User talk:Gwen Gale/archive13

Ereignispunkt

Gwen, can you take a look at Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva? User:Ereignispunkt is making a lot of edits there, which seem to be politically motivated.

Thank you in advance. Donadio (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do see a bit of original research/soapboxing 2 weeks ago, an external link more lately, no edit warring. Nothing much for an admin to do. You might want to clean up after him yourself and let me know how it goes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I certainly would like to intervene in that article (the hipocricy of Brazilian opposition, that hates Lula because he is "radical" but publicly slams him for "betraying" his previous radicalism never ceases to bemuse me), but due to both real life and having to defend minimal sanity in articles about Brazilian demography, I'm going to postpone this indefinitely.

Again I have to remark the silence from most other Brazilian editors, who interestingly seem no longer interested in editing articles about Brazil. Donadio (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say "interestingly"? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a curious fact? Donadio (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it too odd. There are lots of articles on en.Wikipedia which one would think might be edited a lot, but aren't. Stuff like Britain's Got Talent takes up lots of "wet bandwidth", I guess :D Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: [1]. — Aitias // discussion 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that user pages are meant to be used for encyclopedia building. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Copyedit from a typical discussion string:"Yes and editors have many and sundry takes on what's civil and what's not. We do what we can, the easiest way to skirt these worries throughout a disagreement is, don't comment on the editor, talk only about content and sources. Even mildly snarky remarks online will almost always be taken about three times stronger than how you meant them and brew more kerfluffle, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

Can we please check the tapes at this point, is someone impersonating my good friend Gwen Gale?! The obvious imposter above is making sense and offering rationale arguments. LOL, I am enjoying your transformation into a great admin. BTW, did you know that you are the subject of "Gwen Gale is hot" entries off-wiki? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Haha! Why does this remind me of that line from To Catch a Thief, luzzed by Brigitte Auber about Grace Kelly... "She looks a lot older up close"? :) Anyway thanks... for giving me a way to bring up two Hitch films in one day here, think I'll go for three then! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thrikkunnathu_Seminary

Hi, Gwen.

Please could you review Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Thrikkunnathu_Seminary, the talk page of that article, and the request on my own talk page from an involved editor. You may feel it would be appropriate to protect the page?

Thanks—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks spot on like one of those en.Wikipedia Indian ashram articles that fall into looking like personal cult advertisements now and then, only this one's a seminary in the Indian Orthodox Syrian Christian church. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. I've stubified and protected the article owing to overwhelming WP:BLP worries, an utter lack of sources and edit warring, for starters. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There was also some scathing BLP stuff cited to Google video on the talk page, which I have taken out. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, What you did to this article is that you made it look like its part of one of the disputing churches that claims ownership of this seminary. I do see that the block template says that this is not an endorsement. Nevertheless it should maintain NPOV right? --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION then look at WP:RS, you'll need to find some. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these good sources to prove that property's ownership is under dispute.(Hindu is an national English Newpaper in India)

• http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/04/stories/2006010422740400.htm
• http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/17/stories/2005081709780400.htm

From Indian Express

• http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Consensus+eludes+Thrikkunnathu+Seminary+row&artid=fpTQHMMvNeE=&SectionID=lMx/b5mt1kU=&MainSectionID=wIcBMLGbUJI=&SectionName=tm2kh5uDhixGlQvAG42A/07OVZOOEmts&SEO=

I am here not to prove my point of view but the NPOV. Btw the article about wrong version was funny. But I hope I was not offending you in Anyway. --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they look ok, please give me awhile to look them over and I'll have something to say later on the article talk page. Otherwise no worries at all, I skived and locked down the article because it was a big docking BLP mess. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Take your own time. --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get to it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've unprotected the article and posted something at Talk:Thrikkunnathu_Seminary#unprotected. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Burges Salmon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Burges Salmon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burges Salmon. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I declined a speedy on that one, happy to see it looked at in an AfD, neutral as to any outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to know

Since your name is both on page and mentioned in debate I thought I would inform you of this Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Daedalus969/list. Ridernyc (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't even know about it until the ANI thread yesterday, glad to see it gone, I almost speedied it myself as a G10. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User Tsagali

Hi Gwen. The editor Tsagali did alot of personal edits in the article Native Americans in the United States and I mean alot. He even removed a statement that was cited from a reliable source from an expert. See here [2]. It seems he's trying to completely make everything read in his favor. The article was neutral and all I see is him changing things to match his own opinion. He seems determined to limit how much information is written or changes it to make sure that it reads what he wants it to read.Mcelite (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's still on my watchlist. Single/narrow topic editors who remove sourced content only to put in unsourced soapboxing don't last long here these days. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen.Mcelite (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Got templated

For an "attack page" in my userspace which mentions no one by name <g>. One of the usuals did it, of course. Thought you would like to know. Collect (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The pith is, someone is nudging at you where you have a weakness. The weakness is, saying stuff like E-mail you allies about the RfC, again, making sure they comment fast and first. RfCs sometimes can make your "enemy" leave wikipedia--end of problem, aside from the syntax worries, makes it look like you're giving tips for gaming the system. en.Wilipedia is meant for building encyclopedia articles with the help of others. Calling folks you've fallen into disagreements with enemies is unhelpful. First, because this is only a website to which many users flock with sundry PoVs and outlooks. Calling anyone an enemy here will only make them madder and won't settle anything. If you get into a sticky fix, all you need do is stay on topic, which is to say, the sources and how to deal with them. Second, if someone is truly out to "get" you, that's their worry, their bane, their waste of time, not yours. Follow the old wisdom, keep your "friends" close and those who don't seem to like you even closer. The latter will very likely either turn into friends (because you've helped them blend their PoV with your own, following the sources), or you'll find ways not to bother each other, or they'll wind up gone, blocked, whatever. Some articles can't be made fitting and whole because the most widely published sources themselves are codswallop. So be an eventualist instead and help the project carry on while the sources catch up, even if it won't happen in your lifetime. Live with it, start a blog or a website, publish a book, whatever, this is but a tertiary reference source and besides, lots of readers are much smarter than you may think. Even with all its flaws, en.Wikipedia is amazingly helpful and more often than not gives readers a quick, free and open start on a topic.

