few exceptions to 3RR, because the aim of 3RR is to draw a limit on revert warring where users need to move to other means of dispute resolution, or protection/blocking by uninvolved admins if there's disruption going on. The only exemptions are the usual ones - removal of obvious vandalism, BLP, etc are not subject to 3RR. Also handling may differ slightly, some cases may best be handled by a talk page note/warning at first, on the basis they would likely read and respond to it (with blocking if it repeats), where a problem user is more likely to be blocked initially. As an admin you have that kind of flexibility. Noting there was a similar block some weeks ago would usually be reasonable evidence, and you'd be right to take something like that into account. But in both cases the aim is the same, to ensure communal editing expectations (including "don't edit war/3RR") are met. As such, this note is just to confirm that as I understand it there are no "exempt users" to widely agreed basic communal norms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR had nothing to do with this particular case. As you say, a return to communal norms of editing is always the goal - therefore the same tool, a blunt warning with a link to policy, may not always be appropriate in all contexts. The rules are the same for everyone, but admins have enforcement discretion for a reason - because working out the best solution to a problem is always more important than inflexibly applying the rules. But perhaps that is becoming a minority viewpoint. Avruch ^T 15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think when some editors talk about 3rr, they might mean WP:3rr, which clearly puts forth that editors can be blocked for edit warring before reaching the bright threshold of 3r/24hrs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically, there was WP:3RR first. It set out a fixed limit - revert more than 3 times in 24 hours (+/- flexibility for gaming) on an article, auto-24 hour block. When users discuss 3rr that's inevitably what they mean. Later the page on edit warring was made policy. This put 3RR into a sort of subordinate role. The idea now was, you shouldn't edit war, and could be warned or blocked for that (which covered a wider range opf problem edits), and within that, if you specifically edit warred by breaching 3RR, that was still fairly auto-blockable (hard line, always blockable subject to admin decision). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my long understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

lifting protection

I kindly request that you undo your protection of Murder of Amanda Milan, considering that you are very clearly not an unbiased person in this matter (you wrote the version being protected to, and you have a stated issue with me). Being unable to use your administrative buttons according to policy is hardly a good sign in an arbitration committee candidate. Rebecca (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca, you cannot sway me into doing what you want by throwing out threatening words about my candidacy for arbcom (and you're welcome to vote against me if you like). I didn't write the version I protected to but either way, have you ever read The Wrong Version? A heedful look at my few edits to the article will show I was trying to neutralize the text and settle down the feuding (please see this earlier thread, which is now in my talk archive). As an admin I'm wholly neutral but I don't mind saying, as an editor I would agree far more with the version you want than the currently protected version (I also think the Murder of X title is ghastly). The big worry here is that you got yourself into a slow-burn, back and forth edit war with someone who has what I would call a highly skewed and way-too-narrow outlook on the topic. You ignored my warning on your talk page, you had been blocked three weeks earlier for edit warring by another admin and hence, I blocked you for edit warring: Please make no mistake, the only reason you were unblocked is because you served on arbcom four years ago (when Wikipedia was smaller and much less targeted on sourcing) and you're an admin. Later, I was amazed to find out that an admin and former arbcom member with your experience would swoop down into edit warring, which is always harmful to the project and truth be told, makes your PoV on the topic look shrill and emotional. Again, as an editor I think your PoV is the more helpful but like it or not, you have hurt that PoV and the article through your behaviour. Moreover, edit summaries like this border on personal attack, which only stirs up editors who disagree with you even more. You should know all this stuff by now. I'm lifting the protection, if only out of a bare hope this will somehow help the article sooner rather than later. Instead of name-calling and edit warring, please try building a consensus for the wished-for text. More sources would likely help. As for bulls in the china shop, you might want to have a shufti in the looking glass. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, reverting someone and describing their edits as homophobic trolling in going too far. Rebecca, I'm sure you know better - I'm not sure what's going on that has led to two blocks in November and comments like that, but you need to take a step back from these articles if you can't edit them normally. Avruch ^T 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to act in regards to policy isn't a good habit of administrators, either; why go around enforcing things on others if you yourself don't even follow them?

Simply, fine, request that the protection be taken off, but don't go down those other alleyways when you yourself have just broken policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

LIBEL

Dear Gwen, I would like to ask for your assistance on a matter I am almost sure you will find of interest. In :

The Writer's Handbook 2007 published by MACMILLAN ISBN 1-4050-4937-5 ISBN 978-1-4050-4937-5

on page 512, in a chapter on the subject of Libel, entitled "The Words Complained Of ..." is the following passage. ( Taken from the end of line 7 onwards. )

Some errors pass into mythology. A British police officer called Morton collected damages on no less than three occasions from: W. H. Allen, Secker & Warburg, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, for the repetition of the canard that he was responsible for the shooting in cold blood of Abram Stern the head of the Stern Gang.

In the Wikipedia article "Lehi (group)" in the second paragraph of the section "Evolution and tactics of the organization" occurs the following sentence.

In 1942, Stern, after he was arrested, was killed by Inspector Geoffrey Morton of the CID.[14]

It is clear to me that the sentence in the article needs to be altered considerably but I am not sure how. Its removal would leave a hole in the narrative but I do not know the true facts nor do I know a source to verify them.

I am considering wether to take action myself but in a matter of such gravity I would prefer to place the matter in the hands of some one with higher authority, preferably with legal experience.

Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Best wishes,

Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a legal worry at all, it's only about content. You might want to bring it up on the article talk page. However, I wouldn't take The Writer's Handbook as a wholly reliable source as to who killed Cock Robin, much less Mr Stern. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwen, Perhaps you are under the misaprehention that The Writer's Handbook is one of those spurious style and/or grammer guides written by someone who barely knows what they are talking about, that are the bane of the lives of those of us seeking sound advice on those subjects; it is not. It is a major reference work listing contact details for all the major publishing houses in the english speeking world, together with more minor publishing houses with refernce to particular specialities. It covers a number of topics of interest to the would-be author including, in particular, libel. The section on libel is written by David Hooper, a respected media lawyer, a senior partner of a prominent London firm of solicitors, and a published author on the subject. The index of the book does not have an entry for Cock Robin.

You state boldly that this is not a legal worry. Are you qualified to do so? If not, perhaps you would be kind enough to pass on my concerns to someone who is.

Best wishes again,

Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As per Gwen's response above, I cannot fathom how you came to that conclusion(that she misinterpreted what the book was). I believe you should look into WP:SOURCE.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(third party butting in) It does strike me that you have a point. I've googled and the evidence against him seems to be based on what people who weren't there surmise. It doesn't sound as if any of his colleagues came out with a different version. BTW I wonder if Morton is still alive in which case British libel law cannot affect this. Have you tried altering the page? Or, if he is alive going to one of the Admin boards?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My answer may have been too short (I was kinda busy). I didn't say The Writer's Handbook was a shoddy source about the libel actions, but that it couldn't be taken for a source as to who killed Stern. As to what I said about legal worries, I was speaking from an outlook on editorial and sourcing policy ("take it to the article talk page"), WP:V, but I guess not clearly enough: If Sesquihypercerebral thinks the article content exposes Wikipedia under civil law somewhere, contact should be made directly with the WikiMedia Foundation. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Heidi Wyss

I have nominated Heidi Wyss, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. لennavecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gormglaith (novel)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gormglaith (novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Thank you. لennavecia 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

re:sig

I'll chalk that up to too much rum in my mojito. Best of luck! Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta! I cited your vote in the thread below, by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom

Y'all, I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom. In looking over the first flurries of input, along with heedfully reading user talk pages for hours (and even a few threads about my candidacy elsewhere on the Internet), I've been thoroughly swayed into thinking my earlier thoughts held the pith. I'm not sorry I got nudged into running though. I enjoyed answering the candidate questions and have gained many insights. Please understand, it will be far more helpful for me to carry on doing what I already do, without further ado. Taken altogether, I'm kinda happy about this :) Thanks! Each and every one of you have my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen. As one of those who nudged you into running I came here to apologise, but I see you say you aren't sorry for it happenning. I wasn't aware of all the prehistory which has been dug up and was just going on my interactions with you. Anyway, see you at hummus ;-) --Peter cohen (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Most of those who asked me to run knew "the prehistory." Comments like those by Bstone, Dchall1 and LessHeard vanU made me think hard. After digging deeply into the bottom section of votes, I thought more than half had to do with straight disagreements on policy along with sundry takes on arbcom and sourcing outlooks. I don't mind :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you withdrew before I got a chance to vote! I might have supported you. But anyway, thanks for running, and keep up the good work :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IBeatYou

Why do keep deleating IBeatYou you are not giving any time to provide a notabile article the final time it wasn't even up for speddy deleation. hda3ku (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ive read that page and the IBeatYou article fits within those boundries so could you stop deleting it for A7 it is notible and since it was up for speddy deleation and nurmous times i applyed a hangon tag and yet you still deleated it could you please explain why or instead of deleting it could you actually try and help instead of shotting me down please. hda3ku (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any assertion of significance or importance and moreover, carries no hint that the topic may indeed meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes youtube so important incomparsion I dont think that just because every one knows about it counts. I doubt every other video hosting website's wiki article had to go through this painful process to create an article. hda3ku (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Long tale short, YouTube is notable, IBeatYou isn't. As for the sway of other articles, see WP:OSE. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If i Contacted Jessica Alba, Cash Warren, or Baron Davis and since they are all co-founders of the site, and I asked them why IBeatYou is notable and they gave a resonable answer could that be grounds for you not to delete the article again? hda3ku (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything you need to know is here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Grumble

I'm not sure I fully understand your decision, but I went looking to vote for you and a couple of others, and you weren't there. Other than the ones a voted for, I don't see anyone making a change to the Arbcom. You would have done a great job. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much OrangeMarlin, that means something to me. I truly think I can be more helpful to the project doing other things for it. When the election is over, I may have more to say about all this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for your kind words and for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rebecca

Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as a note, I will be citing past diffs that may be common knowledge to those who are versed in this matter, but as to why I'm citing them, it is for the benefit of anyone who is not versed in it)

Hello Gwen, I would like some input from you on this matter, as you have previously dealt with this admin/editor. During a discussion, as you well know this editor has strayed into personal attacks, starting with the aforementioned edit. I brought forwards that this was a content dispute, and that edit warring was not the answer. She responded that I brought up a random lecture. In my opinion, the note that she was edit warring and that that was not a good course of action for the future, was not random, as it was taking place in the article who's discussion page this discussion was now taking place on.

As per this edit by Jehochman, it is my understanding that accusing editors of making attacks, or any kind of vandalism without backing it up is a personal attack.

Continuing on, here, the user claims I am making personal attacks, and completely disregards my note about the content. Either the editor did not bother to read my sentence, or some other reason I cannot fathom. As a note, you shall see my comment about content as the last sentence in my post above the diff noted above. Here[28], I tell her to cite her accusations, as, as noted by Jehochman, accusing someone without evidence could be considered a personal attack. Here, she tells me I've apparently ceased the personal attacks, even though, throughout the entire conversation, she has yet to once cite a diff.

Here I ask her to either strike through her own accusation, or cite it. She evades again, refusing to communicate].

My final statement in the matter. If she refuses to abide by policy, this is cause for concern, and therefore, I shall be taking it to AN/I.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. She, not long after, reverted that snarky comment which you cited above as a personal attack and I thought this was a helpful thing for her to have done. My biggest worry was always the edit warring, which seems to have stopped. Truth be told, I think she understands what you've been saying and has wanted to drop it for 2 days now. You might want to think about letting up on Rebecca and instead, helping her find neutral wording which still gets across the sourced PoV she's after. Meanwhile, thanks for all your help! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

She still accused me of breaking WP:NPA, and has yet to either cite a diff, or strike it out. If she didn't mean it, she should strike it out.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

She did, but the pith is, she's stopped edit warring, you're both good faith editors and I don't see why either of you would want to raise this into a big back and forth at ANI: I don't think she or you would be happy with the outcome. Wouldn't you think helping out on the article is more meaningful? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, but I do not like the idea of letting admins get away with things that normal editors would be blocked for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I, but many admins think that long-established editors who have held positions of trust should be cut more slack. You should be aware, had I known she'd been a member of arbcom years ago, I'd have given her one more warning, rather than blocking her. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of BuddyTV

It's a shame really, that was a good site with lots of production and reception information for many television series. Could you please resurrect the page and rename it to a sandbox of mine, e.g. User:Cornucopia/BuddyTV? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done, moved with the whole edit history intact. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to establish notability; there seems to be a bit out there. When I'm done, I'll probably come back here and see if you think it is notable enough to be republished. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if I can help. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look and tell me what you think. I think it asserts enough notability to be republished into the mainspace now, right? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Wonderful. I've moved it back to BuddyTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I guess your deletion of the article was the best thing for it in the long run. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We got a bit lucky, this is how it's meant to go ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

True. I probably would never have even considered improving the article if it was not deleted. Anyways, here's a smile for your help and friendly approach. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just an idle question,

What do you think would happen if I ran for adminship two months from now?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, work on your peacemaking a bit (we're all meant to be building articles here, after all) and you'll be an admin sooner rather than later ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding a page on Soham Chakraborty

Hi Gwen,

There was this page on a reasonably famous Indian singer(Soham Chakraborty which you deleted because you thought was not famous?). Is it possible for you to put it back up and I will update it and ensure it is upto Wiki standards then.

Thanks for your patience.

Niranjan

Hi, that was six months ago! If you'll log on with a username I'll userfy the content for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble, think you could weigh in here?

Randhirreddy‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Gwen, as noted above, I'm having some trouble. Awhile back.. say.. last night, I nominated an article for deletion per an AfD. Since then, I have been constantly bugged about my nomination by the editor who created the article. Per the style of editing in the article, and by the fact that this creator is the only contributor, I would believe it is a safe assumption that the editor is the subject of the article(read: there is a sentence in the article which reads, later, I went on to star in (some odd number) of movies). But back to the point, she so far stated that she is an established editor, for what reason, I do not know why, as she has shown no signs what-so-ever of any knowledge of policy or the way things work around here. She also does not link her signature to her talk page. I'm getting sick of being bugged by her, and every time, I have told her that if she feels like arguing for the article, to take it to the AfD page. Can I have some help here?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is, the Indian movie industry is very, very big, they make many more movies and TV shows than Hollywood does these days and the financial grosses are comparable. This means there are lots of Indian actors and it can be a bit tricky sometimes, for Anglo/American English speakers to home in on Indian English sources and know whether or not these have anything to do with the lower reaches of WP:N. Taking it to AfD was ok, let that run through, see what the input is. If she's nettling you on your talk page, stop answering at all, she'll get the hint sooner or later. As for her sig, see WP:SIG, the lack of a talk link is ok. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but as to the sig, please see this, where it states that at least a link to one of them (talk or user) is required. So if you could please help in that matter, it would be appreciated.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and her sig indeed links to her user page, I clicked on it to get there. It's all within the bounds of WP:SIG (though if anyone asked me, I'd say please make things easy for everyone and use a sig with links to both). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. I have to confess, I am the reason that the sig on my user talkpage links to her userpage. I linked it myself for ease of others and myself. If you check her contributions to my page before I made that change, you will see that it doesn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is where I make said change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was clicking on sigs you had altered. Yes, her sig's not within bounds, try a polite, friendly warning with a link to WP:SIG and let me know what happens :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yevgueni (again)