Wikipedia is awash in skillful, clever sockpuppets. Some are professionally run, others are owned by keen hobbyists (no, I don't have any socks myself). Some are helpful in ways you may not be aware of, others are unhelpful. If they stick to the policies, who cares?

Anyway, I think you should slap a {{db-u1|rationale=I don't want this essay anymore}} tag on that page so I can delete it for you. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The words in question are not mine in any form or sense. I am quoting another person who used those terms -- so saying his words make me an attacker is quite strange indeed. Did you not realize the essay in question is citing another person entirely? Collect (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever more the reason to skive it out of your user space, quick. It's a junk, clumsy essay. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does represent a genuine issue, I fear. :( Collect (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I have removed anything "skivy" btw. Collect (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's almost wholly misleading and unhelpful. You asked for my help (by posting here), if you don't want the help I've put forth, cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have edited it further -- please do not think of my concerns about such material as being a rebuff of your help at all. Merci. Collect (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Put up a {{db-u1|rationale=I don't want this essay anymore}} tag and I'll rm the page, it doesn't help you or the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it's now living much abridged at User:Collect/Concerns. Collect, if you pick up a handful of dirt to show others, some of that dirt will likely rub off onto your own hand. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) I would have trusted that the short quote was not afounl of the project at this point. Especially since it is not my wording at issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why bother carrying something like that in your user space to begin with? At most, some editors will, sometimes mistakenly, think it's aimed at them. Not worth the kerfluffle. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you please explain the line of thought that led you to the conclusion that it was in any way acceptable, particularly as an admin, to vote to keep a non-notable BLP as part of a joke? لennavecia 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't joking. I think the article should be kept, which is why I commented with a "keep." As I told you, I swapped nouns to make a metaphor. I'm not aware of any policy against doing that, but it's true, humour doesn't always land as it's meant to land, they can't all be hits, I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but since I've already said what I had in mind, maybe we can drop it now? If not, I'm here. Meanwhile, starting a project page comment with "Holy hell," as you've done, might also be mistaken by some readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean Holy Hell as a joke. So however you took it is probably how I intended it. FRECKLES is a reference to GlassCobra's joke essay about hotties always being notable. You haven't presented a keep argument. I've presented details showing how she fails our notability standards, so your backhanded comment in the AFD about me not presenting an argument is clearly out of place, all considered. لennavecia 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've helped make me aware that BLP worries are still growing in spite of all that's been done so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC, RfA etc.

I've been without a connection to the Interwebby thingy for a few days and now the RfA comments section on your talk is archived. So this is just to add my acknowledgement of your excellent and penetrating summary.

Kudos to you and SB-J for navigating the storm of complaints, grievances and accusations with such assurance, finesse and conscientious objectivity.

While I was pro mentoring and anti sanctions/restrictions in this instance, I accept that the restrictions you imposed may concentrate the gentleman's sharp mind more effectively, to the benefit of his co-editors -- and ultimately also of WP.

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and... ta! Others can look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect and User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive12#RfC_closure for background. Cheers, input on this is still welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Asthma & Allergy Friendly

Dear Gwen, I am the Senior Scientific Researcher with Allergy Standards Limited and have recently started editing some articles on Wikipedia. One of my colleagues tried to post and entry for 'Asthma & Allergy Friendly' and it was removed due to copyright enfringement. I have written a new entry for 'Asthma & Allergy Friendly' from scratch and would like to know how to submit it. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Timyeomans33 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First, the title may or may not conform to en.Wikipedia's naming policies. Second, please put the text somewhere in your userspace (say, at User:Timyeomans33/sandbox) and I'll be happy to have a look at it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Gale, the text is saved in my sandbox [[3]], if the text is ok, maybe we can discuss the title then? Thanks again Timyeomans33 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the text, it's a bit too promotional/advocative for an encyclopedia, but that can easily be fixed. So far, the text does not assert the notability of this topic and the citations are a bit thin (and may not be wholly independent of the org). This said, since Asthma & Allergy Friendly already redirects to Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, I think the most helpful way to get this content into en.Wikipedia would be to add it as a section in Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, rewritten to be more encyclopedic/neutral. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gale, thanks for the constructive comments, while I appreciate your comment about adding Asthma & Allergy Friendly as a section on the AAFA website, it wouldn't really be appropriate as this certification is also run in partnership with the Asthma Society of Canada and a soon to be named partner in the UK. Possibly the best thing is for me to work on the article some more until it meets Wikipedia standards in its own rights? Thanks again and I'll be in touch!
Hi Gale, I have re-drafted that, its in my sandbox, link above, can you let me know if the content is more suitable now? Thanks!

Ok, I have tweaked the text a bit more and put it into the mainspace at Asthma and Allergy Friendly. Also, Asthma & Allergy Friendly now redirects there, too. I don't know if this topic meets the notability standards of WP:ORG, but it may stick anyway. Since you seem to be associated with one or more of the organizations named in the article, please have a look at en.Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. You can edit the article, but in doing so you must put the encyclopedia and its policies foremost, before your own interests. Also, please do remember to sign all of your posts to talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~) and feel free to let me know whenever you need help. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Gwen, I am not happy with some of the most recent Brazilian developments. However, RL calls. Could you please keep an eye on this? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching and will have something to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound understanding of BLP policy

Gwen, I appreciate the actions you took with respect to the RFC, but I do have one significant objection.

You specifically state in your comments that "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP". I am sure that this is true to an extent, but I believe that by saying this, you seem to be implying that problems with Collect's behavior are strictly procedural, i.e., merely that he may sometimes behave improperly while arguing in favor of a perfectly correct viewpoint. Again, I am sure this is sometimes or even often the case, but the way you have worded the compliment appears to deny that he is ever wrong – a sentiment that Collect, all too often, appears to share.

I believe it would go a long way in positively influencing Collect's behavior, for him to arrive upon a definitive understanding that his understanding of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:BLP) might, at times, be critically flawed. However, I believe that it would take someone of admin stature definitively telling Collect he is wrong on a specific policy interpretation in order for him to realize that his grasp of policy may be fallible, and also to recognize that in some cases there is no room for a substantive difference of opinion, but rather a correct intepretation and an incorrect interpretation.

It is partly to this end that I requested that you comment specifically on the "Argument with Collect" which I memorialized in its own page which you then userfied. To wit, in that argument, not to be too blunt about it, my position was correct and Collect's was incorrect.

If you'd prefer not to read the entire fiasco, I will distill it for you:

1) WP:BLP states that editors should "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is... a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)"

2) Collect prefers to believe that the policy actually means this: "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing". However, this is plainly not what the policy says; were the policy to mean this, it would need to be rewritten.

3) Collect has authoritatively insisted to other users, some of whom may have been newcomers, that his reading of this policy was correct.

4) In this way, Collect was effectively making up his own policy simply by dint of being pushy and verbose and making a major time committment to argumentation, all while being fundamentally wrong about the policy he was arguing; he seems to edit roughly 12 hours a day, a time committment few other editors can match regardless of whether they are right or wrong on policy. When coupled with an editor who feels infallible, it makes fertile ground for argument by filibuster, or another fallacious tactic Collect seems to favor, the "argument from authority" (e.g. an implied or expressed assertion to the effect of "seven thousand edits, three decades on the Internet, and many years as an AOL admin make me an expert...")

5) If a habit, this would be a terrible and destructive habit for a Wikipedia editor to have; it would also be terrible and destructive for such a habit to go unnoticed.

This is much worse, and more difficult to spot, than the basic edit warring, POV-pushing, and incivility. However, I am not looking for an expansion of the measures you take against Collect. I simply wish that you would impress upon him that his powers of analysis are not infinite and that he should try to learn to better recognize when his position is in the wrong, and in these cases, openly and perhaps apologetically concede the argument to the other party. My fear is that your comments about his "sound understanding of BLP" may have the effect of validating what I see as Collect's tendency to think that he is always right.

My request is that you please address this issue with Collect, and perhaps make a note of it in your comments at the RFC, before it gets too far out of hand. And of course, if your consideration of the situation results in you coming up with some advice for me, (e.g. "Actually you are wrong on that policy because..."), I am all ears. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think his implementation of BLP has been flawed because he has tended to apply it only when the outcome agreed with his own PoV. If he again cites WP:BLP in a way which you find worrisome, please let me (or another admin) know, with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heritage homes of Sydney

Regarding the above article, I have read your explanations of why articles get speedy deletion, and none of it seems to fit this particular article.

For a start, the article is not new. It has been there for a year or more.

I have been working on the article lately and there was no tag placed on it saying it was nominated for speedy deletion or any other kind of deletion.

The article has notable content. All homes in the article are heritage-listed, with only one exception. Most of them are mentioned in numerous publications precisely because they are notable heritage items. Some of them have their own WP articles. I don't know how anyone can say the content is not notable.

Your comments will be appreciated.

Sardaka (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that I've ever had anything to do with Heritage homes of Sydney. Are you asking for my help? If so, what kind of help do you need? Please give me some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact Tags

Gwen, as Hoary seems to be busy in RL, could you please comment on this series of edits?

It seems to me that either one of us has a wrong comprehension of Fact Tags.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Opinoso has added a citation in answer to the fact tag and seems to think the assertion is supported by one of the already cited sources, Imigração portuguesa. Do you agree? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked it. My problem is with he contesting my placing of a Fact Tag. Can I place Fact Tags on unsourced information? If not, what are Fact Tags for? Donadio (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

He didn't contest your fact tag, which was a request for a source: He added a source, as requested. Any editor can in good faith add a fact tag to unsourced content, or even remove that content if it can be meaningfully disputed. I think you both should stop talking about other editors, stop trying to get each other sanctioned and talk only about content and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

His edit summary was:

(Why not read the sources avaible in this same session before posting a fact tag?)

I think this is a contestation of the placing of the Fact Tag.

I am not interested in talking about him. I am interested in knowing whether I can place Fact Tags when I find unsourced information, or if it is my obligation to research possible sources for such information before placing the Fact Tags, or to read all the references to the article to see if one of them already contains the information. Is it?