Hello, Sorry if this I'm burdening you by asking this again, but I posted a question about the Yevgueni article here a few days ago but it appears to be gone. Am I looking in the wrong place, did I break any rules asking about it here or did you simply delete it? Anyway, I was asking if it was possible to deliver to me the deleted Yevgueni article, so that I can try to upgrade it. I'm watching this page for any updates, I hope I don't miss your response. It would be mighty friendly if you could send me a message or something with your answer. Cheers, Jelle

Hi! Sorry about that, threads on my talk page get archived fast if they don't get a new post in a day or so, because there are so many threads here. Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive9#Yevgueni and do let me know if you need any help. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cheers, Jellevc (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky

Hi Gwen Gale, I noticed you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky earlier this year. I'm turning to you just to check how to proceed with this. The thing is that the deletion request originally opened by User:Renata3 was not related only to the root article but a collection of articles created by a hoax and sock-puppet master Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. Now, the thing is that sure, even though if the anarchist singer Tõnu Trubetsky and his band Vennaskond may be notable for Wikipedia purposes, all the rest of the articles in the deletion case, like the royal family tree that User:Bloomfield has created for Tõnu Trubetsky is just too far out. if you check the article created by the guy: Trubetskoy, according to the article that provides no sources whatsoever, the family dates back to the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas. Just that the real family tree of Gediminas is available in well referencesd article Palemonids. Te most amazing hoax Bloomfield has created on wikipedia that has been spotted so far was probably Principality of Estland.
So my question is, can we just open up the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky again? Since it was missed that the majority of the articles listed there may be complete hoaxes, and at best are WP:OR for sure since there are no any sources provided whatsoever. Please advise. thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't reopen the AfD on Tõnu Trubetsky or the band at all, they're notable. As for the others, open an AfD for each article which you think should be deleted, don't put them all together into one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! makes sense.--Termer (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, new individual AfDs would be a way to proceed, but note, Gwen, that during this 'amalgam' AfD that Renata initiated, the clear consensus was that though Tõnu Trubetsky might be notable, all of his (fake?) genealogy and similar waste paper material ought to be deleted. --Miacek (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Last night, I found another propaganda article on a group called Anarchist League of Estonia. This 'article' covers a group that has around 3 members (if it exists at all) and the article has been there for years! Clearly, we have a case of long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a soap-boxer and sock puppet master. --Miacek (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I didn't see then and don't see now much discussion at all about the other articles in that AfD. Unless all the articles in an AfD have spot on the same reasons for deletion, those other than the lead article won't get talked about much, which is why separate AfDs in truth save time rather than waste it and are much easier for editors who take part at AfD to deal with. I do see Anarchist League of Estonia has been sent to AfD and that User:Bloomfield hasn't edited since he was blocked 10 months ago. Are you aware of any socks editing now? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bloomfield hasn't edited since he was blocked 10 months ago? Nobody knows how many accounts the guy has on WP not to mention occasional and also recent IP edits that fit the pattern. [29], [30]. A number of socks including an account blocked few days ago are listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield, here is another case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kidsunited related to the guy, there might be more but again, nobody knows the extent of it.--Termer (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Termer, how many of all those articles listed in the sock contribs do you think are wholly bogus? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be a full time job for several editors to track it down and sort it out all the way. I've spotted some complete hoaxes and some that are and would be valid subjects just turned into bogus WP:ORish+WP:Fringe. and then another category of articles created by the socks looks like WP:Spam to me.

Usually anything that has to do with Royalty status and former countries created by the socks hangs between hoax and bogus OR. Just recently I found Principality of Trubetsk that would need some serious sourcing, just that nothing like this is available anywhere else other than in Wikipedia mirrors.--Termer (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The most helpful way I can think of to get started on dealing with this is to start slapping these tags on the articles as you see fit:

• {{references}} {{original research}} {{hoax}}

Moreover you can remove/revert without further ado, any edit made by one of the confirmed socks listed on the CU pages you cited above. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just that it's not about "get started", I and not only me have been on it doing exactly what you just suggested for more than a year by now: (see one of the most outstanding hoaxes created by the sock that was spotted on 30 October 2007 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Estland)

We keep making slow progress even though it is tiresome, a very boring job. And in that sense I can understand why Renata slapped a punch of articles together to get it over with at least to certain extent. Just that , even though she clearly comes from the region, too bad she never had heard about the singer who appears to have his fans in her neighboring country that has a population just about 1 million.:-) I think it's clear that Renata is not willing to put up with this any more. I just keep doing what I've been doing, as time permits tag it and/or clean it or list it at AfD one by one as I come across any of such articles.--Termer (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Principality_of_Estland yesterday and I agree it's a very clever hoax. Given the harm that seems to have been done, I'm willing to G3 speedy delete any articles you list here which I can straightforwardly confirm as hoaxes or likely hoaxes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that straight forward that any of the articles I currently am aware of would be WP:HOAX exactly if that's what you were saying. It's more like hanging between WP:OR-WP:VERIFY-WP:Notability and sometimes entering the territory of WP:Fringe like an idea of the family descending from Gediminas that is an area absolutely not documented by any sources whatsoever. Another very far out idea is someone being a Ruthenian in the 21 century. And in that sense everything that was listed by Renata at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky, (other than Tõnu Trubetsky& Vennaskond), if you have time to flip through these and see if the AfD was valid for those articles, that would be nice. for example one of the articles was already deleted earlier in 2005 but had been recreated by the sock in 2006 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_Trubecki. And then there is this Principality of Trubetsk, a state named after the family, which sure, something like that may have existed once. But since it existed during a poorly documented era, the WP article is full of nonsense and claims that are impossible to WP:verify.--Termer (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Jan_Trubecki as a G4 (recreated after deleted through AfD). Keep in mind, if something is mostly unverifiable, given the contrib history and socking of the editor behind these, it can be speedy deleted as a hoax. As time allows and if you like, you can let me know here, about articles which you think could be speedy deleted as A7s (no assertion of significance) or G3s (likely hoaxes), I'll look at them and if I can, speedy delete them. The others will have to go through AfD, mostly one by one so that editors at WP:AFD will give them heed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale for your help!--Termer (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Intrigued

Hi Gwen, You've got my curiosity when you said:

"As for the article on the CSA, my editorial and admin take is that most US civil war articles on Wikipedia are deeply flawed, owing mostly to the likewise flawed secondary sources used in North America and accepted nonetheless as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles."