Now that you asked, I have checked the information and its source; they do not match. The figures attributed to the Japanese in the text are referred to the Germans in the source. Donadio (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if that's what you think, put a note about this on the article talk page, asking Opinoso what he had in mind (be civil) and wait for his answer, if any. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody confused Japanese with German. A small mistake that can easily be solved (and I already did it). Opinoso (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So, back to topic. Is it my obligation to research possible sources for information before placing the Fact Tags, or to read all the references to the article to see if one of them already contains the information? Donadio (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The answers are a) no and b) maybe, since if you're in this kind of content dispute with someone, it's more or less hopeless if you don't more or les thoroughly know the sources being cited. Not only are the two of you highly PoV (not neutral) and still making little snipes at each other, but you're both sloppy in dealing with sources. Unless you both become more heedful of how articles are grown on this website, the outcome won't be happy. However, Donadio, thank you for now making a strong effort to build text on the talk pages first and talking about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would appreciate if you can poing exactly where I am not being "neutral", where I have been "making little snipes" against whomever, and exactly where I have been "sloppy in dealing with sources". Reviewing my recent posts, I don't see any of that. While this may be boring, I hope you understand that it's almost impossible to avoid doing those things if I am unaware of doing them, and then only pointed, in a very general and unspecific way, that I am "not being neutral", or that I am "making little snipes" or "being sloppy with sources". Can you be specific, please? Preferably, without mentioning whether the other editor is, or is not, doing the same? Donadio (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

either one of us has a wrong comprehension is a snipe. A controversial or disputed article not only can, but should carry many and sundry sourced PoVs on a topic. Neutrality means being able to do that without being nudged by others (or staying away from the article altogether if you can't), even if you don't agree with all or any of those PoVs: Try finding ways to blend Opinoso's PoV, insofar as it can be sourced, into the text along with your own. Opinoso should try the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did ask you to please answer my question without mentioning "the other editor". Since you again brought him into the issue, I am going to take the opportunity to make a few mentions of him. Sorry.

I have no problems with including other editors PoV' in the topics, as long as it is properly sourced. I have a problem with anything that I try to bring to the articles being immediately erased out, usually with an offensive edit summary, even if it is sourced, and even if "the other editor" perfectly knows the information is true (do you want examples?)

"either one of us has a wrong comprehension" (of Fact Tags) isn't, as far as can understand, a snipe. It is the aknowledgement of a fact. How are you reading that phrase into a snipe, can you please explain? Again, if possible, without bringing "the other editor" into discussion?

Now, if you were right, and "either one of us has a wrong comprehension" can be reasonably construed as a snipe, then I must vehemently object to your saying that "the other editor" has been making "little snipes" at me. Whatever things like those he has recently posted in your Talk Page, in Hoary's Talk Page, or in German Brazilian Talk Page, actually are, they certainly don't match the same category as "either one of us has a wrong comprehension".

I see that you haven't brought any concrete example of "sloppiness with sources" that I might have incurred in. Please, can you show me where have I been "sloppy with sources"? Again, pretty please, without mentioning the other editor? I am not interested at all in discussing whether he is doing anything wrong. I am interested in improving my editing, and I don't think I am going to improve my edits by reading general statements about what he is doing, not doing, or should be doing. Thanks in advance. Donadio (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoary's been helping you out with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield disagreements

Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Americanchronicle.com and TMZ.com (again) sources removed. I posted a request at WP:BLPN#David Copperfield (illusionist), but wanted your awareness and any input as well. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on both pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't you sometimes wish you could just turn the hose on the lot of us? Flowanda | Talk 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

7 days

[8]. Collect is editing The Drudge Report, a political hot button article. While admittedly a soft edit he was instructed to stay away from political articles of all kinds for all reasons except vandalism. The edit he changed was not vandalism! Also, can you clarify for those of us still concerned if your ban extends to the appropriate talk page as well as the article page. Since most of the editors responding had problems with Collect at the talk pages of various articles, it should.--Buster7 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tell Collect to stay away from political articles. As the unblocking admin (after his block for edit warring and his promises in the aftermath), I restricted collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months. The edit you've shown me is not a revert, but a wording tweak (and I would agree with fixing most sentences which carry two words from the same Latin root, as he did). Moreover I didn't ban him from any talk pages. If he reverts something or become tendentious, let me or another admin know. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. I over-stretched your ban 0rr to more than BLP's. Sorry to bother you. --Buster7 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no ban at all, it's 0rr (no reverts). This would mean The Drudge Report, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought 0rr was a reference to Bobby Orr. a Hall of Fame NHL hockey player. Heck...I only recently was informed that BLP did Not mean Bacon, Lettuce and Pickles.....--Buster7 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows 0rr is a kind of rock and BLP is bacon and lettuce pye. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged BLP violation

I'd like to escalate your actions on removing details of the Paris Match lawsuit from the Talk page as a BLP violation. I believe you are wrong. This was an event in Copperfield's life that was reported in true reliable sources. I think you are misinterpreting BLP and I'd like other eyes please. ► RATEL ◄ 11:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More input is welcome. You can ask at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Copperfield_.28illusionist.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Too busy now. Not urgent, will give this attention in the next few wks. ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think using a BLP article to see how closely and flagrantly you can skirt the terms of your last block is in itself a gross violation of BLP. Ratel's statements since redacting the talk page content shows no willingness to take responsbility for his own actions or acknowledgement that his edits clearly violated BLP policy; it appears he thinks he redacted the content due to "peer pressure" by vengeful editors who are stalking him. I ask that Ratel be reblocked until he agrees to editing sanctions that carry immediate consequences when violated or skirted. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I redacted the BLP violations on the DC talkpage, Ratel did not, so far as I am aware. I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. To me, that just makes this latest situation worse...and I see no end to this cycle of abusive and disrupting editing until Ratel is held accountable for his actions. He clearly shows no willingness to take responsibility or change his behaviour on his own. I'm not disagreeing with your decision, just clarifying my position. Flowanda | Talk 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. Let me have your thoughts and please mind, I told him I'd block him if he kept on with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A warning just slows him down for a day or two. Flowanda | Talk 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Celtic cross

I thought you might like to change your cross or just have a look at this one from Tideswell .