This is interesting to hear the non-involved perspective and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that if you have the time. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick and dirty shortcut then: Within the bounds of this topic, the most likely way to stir up sparks of anger from someone of any PoV is to say the word tariffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is true..or you can get a similar response from saying states' sovereign rights. Have I taken your meaning correctly that all American sources will be biased one way or another for being too close or too involved with the problem? (which I think is a perfectly valid viewpoint) or is there something else? I have been given the impression from a Sandhurst instructor that Americans weren't militarily qualified to make assessments (a viewpoint that I don't find valid). Thank you for responding,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this isn't the place to go over this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Without need to hear more detail, I agree in general about ACW articles reflecting a fairly narrow set of (what I would characterize as big-chested or boastful) accepted secondary source choices. Freeman and Catton, two of my favorites, both suffer from this well-intended subjectivity. Shelby Foote is another such. IMHO, much of the ACW cluster pages suffer from a methodical inherent bias, mostly because of the pro-USA bias amongst frequent ACW contributors (and their chosen sources). To my mind, it's significant how small the number of Featured articles have come from our cluster, as rich and well-supplied we are with normally cooperating editors. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The flaws aren't with Wikipedia, but with secondary sources like Harry Jaffa and Shelby Foote. Knowing these authors were government/politically-funded should be enough to cast them aside as wholly worthless but the truth is, they're widely taken and taught as the reliable secondary sources and hence, tertiary sources such as textbooks and encyclopedias follow them, WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01 and Great Train Raid

Your role as “uninvolved informal mediator” appears to be once again required. You had warned Ghost about tendentious editing and personal attacks and the pattern seems to be continuing, especially the former. Although he is confining his efforts to the discussion pages, he is creating, in my opinion, an atmosphere in which productive discussion is no longer possible. Ghost’s contributions to Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861#Proposal -- Renaming of Article seem to be totally off topic and he has expanded the front with his contributions at Talk:Confederate States of America#POV's on Secession. Any assistance you can provide, either as informal mediator or administrator, would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I've been watching, had already read your comments on the title this morning, agreed with them and almost left a message on the talk page saying so. As I see it there are two worries with the title. First, as you wrote, it seems to be unsupported by the sources and second, although supported by a single train station sign for tourists, the phrase Great Train Raid of 1861 doesn't even seem to match what the sources have to say about those locomotives and trains (given what happened was a series of events over many weeks having to do with railroad gear being handled in sometimes muddled ways by sundry groups of soldiers over a wide area). Hence, I agree the name clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Events.

As for the article on the CSA, my editorial and admin take is that most US civil war articles on Wikipedia are deeply flawed, owing mostly to the likewise flawed secondary sources used in North America and accepted nonetheless as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles. This however, has little or nothing to do with GrayGhost's narrow, partisan, military PoV. While Talk:Confederate States of America#POV's on Secession at first blush looks like it might be a helpful thread, the sloppy discussion there (meaning GrayGhost's comments too), has nothing to do with what I would call reliable sources on secession in North America during the early 1860s.

Hence, it's likely I can safely intervene as an admin here. The only admin action I can think of is to warn User:Grayghost01 that his edits have become disruptive, that I warned him earlier about his original research and that if he carries this any further, he'll likely be blocked. I'd like your thoughts on this. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My primary concern at this point would be in your role as an informal mediator since this is a necessary step in the dispute resolution process. What is badly needed on the discussion page is a clear statement by someone outside of the article and subject matter participants that defines exactly what the issues are. Having been involved with mediation and arbitration in the real world, I would expect the next step would be to request clear, concise statements from the two sides that address the relevant issues. You already seem to fully understand the argument that I am presenting so I would guess the next step would be to solicit information from Ghost that would allow you to make a similarly concise summary of his position. I intend to stay completely out of any direct conversations between you and Ghost unless invited to participate.

As things now stand, I see Ghost on one side of the issue on the renaming, with me, you, and one other user supporting SOME change in the title with BusterD on the fence waiting to see if info from reliable sources is produced that supports the existing name. My inclination at this point, assuming nothing else changes within the next few days, would be to implement the proposed change (after cleaning up the language) and see what happens -- my analysis is that the most notable aspect of this discussion is that Ghost has received no significant support from any other editor. I am open, however, to any better alternatives that you may wish to mediate. In any event, if an agreement acceptable to all parties is not reached, I hope that you will be able to state that we have pursued informal mediation as far as practical and make a recommendation (i.e. implement the changes or move to formal mediation).

I of course disagree strenuously with your take on reliable sources relating to the Civil War, but, as you note, this is not really the issue we are currently involved with. The main problem, in my opinion, on the CSA page is that Ghost has tried to make his case using two deeply flawed edits that go beyond an argument over which sources are reliable and which are not. The longer edit was reverted not just by me but by another editor when a very similar version of it was added to the Origins of the Civil War article here [31].

As far as your role as an administrator, my opinion (since you asked) is that it is time to go beyond warnings although that is entirely your call. If you think you can accomplish something as a mediator that would be compromised if you take actions as an administrator, then I am fine with you making the mediation your top priority. My interests and Ghost’s interests in future articles overlap in many areas so this has to come to a head sometime. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a ghastly edit. I need to review Ghost's contribs and talk page history a bit more. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article title should be changed within a few days if either a reliable source (this is straightforward) or more than a consensus of one doesn't show up. The title as it stands strays enough from policy that I'm willing to implement that change if 2 or 3 experienced editors can agree on a new title.

Although I must say there are long-standing worries with the CSA article, as we've both said, what you're citing isn't linked with those worries since it's not a sourcing dispute, it's beyond the bounds of WP:OR, there's no meaningful sourcing at all. Without sources, there's nothing to mediate, unsourced content can be removed by anyone so long as it's in good faith and not pointy: This is a behaviour problem. I've already warned Ghost about OR (his synthesis of content from sources in the train article is also OR), so I guess he's edging very close to a block. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The title I had suggested was "Confederate operations against the B & O Railroad in Harper’s Ferry and Martinsburg (May and June 1861)". As an experienced editor, can you come up with a more concise title or is this acceptable to you? The problem of course, as you've noted, is that the article covers a series of loosely related events raher than a single event that historians have already provided a name for. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I put some more titles on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The more I see this discussed, the more the entire article demonstrates the dangers in original synthesis. Tom has attempted in good faith to improve the article and define the article name fairly, but even his title attempt provides rationale for article deletion as covering a loose collection of events in a rough time period. I'm wondering whether we should be having this entire discussion at AfD. Time is rapidly approaching for some intervention as to user behavior as well. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the events were linked enough that putting them in one article, for encyclopedic pith, isn't OR, so long as the narrative doesn't leap to any outcomes (or links) not straightforwardly put forth, as outcomes, by the sources (the latter is where Ghost seems to be lacking). I found this very helpful to think about that though, BusterD and it should be kept in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see most of the worries stemming from behaviour and dealing with that seems to be getting closer. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm-mm!

A Renaissance Man for our time? -- Hoary (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I swoon. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FoodWars: The Return of the Jedi...errr..Hummus

Gwen, I've been looking at other dip/condiment articles on Wiki, and before introducing this to the rather rowdy Hummus Talk page, I wanted to get your opinion on it.