File:Tissington Church cross.jpg

(Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for showing me this, but there's a 21st century car in the background and the stone's not mossy :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing notability tag from Thomas DiLorenzo

Whats up with removing my notability tags from Thomas DiLorenzo? I can understand it if you dont agree with me, but you should know that you cant just remove tags without making some effort to address the concerns expressed. Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't slap a tag on the article and be done with it. The topic is notable and you haven't supported the tag on the article talk page, which you must do. If you have meaningful worries about the topic's notability, take it to articles for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Even trivial wording changes are now being reverted <g>. I think one editor is substantially not even reading what he reverts. [9] Collect (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Collect editing political pages like Drudge Report without consequence, in direct contravention of the strictures recently placed upon him by you, Gwen Gale? ► RATEL ◄ 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never saw that on the RfC. Might want to read it again. Soxwon (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, re-reading I see it's only a reversion restriction. Pity. But there's still the "tendentiously or disruptively" clause. By Talk-challenging my revert that replaced a necessary sentence segment, he's skirting that one. ► RATEL ◄ 01:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, your word isn't law. He's allowed to have a freaking opinion for God's sake. Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Necessary"? I trust that most people when you say a site has ads that they can figger out that it gets revenue from the ads. As for the other reverts you made of my major changes --- I suggest that some might, in fact, find your revert petty. And I doubt really that removing the word "out" where it is not needed is "disruptive" to anyone at all. But heck, some might think you are chasing every single edit I make to see if Gwen will block me. Sad, really. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Think you're being stalked? Not a nice feeling, is it? ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One can't infer revenue by seeing ads on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

socks in the drawer

About this, I've long said that en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be amazed at who runs some of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like finding gambling going on at Rick's Cafe? I stand strongly by my estimates of "alternate personas" for sure. Collect (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"We'll always have Paris." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Place de la SST? Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Concorde était beau, mais c'était une arnaque socialiste/fasciste des années soixantes. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mais le Concorde - c'est finis. Collect (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ba oui, c'est le but. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the idoms -- but Google translate does not. Collect (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I said, "yeah, that's what I'm sayin'" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My loose translation was "Oh yeah, that was my point." -- Close enough? Collect (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The point, aye! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound understanding of BLP policy (restored)

I've restored this conversation as I still had a comment for you to address.

Gwen, I appreciate the actions you took with respect to the RFC, but I do have one significant objection.

You specifically state in your comments that "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP". I am sure that this is true to an extent, but I believe that by saying this, you seem to be implying that problems with Collect's behavior are strictly procedural, i.e., merely that he may sometimes behave improperly while arguing in favor of a perfectly correct viewpoint. Again, I am sure this is sometimes or even often the case, but the way you have worded the compliment appears to deny that he is ever wrong – a sentiment that Collect, all too often, appears to share.

I believe it would go a long way in positively influencing Collect's behavior, for him to arrive upon a definitive understanding that his understanding of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:BLP) might, at times, be critically flawed. However, I believe that it would take someone of admin stature definitively telling Collect he is wrong on a specific policy interpretation in order for him to realize that his grasp of policy may be fallible, and also to recognize that in some cases there is no room for a substantive difference of opinion, but rather a correct intepretation and an incorrect interpretation.

It is partly to this end that I requested that you comment specifically on the "Argument with Collect" which I memorialized in its own page which you then userfied. To wit, in that argument, not to be too blunt about it, my position was correct and Collect's was incorrect.

If you'd prefer not to read the entire fiasco, I will distill it for you:

1) WP:BLP states that editors should "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is... a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)"

2) Collect prefers to believe that the policy actually means this: "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing". However, this is plainly not what the policy says; were the policy to mean this, it would need to be rewritten.

3) Collect has authoritatively insisted to other users, some of whom may have been newcomers, that his reading of this policy was correct.

4) In this way, Collect was effectively making up his own policy simply by dint of being pushy and verbose and making a major time committment to argumentation, all while being fundamentally wrong about the policy he was arguing; he seems to edit roughly 12 hours a day, a time committment few other editors can match regardless of whether they are right or wrong on policy. When coupled with an editor who feels infallible, it makes fertile ground for argument by filibuster, or another fallacious tactic Collect seems to favor, the "argument from authority" (e.g. an implied or expressed assertion to the effect of "seven thousand edits, three decades on the Internet, and many years as an AOL admin make me an expert...")

5) If a habit, this would be a terrible and destructive habit for a Wikipedia editor to have; it would also be terrible and destructive for such a habit to go unnoticed.

This is much worse, and more difficult to spot, than the basic edit warring, POV-pushing, and incivility. However, I am not looking for an expansion of the measures you take against Collect. I simply wish that you would impress upon him that his powers of analysis are not infinite and that he should try to learn to better recognize when his position is in the wrong, and in these cases, openly and perhaps apologetically concede the argument to the other party. My fear is that your comments about his "sound understanding of BLP" may have the effect of validating what I see as Collect's tendency to think that he is always right.

My request is that you please address this issue with Collect, and perhaps make a note of it in your comments at the RFC, before it gets too far out of hand. And of course, if your consideration of the situation results in you coming up with some advice for me, (e.g. "Actually you are wrong on that policy because..."), I am all ears. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think his implementation of BLP has been flawed because he has tended to apply it only when the outcome agreed with his own PoV. If he again cites WP:BLP in a way which you find worrisome, please let me (or another admin) know, with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Gwen. However, I'm not sure the point has gotten across.