Most of the other condiment articles stick to a basic outline of what the food is, how its made and a historical background. A few dive into short basic descriptions of modern uses in various nations or regions, but not one mentions any political disagreements or other similar issues which have been included in Hummus since day 1. My thought is, what about re-writing Hummus and modeling it off of other condiment/dips? examples: Guacamole, Fondue, Salsa (sauce)

Anyhow, just trying to come up with alternative ideas for a "fresh start".... --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think hummus is doing ok, even if it is protected for now. The food's origins are unknown, its wide popularity in the cultural mix of the Middle East makes it highly controversial and the article echoes that, with sources. Hummus is not fondue (I'm smiling because that's one of the few other food articles where I've edited a lot). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Commerce revision AfD notification

An article you have been involved with, Commerce revision is at AfD. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Search and destroy

You have written about Pascale Casanova : "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion".
You should have asked (me or anyone else) for these indications before the deletion.
Please, think about it next time.
Katalina Raspe (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have a question about Wikipedia in general and I didn't quite know who else to ask. If you think I should look elsewhere for an answer, please tell me so.
I was wondering how far back article editing histories go? When I scroll to the earliest available edit of, say, the Beatles article, the furthest I can go is February 2002, when there was already quite an extensive article. I suppose that wasn't the very first draft.
So I'm wondering, is there a limit to how long or how many edits are stored? To me it would be a huge downer to find out that Wikipedia was automatically deleting all edits beyond a certain criterium, from a historical point of view.
Cheers, Jellevc (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall reading a few times, some or all of the very first/oldest contribution histories were lost during an early upgrade of the Mediawiki software in 2002. I'm not startled to hear the earliest edit to be had for the Beatles article shows it was already long back then. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Do you know anyone I could ask or anywhere I could look in order to be sure? Jellevc (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Page_history#.5Bedit.5D_Wikipedia-specific_help and WP:Usemod_article_histories. Wikipedia uses an SQL relational database management system to store edit histories and there is no limit to how long they're stored. Following the terms of the GFDL, they must be kept "forever." Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

KSEY

I noticed that you deleted this disambiguation page based on a speedy tag placed by an IP. I was just wondering what rationale they provided for the speedy? I'm guessing that both of the stations were redlinked, but they both have incoming links and licensed radio stations have generally been held to be notable. Not that it's reason enough on its own, but there are probably two thousand or so of these call sign disambiguation pages, and many of them have only one or no blue links. However, all the red links are gradually getting filled in - the Radio Stations project is a very active one.
Would you be averse to restoring the page? Mlaffs (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but it could get tagged again unless the links are made blue. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and fair enough. It's on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. The couple of times before that similar pages were either prodded or brought to Afd, project members have usually had stubs up at the red links in about half an hour. Thanks again! Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Prego! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers

Hi Gwen, I'm sorry that my stalker decided to help out your stalker. Unfortunately I can't control him and hsi JIDF friends  ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks Peter :) Meanwhile, going by your take on it here, I'm again thinking we may have a very smelly sock somewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi Glen, my watchlist just pinged to tell me Khmer Karaoke was speedied as G11 and then deleted by you recently. Any chance I can get you to reconsider that decision? It was a very poor article, a very short article, an unreferenced article but not an inappropriate article for the encyclopaedia. There was no advertising language or spam in the article. In fact, I'm puzzled as to what you thought it might be advertising? The author's talk page has also been tagged with a speedy-delete-due-to-spam template - but there were no links in the article at all. This is the work of a new Cambodian contributor who needs some help learning how to write for Wikipedia. I came across the article a few days a go, made a few small edits and stuck it on my watchlist. I planned to come back later and work on it. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Would you like me to put the deleted content in your userspace so you can source and grow it some more there? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:The Witch

Hi, another editor is redirecting the user and user talk pages for "The Witch" to you on the presumption that these usernames belong to you. The editor has complained when I've undone the changes (which I considered low level vandalism, as it is messing with another user's personal page) so I'll leave it to you to revert the change if you are uncomfortable with it. Hope this makes sense. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I tried that name out for a day, three years ago. I don't care if it's redirected here, but not by a limited contrib editor with a string of vandalism warnings on their talk page who edit wars over it. Why the editor didn't ask me about it here, I don't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the same reason a new account was created a couple of minutes after I reverted the change, vandalised my user page and never edited again. Very mysterious! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vase images

Regarding Image:Vase1r_800.jpg, Image:Vase2r 800.jpg, and Image:Vase3r_800.jpg, judging from WP:MCQ these images were requested for deletion because the author wants to revoke the CC license. They are useful and encyclopedic and I don't think that the deletion request should have been entertained. What do you think? Stifle (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How useful and encyclopedic are they? As far as I can tell they were only being used on the user page of the creator who got a bit annoyed with us as sometimes happens.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true he can't revoke the CC licences. As for the images themselves, my thinking was only, they're his vases, they were his scans, they weren't being used in the main space, only on his user page along with one in my talk archive (from when I was helping him get his user account going again). He wasn't happy, was the only author and asked for them to be deleted.

I was going to wait a day or two and let him know I'd restore them if he wanted. I also planned on restoring them if anyone said straightforwardly, "please restore them." So, any thoughts will be helpful. Should I put them back now? Should we wait and see if he asks? I'm neutral and will be happy to do either. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that both you and I are in Malcolm's bad books and given that he has been briefly blocked again after complaining, I think that, if anyone is going to approach Malcolm suggesting restoring the pictures, then it shouldn't be us. He may decide to restore them himself or someone else who isn't in his bad books could approach him if they're keen to see them again, but one of us would just make things worse.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any admin can restore the images. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud

You speedied it as a test page, and I do not see why. It was tagged as " Personal essay, original research, ", which is not a reason for speedy. Agreed it's polemical and not very unencyclopedic, but it's more than a test page. I do know somewhat about the subject, & I think much of the material can be referenced; I do not think any of it is actually OR--it has all been said and disputed for hundreds of years from various Jewish, Christian, and rationalist perspectives. I am not sure whether or not it can in its present form be salvaged, because the article seems to confuse these different perspectives,but the material even as it stands is not patently absurd or defamatory. It is quite possible that it duplicates in an unsophisticated way what is already in Wikipedia. The section Talmud#Attacks on the Talmud is of course a better approach to this material, but the specific points attacked in various contexts could be more specifically elaborated than in that article, though they may be covered here elsewhere in a scattered manner (eg Women in Judaism, etc. etc. ) . I suggest you restore the article and I will remove the parts just defending the article which should have been only on the talk p. i am reluctant to take a poor quality article to deletion review,as I prefer to sponsor only better things than this--but it is nonetheless not a speedy. I'll look here for a reply. DGG (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear we agree about the content. Since we disagree it was a test page, I've restored the article, removed the unsourced and original research content and tagged it as empty. If someone deletes it before you get to it, you're more than welcome to recreate the article with sourced content. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What I intend to do is move the good stuff back as an outline. I do know about sources there, probably a good deal better than the author of that article does--in particular i actually do know the Talmud in some detail, in English though, and am aware of secondary sources. He's confused completely two topics which have to be separated: the criticism of the existence of the oral law by non-Rabbinic Judaism (ie, the Saducees & the Karaites), the criticism by the Christians , and the later rationalist criticism--though they do have the same themes. Take a look at what I wrote on his talk p. The only reason for bothering is that the section on Talmud article is quite inadequate. Take a look on the article talk p./, where he was trying to rewrite the article. I want to give him a chance from there & if not do it myself. I'm not sure of his background, possibly naive fundamentalist. The part to really watch out for is the Messianic christian us of this. DGG (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yes, I think your comments on his talk page were spot on. I also thought the writer knew something about the topic, but aside from the lack of any sources (and in crit, without sources there's nothing at all) the PoV did seem somehow narrow and muddled. Since you're at least watching it, I'm not worried. Indeed, a sourced article on the topic could be helpful, but as you say, it's a sprawling topic and someone, like you, who knows something about the sources is needed. By the way, in the Talmud article, is attacks an NPoV term for a section title? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Decided to defer this--and left some more detailed comments specifically addressing POV problems. I also want to defer getting into a possibly hostile argument with Cameron--there are too many places where we are likely to clash. As for the heading in the Talmud article, "attacks" is fair-- it is discussing the Medieval Christians attacks on the Talmud, which were very specifically attacks. They were in motivation attacks on Judaism, but they were unquestionably attacks and presented by them as such. In this context its NPOV. DGG (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting my well research articles!--Standforder (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia's original research policy, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

hi Gwen from Thomas re feature film company DOOM Incorporated

hello Gwen - im an accomplished filmmaker living and working in LA / my production company DOOM Incorporated is unique in that it is a boutique film production company specializing in innovative projects --- many people have been inquiring so i wrote a simple Wiki page --- my company is notable for the following - has produced many award winning (i.e. MTV, MTV Europe, MTV Brazil, FUSE TV, etc) programs; it is listed on the professional database site IMDB for its feature film and video production work, etc. I think having its listing in Wiki is a very helpful thing for readers --- in just the last day several folks in the industry have emailed saying it is helpful.... i noticed a "slated for deletion" tag but im not sure what to do ---- should i add links to all the artists, companies, clients, projects, that ive listed in the article. I'm not very skilled at all these postings, and it is a simple description that says what it is, so please dont delete it --- pls just let me know specifically what u wish i should add / change to make it conform if necessary --- thank u for your diligence and expertise in helping. kind regards, thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doominc (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I want to help you with this, the main worry is, there are many production companies in the world but few ever become notable and the article text didn't put across why DOOM might be. Wikipedia doesn't carry listings, it carries encyclopedia articles, hence the article can't read, in any way, like a press release (advertising). Also, an IMdB listing in itself may not do much towards showing notability, since anyone can register and add content to big swaths of that website. So that you might understand a bit more about how Wikipedia works, please read:

• This quick and breezy page about why your article may have been deleted and,
• This guideline about conflict of interest.

On Wikipedia, notability comes down to coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article needs to make meaningful assertions of importance, such as naming any notable awards and citing independent sources for confirmation of them. If DOOM has produced independent films, have these been reviewed? By whom?

Websites to some of your projects and clients will often not be taken as independent enough to be reliable, following the needs of the encyclopedia.

If you think some sources can be added to the text, I'm willing to put the deleted text in your user space while you find them. Please let me know. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, it looks to me like DOOM Inc. is very probably notable in the Wikipedian sense. If you'd like, feel free to recreate it at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/DOOM Inc. and we can work on it there so it's up to snuff (or near, at least, I'll admit that I'm not the best at content writing) before we put it back into the main article space. Drop me a line if you do (at my email address or my talk page) if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin Question

I have a question about the process of blocking someone from editing, other than just leaving a pleasant note that the person just erases by blanking his talk page. The user in question is User talk:Watermelon_Eet_Choo_Weets. Every warning he gets is subsequently erased. I listed them all together on his talk page, and had planned on speaking to an admin, but he's already blanked it again. Could you help in this matter? Thanks, The27thmaine (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, a user is allowed to blank his or her own user page. Doing so is deemed to mean the user has seen any warning(s) placed there. Although this tactic is inconvenient, the user's editing history and contributions are still visible; if disruptive editing is sufficient, a block can still be administered.  Frank  |  talk  20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank, I did know about blanking one's own talk page. It was the continuous warnings he/she had been getting that I wanted to bring to an admin's attention, as requests to stop by regular editors weren't doing the trick. Thanks, Gwen Gale, for posting the warning. The27thmaine (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the user can blank anything they please from their own talk page, other than unblock requests whilst still blocked, speaking of which, I've left a last warning about the vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Adefarasin

Appreciative of the great work you guys are doing at Wikipedia.

As per the article I posted, I meant it not for promotion of a personality of sort and I know the article was speedily requested for deletion based on the reference to University of Miami.

It is already deleted now and I want you to re-consider helping out on what to remove and add. One thing is for sure, the personality focused is bringing up some worthwhile thing in Nigeria and Africa that is undaunting.

I'm posting this to MiamiDolphins3 too.

Thanks.

Dbeloved (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This was speedy deleted mostly because it reads like an advertisement for someone whose ministry doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic topic (worthiness doesn't make a person or a project encyclopedic). Please read these tips about why articles can get deleted. The pith would be to find independent and reliable coverage on this topic and cite it in the article, along with writing the text in a much more neutral way. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I have some comment to make. I will try to change the style no doubt but to think I am advertising for him is inappropriate. I am an observer, safe for attending his events and hearing from the press and TV, I don't have any relation with him whatsoever. Be that as it may, you can suggest examples of what makes a project encyclopedic. Some articles on wiki don't even have a citing but are still accepted, so now even if I give some articles' citing from the Nigerian press, I don't know if you will still accept it. I have read why articles are deleted and I will look at removing the unwanted references and all the church sites. All the same thanks. Dbeloved (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources will do the trick. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting my userpage back.

Hi. How do i regain my userpage:Ожиданиесчастья? I have not been using my userpage in a long time, but i would like to use it again so i was wondering how can i get it back? Thanks. 71.121.81.9 (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only move-protected and you can edit it as you please, you're not blocked. Would you like to change your username? You might find this would make things easier for you as an editor. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining Objectivity

If an administrator has a strong point of view on a topic, or fierce emotional reaction to certain facts about a topic, do you think that said person should refrain from acting on that article, and instead restrict herself to topics on which she can maintain a neutral point of view? Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think almost everything about how you've worded that question is leading and meant as a trap, but either way, my answer would be to please see Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_administrative_tools. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why you are edit warring over Uncle Ed's section title, I do not know. Keep in mind, neither edit warring nor changing the meaning of talk page posts made by other editors is allowed. Please stop, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the topic of the first one is "why this conversation should be ended right now", then the emotional interjection "Enough!" would be a good title. If the topic is general article improvement and not intended to be a discussion of why all discussion of the previous topic should be stopped, then my edit would clarify that. Do you agree?

Do you not agree that the "parthenogenis" discussion is off-topic and should be moved to another section so that discussion of that would continue there?

Yes, I was actually asking you to recuse yourself on the grounds that you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. I phrased it the way I did so that you would be more likely to agree based on general principle.Chrisrus (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the wlink I gave above. Meanwhile there is no consensus for your edits. Please take any further discussion of this topic to the article talk page so other editors can have their input, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was the ConnectiCon page deleted?

I'm still not sure why the ConnectiCon page keeps getting deleted when pages for other organizations and groups such as ConnectiCon are listed here on Wikipedia. Examples being, Otakon, AnimeBoston, AnimeNEXT, PAX. What information is not being included to verify that ConnectiCon is a valid organization of note. With a membership of 6,000 individuals, 6 years of history, and being the first convention to focus on online comics and related genres and the devotion of thousands who saved the event from bankruptcy through an online fundraiser in 2005, by raising ~$35,000 in less than 10 days. The event is also cross referenced on a number of other wikipedia articles: Duck Duck Goose, GUComics, Clone Manga, Connecticut Convention Center, GeekKnights, Human Chess, and a Convention listing page, ConnectiCon (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, and I still don't understand, did I just fail to include enough information about the organization? ConnectiCon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia's inclusion standards can be a bit tough to grok straight off, but the pith is coverage. Keeping in mind this article has been deleted thrice now for sundry reasons, the text offers no hint or cited support that the topic meets WP:CORP (the topic doesn't seem likely to be notable). Moreover, going by your username, please have a look at the conflict of interest guidelines (you may be too close to this topic to see it neutrally) and as for other articles, please have a look at WP:Other stuff exists. If you can find some independent sources which show meaningful coverage of this topic, that would sway things. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, I just need to find clips our of TV coverage, and newspaper articles to link to the page as sources? I'm fairly certain that I can see the topic neutrally, I created this account so that I could monitor the page for facts, as some of the fans of the event like to inflate numbers, and whatnot, whereas I have all of the documented, factual information available to me. The event is notable, within the community of online comic artists and fandom at large, otherwise the event wouldn't have grown from 800 members to over 6,000 members in 6 years time. ConnectiCon (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Written articles are much more helpful than TV coverage but yes, you can cite TV news coverage if you also give a means of verifying it. Would you like me to put the deleted content in your user space so you can work on it there? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, I may have jumped the gun updating the page without having properly fleshed the article out, there is a lot more information that I was going to include on the page, but the editing system is tricky to figure out, but I guess I'll get the hang of it and post a full, finished product next time. I'm just hoping it doesn't get deleted on account that I am "too close" to the source, the article I created was more objective that the previous two articles which were posted by others, and then later (and quickly) deleted, before I could edit them for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnectiCon (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put the content at User:ConnectiCon/sandbox. Your username is a bit of a worry, since it hints you're here only to promote the topic, but if you go ahead in good faith and try to get some sourcing into the article, it's not a big deal. If you need help putting citations into the text or want me to do a read-over for you, please let me know. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Edit Warring