I would appreciate if you would please directly acknowledge that Collect's understanding of BLP policy was, in this case, objectively and substantively incorrect.

As I said before, it is problematic when an editor is completely wrong on a policy, but behaves in a pushy and insistent manner in attempting to get other users to abide by that critically mistaken interpretation of policy. This wasn't a problem with poor implementation of policy, but rather poor understanding of it, and consequently there was an attempt to implement something which was not policy, under the guise of policy.

Perhaps you feel that this is a mere semantic quibble, but you did seem to be saying that this was not an issue of flawed understanding of policy -- which it certainly was. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if you would not misstate my positions on BLP. Ascribing quotes to me which I did not write is not a good way to procede. at all. Thank you most kindly, but such fake quotes do not help anyone at all. And use of fake quotes as a straw man argement does not work either. So please cease ascribing words to me which are not mine, positions to me which are not mine and faults to me which are not mine. Thank you most kindly (and any fact checker will find that the "quotes" are fake). Collect (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: you argued that conjectural statements are prohibited by BLP policy. That's not a distortion or a straw man – it's exactly what you were arguing, demonstrated by the record of what you actually said. And it was provably wrong. You need to come to terms with the fact that you are sometimes wrong about things, even subjects to which you may have devoted a great deal of thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You most kindly, Collect, for providing proof that Editor:Fcays concerns are right on the money. Rather than respond with a valid defense, you point the finger right back. Fcays is not ascribing quotes to you. He has accurately "phrased" you position. He is paraphrasing your actions and deeds into clear and concise statements that all can understand. He is not claiming that these are your quotes. I certainly don't read them as your quotes. If anyone is making a knowingly false claim it is you. No strawman argement except yours. Editor:Fcays has accurately stated your constant position on BLP's. The fact that you can't, or won't, see it is his point to Administor:Gwen Gale.--Buster7 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Neat-o ... try reading "Collect prefers to believe that the policy actually means this: "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing". However, this is plainly not what the policy says; were the policy to mean this, it would need to be rewritten." without getting the impression that "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing" is presented as a quote -- or do you routinely assume that quotation marks arounfd a long sentence do not indicate a quote? As for your personal attack -- you can place it with the myriad other attacks you made. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Collect, you most certainly were arguing that conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within BLPs. In fact, you probably spent about a thousand words viciously and insultingly arguing that exact point, insisting on rejecting black letter Wikipedia policy, and I won't even discuss at this time the various forms of ill behavior you exhibited while doing so, nor the outrageous accusations you're now making here in lieu of simply admitting you were wrong on a cut-and-dry policy which is not really amenable to differing interpretations.

For Gwen, on to the diffs. Please note that the diffs begin before I noticed this discussion and got involved.

(1) The dispute appears to have begun with this diff, in which another user working on the Sarah Palin article adds material on speculation about a 2012 Sarah Palin Presidential bid, and her own comments denying that she would be interested. The material itself was never really a concern to me, but on its face, the sourcing seems to be solid and the subject matter well within line of BLP policy. However, Collect's subsequent response – deleting the material and then providing a false justification for doing so – seems to have been completely inappropriate, and compounded by his refusal to admit any mistake.

(2) Collect deleted the material in this diff, with the edit summary reading, "2012 speculation in a BLP????"

(3) The user who added the material posted this question on Collect's talk page: "In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?"

(4) Collect responds that the reason it violates WP:BLP is because it contains conjecture. Specifically, he says that it "fails the 'conjecture' part of BLP", without any explanation of what "the 'conjecture' part of BLP" is. Indeed, his edit summary for his response simply reads, "Conjecture".

(5) Weeks later, I see this discussion at Collect's talk page and realize that it is eerily similar to similar discussions, previously repeated ad nauseam, on the same subject, and others in which Collect has authoritatively said that "facts are what belong in a BLP" (his words) while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that facts about opinions are still facts, and can be appropriate in a BLP if the opinions referenced are sufficiently sourced, relevant, and notable.

(6) Sensing what I felt sure was a pattern of rule-twisting, I became involved in the discussion by pointing out that BLP policy does not prohibit conjecture.

(7) Collect presents the following text as evidence for his claim that conjectural statements are prohibited in BLPs: "Remove any contentious material about living persons... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)". He also immediately escalates the tone of the discussion by applying the colorful edit summary "Chutzpah at your service" (presumably a play on my name), and accusing me of seeking to intimidate him.

(8) Frustrated by the fact that I have already repeatedly explained this to Collect and he simply ignores me, I point out that the language he has just cited does not support the claim that conjecture is prohibited in a BLP, and I proceed to explain what the language actually means. In other words, I explain that conjectural interpretations of a source are prohibited, exactly as the policy states, and that this is simply an extension of WP:NOR, because if an editor makes a "conjectural interpretation" of a source he is adding his own conjecture rather than simply reflecting what the source says -- which would clearly be WP:Original Research, as just mentioned.

(9) Collect, colorfully and with a great deal of verbiage and suggestions that I get myself a dictionary, refuses to acknowledge this, saying that the policy is open to multiple interpretations and that his interpretation is just as valid as my own. (I'd like to point out, again, that his "interpretation" is not in any way supported by the language he cites, nor does the language itself appear to be ambiguous in any way.)

(10) The discussion degenerates even further and ends with Collect refusing to acknowledge that he was mistaken, and insisting that his personal "interpretation" of the specific BLP language is uniquely correct.

(The entire discussion can be found here. My delightfully annotated version, which I presented to the RF/C as evidence of what a surreal experience it is to debate something with Collect, can be found here.)

• All I ask, Gwen, is that you authoritatively confirm the following statement: The language in BLP policy which prohibits conjectural interpretations of a source, pursuant to WP:NOR, means exactly what it says: an editor may not make a contentious edit that is a conjectural interpretation of a source within the context of a BLP. It does not say, nor does it mean, that all conjecture should be removed from BLPs regardless of sourcing. Yet this was precisely what Collect was arguing.

• Even now, Collect will not even acknowledge that he may have been mistaken at any point – instead, he is right here on your Talk Page accusing me of lying about him and manufacturing "fake quotes" (his words) which he claims bear no relation to anything he has actually said. In reality, you can quickly confirm that I have paraphrased Collect's debate position quite accurately. This is precisely the problem I am talking about. When Collect feels he has lost an argument, or simply does not like what another editor is saying, he resorts immediately and without hesitation to character assassination. This does not appear to have changed at all subsequent to the recent interventions, and it's a really awful and counterproductive trait which does harm to other editors and to Wikipedia itself. A lesson on fallibility is all I ask you to deliver, as I think the rest of the problems might then correct themselves.

Thanks for your time (by now, lots of it). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa! I read this section in an idle moment, and see that the complaints presented by the other editors about Collect are completely correct. Their arguments are logical and sound. Collect has definitely misinterpreted the BLP policy. Put simply: Sourced facts about published conjecture ╪ editor making a conjectural statement. Waiting for Gwen to respond! ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This section had already been deleted. Meanwhile, I do not really think a person who has called me "deranged" and worse has much credibility here. As for your position on BLP, I think that also has been noted. I do not believe WP should compete with the National Enquirer and Paris Match. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That statement is a red herring, Collect. Why not simply admit you are wrong on this issue? We'd all think more of you for it. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually cited my position on BLP accurately, fine. When gross misstatements are told it becomes hard to say "when I stopped beating my proverbial wife." And the more times a distortion is posted, does not make it any less a distortion. Your position on BLP, that we should deliberately seek out defamatory material, is, moreover, quote repugnamt to me. WP ought not be the National Enquirer, while some seem to think the National Enquirer is precisely what we should use as a reliable source. Calling a request for honest discussion a "red herring" is, moreover, not helpful for the project. Collect (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(posted after Buster's comment) Collect: the only person here citing your position on BLP is me, and I am doing it quite accurately and with direct reference to the things you actually said. No misstatements, gross or otherwise. It's all there in the diffs. Plus, your comment which Ratel referred to as a "red herring" consisted entirely of personal attacks so it's difficult to imagine how you see that as a "request for honest discussion" rather than an attempt to change the subject away from the policy debate in which your position was wrong. Honest discussion is already being had, regardless of whether you choose to participate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Respond to Editor:Fact checker, Collect. Don't use Editor:Ratel as a smokescreen. Your tactics are too obvious.--Buster7 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect and BLP

• That happened seven months ago, it's all stale now.
• Someone can have a sound understanding of a policy and twist it to editing towards their own PoV, which as I said in my close of the RfC as the unblocking admin, is what I think Collect did. Either way, it doesn't matter, the outcome or behaviour is all that needs any heed. If he has done this again lately, or does it again, please let me or another admin know about it, with diffs.
• I think the lot of you should stop talking about each other now and start over, dealing only with sources and content.
• Collect, this means you, too. Please stop talking about other editors. By trying to shift the topic away from your own edit warring behaviour you often bring yourself to the very cliffs of personal attack and stir up more kerfluffle. This could become blockable.
• Had arbcom taken the RfAr, it's likely a few of you would have been sanctioned by its broad scythe along with Collect. If it winds up there again, good luck.
• Y'all, please take my hint and stop bickering. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

I am not trying to bicker, Gwen. Collect, if you'll notice, is the one who is trying to inject character attacks into this discussion... right here in plain view on your talk page. I have a straightforward question, on a straightforward subject; I'm trying to get a straightforward answer out of an admin, and having precious little luck.

Please directly and explicitly confirm the following (2) numbered statements:

• (1) From the Talk Page text referenced above, it is obvious that Collect was arguing that BLP policy prohibits conjectural statements, regardless of whether he was aware or unaware that this is not what the policy says.

• (2) This position, stated above, is incorrect. Perhaps Collect knew it was incorrect and deliberately chose to distort the policy in order to achieve his preferred outcome. Perhaps he just didn't get it. Whatever the case, the position was incorrect.

Additionally, please note that since Collect is now vehemently claiming that this is not what he was arguing, he is now openly lying right in front of an admin, which ought to give any WP editor pause. Not only is he lying about statements he has made on record, but the admin he's doing it in front of has already been made aware of that record, which makes it even more disturbing that he would be so bold. In order for discussions on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) to have any meaning, it simply cannot be acceptable to say something and then go back and say you never said it.

Gwen, mentoring and providing advice to an editor is one thing; fostering an environment where the editor feels comfortable escalating his problematic behavior, engaging in ad hominem attacks, and lying about statements he has previously made on record, is entirely different. I fear that you are going to be a bad influence on Collect because you seem barely willing to seriously criticize, contradict, or sanction him. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since neither of you can say anything in 1,000 words or less, or not have the last word, please let me save all of you some time and provide the Wikitwitter version:

• F: He's wrong!
• C: Am not!
• F: Are too!
• G: Diffs please.
• F: See! He won't play by the rules!
• C: Do too!
• F: Do not!
• G: Diffs please.
• F: Make him stop!
• C: Can't make me
• G: Can too.
• F: He's your pet!
• G: Is not!
• C: Is too!
• G: I have a fire hose and I'm ready to use it.
• G & C: Are not!