If you were to undo my last undo of your undo of my action, who would be "edit warring", me, you, or the both of us?Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it would be highly untowards for either of us to go any further with any back and forth over that, we both need to wait for input from other editors (though I still think you strayed slightly from WP:Talk by changing the meaning of Uncle Ed's section title). See WP:Edit war for everything you need to know about not doing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that was my section title Chrisrus changed. *ahem* --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blush ^..^ Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Moni, is the topic of the section in question whether all discussion of the previous section should stop or not, or is it ways to improve the article? It seems to be the second, and I tried to clarify that.Chrisrus (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

>>>>> Chrisrus, Talk:Lesbian is that way >>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxi Vader

Thanks for the laugh!  :) --Kbdank71 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

incorrect deletion of gigi d'agostino's album

suono libero. it was released in 2008. i don't know how you can disregard this fact. here is a track listing: thanks. 156.56.194.201 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No such article. Tell me more and I'll try to help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Locution, locution, locution

Have you reached any decisions about what to recite with those jucyfruits in your mouth? I should think Tennyson. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean jujyfruits. I'm phwinking abop ip. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

reverting my talk page

A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page [32]. Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. The possibility of getting into an edit war on my own talk page seems absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You can mostly delete what you like from your own talk page. Lots of editors don't like it when some editors do that, but you can do it (also given what you've said about your comfort level with computers I won't nudge you to try archiving instead). You were also wise in coming to an admin about it instead of going back and forth, although no admin would ever block you for 3rr over deleting comments from your own talk page. I've left a note for the editor who likely didn't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

A couple of days ago I took a look at what is involved with archiving some of the discussion on my talk page, but could not understand the process and decided not to even try.

As far as Oren.tal's edits on my talk page, the content is not a problem to me, I just wanted him to take it to the Ha'aretz talk page where I think it really belongs. For whatever reasons he did not want to do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually dislike making this sort of accusation, but I doubt this is really a new user [33] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He's not new. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I am really getting tired of reverts with accusations like this [34] and unspecified and false accusations like this [35]. Why should I have to put up with accusations of vandalism from an editor who knows better? Why should I have to come to an administrator every time I want to make an edit? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like you need to discuss your edits more, on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Having had a bit more time to look at this, I left a message RolandR's talk page noting that your edits weren't vandalism and asking that he use edit summaries and talk page comments to discuss why he might not agree with your edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen, but I disagree with you. The reason that I considered the edit in question to be vandalism, and not simply an editorial dispute, was that, having edit-warred for a while on the article, and denied the subject's notability, Malcolm then, without discussion or warning, completely removed the passage outlining the contribution for which the subject is most notable. As I noted in my reversion, if he thought that the passage was poorly sourced, Malcolm could, and should, have placed a "citation needed" or "fact" tag rather than removing the passage. And, without that passage, it becomes far harder to establish the subject's notability, as Malcolm is demanding.

Malcolm is not a new or inexperienced editor, and he is aware of the existence and use of such tags. Under the circumstances, it seemed (and still seems) to me that removing, rather than tagging, this key passage in an article which he had already tagged for notability concerns was not an innocent editorial decision, but an attempt to prejudice discussion of the subject's notability. RolandR (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no hint that Malcom's edits have been in anything but good faith and any good faith edit is not vandalism. Yes, if there are policy, guideline or other worries with his edits, please feel free to discuss them on the article talk page but please keep in mind, he has not vandalized the article and saying he has done does nothing but stir up more disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes now, but I want to say that I did not deny notability. The article does not establish notability. I put the notability template on the article hoping that sources for notability would be provided. I do not think that an extraordinary request. There was also a paragraph I removed. It was unsourced and made extraordinary claims about Sands views. Verifiable secondary sources should be supplied. I did search, but could not find support. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability tags on a BLP can be tricky, Malcolm, when they're put up by someone whose PoV seems to disagree with the outlook of that BLP's subject. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are assuming my POV is something other than it is. I do not like, nor support, everything done by the Israeli government. Far from it. Also, Sand's position is not made clear by the content of the article, and what little I have found in a web search suggests his views may be close to mine. Or maybe not. The article supplies little information, and I have not found much so far. In any case, as I have said previously, I am opposed to anyone distorting sources to support a personal POV, and anyone includes me. The tag was intended to spur improvement of the article. Look and see if I have done harm to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only talking about methods of settling disagreements: Notability tags will almost always be taken as a first step towards deleting the article, which others may think means "If I can't have my way, I want the whole thing deleted!" It doesn't matter what you meant by it, the pith is, it would most likely be seen that way. I'm not telling you how to edit the article, only trying to help you understand why the editor came back at you so strongly, which you could have skirted while still bringing up your worries about the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not too shy to initiate an AfD. My assumption is that the guy is notable, but the article does not establish that. All RolandR, or any other editor, needs to do to solve the problem is to add sourced information. RolandR's claiming that I removed the proof of notability is not correct, because what I removed was unsourced. Unsourced statements does not establish notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What's your main worry about the article? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that many articles are having material added in a way that unnecessarily emphasises the Israel/Palestine conflict, or that frequently information is added in a way to strengthen the position (arguing points) of one side. The Hummus article debacle is an outstanding example, but is one of many. (The thread I introduced on the Village Pump was concerned with what goes wrong when such disputes start to dominate articles, although I may not have done a very good job of explaining.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We agree there, Malcolm, spot on, whatever PoV is being flung. As you may be learning, there is no easy way to fix this, for sundry reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about Lesbian Sex Practices, HIV section

Is there a reason that information on safer sex practices should not be included on the Lesbian Sexual Practices page? I included this information in the HIV section I posted because I feel it is rather important.Lesadv (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it's still there. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

administrator list

where can I get a list of administrators?Oren.tal (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

I'm thinking this block does have its point, content issue aside. I would suggest you take an active role in mediation on the page which instigated the conflict as I have concerns towards some mainstream content that seems to be rejected for various concerns that I can't seem to follow. This might be a good chance to help nudge editors to discuss issues properly and resolve the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the editor owing to behaviour: Edit warring, pointy edits and incivility. As for the content, I think to begin with, more input is needed and RfCs would be helpful on each of these articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It could seem as though this block -- blocking an editor for (among other things) attempting to insert well cited content and miss-counting the number of references -- was one sided and I think it would be of great merit if there would be an honest attempt to further review and possibly give some guidance/mediation in this incident. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. didn't like my first phrasing but you were too quick to respond before I could save the rephrase. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say it was one-sided? Please don't conflate anything Smashville might have to say about this over at ANI with why I blocked Oren.tal. Gwen Gale (talk)

My worries are due to following the Haaretz article and noticing some very concerning behavior from everyone involved, Oren.tal included. Punishing one of the editors seems counter productive. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block Oren.tal for miscounting and I've never been near those articles. Dumping 19 (or 9) citations into an info box is too pointy, though. I mostly blocked him for edit warring and lots of badgering incivility. As I said on his talk page, if he acknowledges the reasons for the block and says he'll settle down, I'll be happy to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing on Joe the Plumber

One editor has sought to introduce material (all from mid-October) into the article which was removed weeks ago -- including "surmise" about Joe being an "illegal plumber" etc. I deleted the contentious material, and was charged by him with "vandalism" (this is BLP, where content disputes should be handled conservatively). His reaction was to form a RfC and then to solicit more than a dozen of his friends to enter in (including doing reverts) - which I think might run afoul of the spirit of WP:CANVASS. [36] where he avoids notifying any of the other editors on the article. I am probably too angry at the gameplaying I have seen (one editor already wrote on another page about me "There are at least a dozen editors that should know about a recent Administrative notice board request. Manic Brit, Anarchangel,Factchecker, LLLL, victorc, just to name a few. The problem is to invite fellow Witnesses for the Prosecution without seeming to be vindictive....or wait to play a better hand. Just thought Id drop you a line to say hello. Feel free to delete. This particular hand seems weak." Among the milder "collusion" posts <g>. In any case, thanks for allowing a minor vent. If this indeed rises to a level where admins should be formally told, tell me. I just do not like all my good faith edits labelled "vandalism." Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be talking about this edit. No worries, that's no rv of vandalism :) As for the canvassing, yes, it's a bit on the edge. So far as illegal plumber goes, it's a BLP so that phrase should very likely be in quotes, very reliably sourced and attributed. Moreover, other PoVs about that can be likewise quoted, reliably sourced and attributed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, actually the term "illegal plumber" is Collect's characterization of the content. It's not used in the section at all. Also, I mainly canvassed editors who were active around the topic. Once I decided to go broader, I kept it pretty neutral. It's been exhausting trying to work on that article if you don't mind my saying it.Mattnad (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mind your saying it. I'm glad to hear you're at least trying to be neutral. Please don't call good faith edits vandalism, though, it only stirs things up more and as you say, those articles are exhausting enough for everyone as it is. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:99.150.123.45

Please semi for duration of block. thanks Enigma ^message 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

defending my user page...

[37] mooch ass grassy ass! And Dan K. Shane... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Day nodder, bit a :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fun Dial

Hi Gwen. I am referring to you regarding Fun Dial and Fun Broker pages. Surprisingly, you have ranked them as an advertisements. I read your short exaplanations on why and when you decide to mark articles as an advertisements. I know that you are working hard on keeping and improving Wikipedia content. As you can understand, I just don't agree with your decision. But this is your responsibility and your decision - I have a lot of respect to all work that have been already invested into Wikipedia project and really hope that the project will continue to grow and succeed.
My aim was to contribute something important to the world, that I was part of this during last 8 years - I'm talking about personilized ringback tone services. May be my try was not so successfull. I will not ask you to restore the pages, but please give me back sources, that I've worked on them and (unfortunately) never backed up on my PC.

In addition, once you decide to go and delete such type of articles, then why to do this partially? Example - the name for personalized ringback tone services, which was choosen by several companies sounds as "Colored Ringback Tones" (see CRBT), while these are still fully commerical systems provided by business companies (such as Huawei, WiderThan, etc.). There is no difference between CRBT service and Fun Dial - just an alternative name for the service. I don't see current decisions as politically correct ones - to have one-sided opinion representation and approach for the personalized ringback tones technology. I feel that decisions were made based mostly on the names, not on the content of the articles.
Moreover - I do think that term "Fun Dial" is better, due to it does not confuse readers with the normal ITU tones (see article about ITU). "Colored Ringback Tone" is really marketing name, selected to promote the service...
My aim were to step-by-step expand content of the articles, hopefuilly with the help of other contributors, in order to show part of the telecommunication world with ringback tone (RBT) services, beginning from the history of RBT and continuing to high-end of the video RBT, currently developing in the world...
About me - in despite from the expected, I'm not a marketing person. I would like to sorry for my poor English.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.ashkinazi (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP for more information. It seems to me that Fun Dial is a brand name that doesn't have notability on its own, which is why it was deleted and CRBT (which redirects to Ringback tone remains. The latter two describe the concept, while your article was promotional in nature.  Frank  |  talk  18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no real reason to argue with the decision - it is fully your rights and area of responsibility. May I have my sources, please (e-mail: alexander.ashkinazi@yahoo.com) or any other communication channel that you prefer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.ashkinazi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Frank! Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, I was reading up on Legoland. Alexander, please have a look at this page if you haven't yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand Fastened CSD

Good catch! What a difference a day and a few references make. Cheers. --Digital Mischief 10:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DipWiki page

Gwen, this page had only just begun, and I'd tagged it for not having immediate removal. The DipWiki is the most prominent site for Diplomacy information! What is the point of adding the dont delete tag if we dont have time to fill in the rest of the article? The site has already been publicized routinely in Diplomacy World, the leading online publication regarding Diplomacy.

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry Shapiro

What is wrong with you? Is putting up an article of a respectable Psychologist who put forward a theory against Multiple realizability Blatant advertising? Do you suspect that I am Larry Shapiro. You are a funny man. Why don't you Google Larry Shapiro and see what Blatant advertising there is. Gabr-el 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted as blatant advertising. Please read this page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your restrained response, in light of my earlier anger. However, the only reason why I created the article was in the hope someone would build up on it because I was researching on it and did not find what I was looking for. Gabr-el 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The text would need to carry some hint the topic meets WP:BIO and since most of that means meaningful independent coverage by reliable sources, some citations would help. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Display Team

They're a band I think have added a lot to my local music scene. They've been my favourite band for years and have been played on a lot of well-known podcasts. Why have you deleted the page? I was adding in all the things you asked for (dates and times, references for all the information I used (some where not "reliable" as in they were sites giving their opinion but is the BBC not a reliable source?) Can you re-consider? I worked hard on this and I'm trying to comply with the wikipedia guidelines you gave me. I really think they deserve a page.

Did you see the message I already left on your user talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw onw now about repeated removal. I didn't see that one before. I was removing it because I was adding in the things you asked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U1234u (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). I speedy deleted the article because it gave no indication that it might meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards for bands (WP:Music). Would you like me to put the deleted content into your userspace where you can further build and source it? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ok.U1234u (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what was wrong with the references I used or the page I made. I tried to be factual and give a history of the band's work so far. The resources I quoted are where I got the information. How will I know if it meets your criteria if you put it in my userspace? U1234u (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They're not my criteria, I'm only an admin. The criteria are at WP:Music. I'll answer a bit further on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry I was just making space on your talk page didn't think you'd want this bit still here. That's why I deleted it. Sorry, I see you reverted it. That's my OCD, trying to make things neat.U1234u (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I keep everything. I've put the content in your userspace and answered more on your talk page, which is on my watchlist. You can ask me further questions there, on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You said you would put my article in my user area. Any chance you'll be doing that sometime soon? ThanksU1234u (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I had already done. I asked you to carefully read what I posted on your talk page, it seems you haven't carefully read it, or you would know that I had done, and where to find it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)