Flowanda | Talk 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How boring, not even clever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Clever, I am not. But I didn't mean to offend, either...I'm pretty sure I've played that scene a few times myself. Sorry. Flowanda | Talk 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the world's a stage, I guess :) No worries! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fc, I agree with much of what you've said. I don't think Collect is lying, I think he's so wrapped up in his own wikilawyering that he shifts his own outlook at will, without wholly groking he's doing so, to skirt owning up to his own behaviour. I can't block him for doing this on my talk page. I can't block him for stuff he did before the RfC. If I seem like I'm being too easy on Collect, the truth is, I'm going easy on all of you, hoping everyone will stop attacking each other. I still don't think you understand that others along with Collect would likely have been sanctioned by arbcom had they taken on the RfAr. If Collect makes any reverts as sanctioned by me (the unblocking admin), I'll block him. If he becomes tendentious on an article talk page, or edit wars through wee wordings rather than reverts, I'll either start a thread at ANI about disruption or block him straight off. If he's stirring up worries now, other than on my talk page, give me diffs and I'll take admin action now. Collect, what do you have to say about this? I'm not happy with how you've handled the aftermath of the RfAr and RfC. Fc, are you willing to forget the bygone and give me diffs only having to do with Collect's edits after the RfC? Please let me have your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have sought utterly to comply with your stipulations. I do feel the multiple CUs, RFCUs, SPIs, ANis, WQAs, RFAR and the like have made me a bit testy, and the badgering which continues on multiple pages is not helping much. I do not actually like being called a "nut case" and "deranged" and worse and being given a cite for "brain damage" which I rather think is not a productive mode of discussion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But your own behaviour had nothing to do with it I guess. Wake up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen,

Sorry – another long post. While this isn't everything I had hoped for (with regards to a specific pronouncement on the policy debate), I am now satisfied that you have a relatively full view of the situation. I do also recognize it's not your obligation to make sure that I am satisfied with your decisions and statements – nor have I been especially shy about bringing these issues to your talk page. I can't dictate to Collect what he takes home from any given discussion, but I had hoped we would reach a point where he would feel comfortable saying, and feel the need to say, something like, "Gee, I actually was wrong on that one point. Sorry to give you such a hard time about it."

Gwen, I just hope you will watch out that Collect does not make a habit of playing the "edge case", where behavior which might be called "marginally but systematically disruptive" serves as a substitute for the outright edit-warring and uncivil behavior of months past. Still, I am willing to let the water pass under the bridge and be satisfied that the matter is in your hands; and in any case I suspect I will have few run-ins with Collect going forward. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Collect has at least acknowledged and apologized for edit warring, it's true he hasn't much acknowledged the worries others have had about tendentiousness and what I'd call "edge warring." I hope I've been straightforward enough, you or any editor shouldn't be at all shy about coming to me or another admin if Collect reverts, otherwise edit wars, wikilawyers over content and so forth. If you do have a later disagreement with Collect, don't comment on him at all, go straight to an admin, since both the RfAr decline comments and RfC close are there to be cited. Collect, I'm truly hoping you'll try to get along with these other editors even if you don't take to their PoVs. Likewise, don't comment on them either. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Lancelot

Gwen Gale, why do you and user:LadyofShalott have the same image on your userpage? Are you related? Also, the poem seems a bit dated. Isn't there something from pop-culture you can use that I would be able to relate to instead? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Happenstance. As for the poem, I don't have it anywhere in my userspace, never have. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think you two should Ro-sham-bo for the privilege of hosting the image? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's so daunting, I feel so betrayed, that someone would put the same GFDL snap as I on their talk page. I hum a song of woe and nobody cares, I think I'll go eat grass. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue at all... why? LadyofShalott 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue at all. Purely random curiousity. I don't completely understand the poem's significance or why two different and apparently unrelated users would choose it for their user page. So I was curious about it, wondering what I'm missing. I apologize if I caused any consternation. I've asked the other Lady about it as well, but I guess it's just a popular painting? rhyme? symbol? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Yes, the poem and the painting are both very well known. The painting is quite possibly Waterhouse's most famous work.{fact - I don't know that for certain, but I strongly suspect it to be the case.} You asked for pop culture - well, Loreena McKennitt is quite popular, and she has a beautiful musical setting of the poem. LadyofShalott 02:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was still responding to Gwen which is why I said "I've asked the other Lady". Anyway, I hope no one feels I am making any sort of insinuation or trying to stir up trouble. I truly was just curious about the works, their relevance and significance, and how that all relates to y'all putting them emblematically on your user pages. I have more specific questions, but I was trying to be discreet and circumspect. I understand that curiousity killed the cat, so I'm going to return to my cave now, having learned only that grass eating is a sign of woe, and that Loreena McKennitt is considered by some to be a representative of popular culture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus

Hi. FYI I've left a question at Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered there. Personal attacks aren't allowed on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct; blatant personal attacks are not allowed. However, don't you think a week for a borderline-uncivil comment is a bit punitive? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make it for 31 hours but had a look at his block log. Then, 5 minutes ago, I was about to unblock Malleus owing to what I see as a lack of consensus, but he seems to be gleeful about it, saying, "bye bye Wikipedia" (see also the text at the top of his user page). I'm happy to go along with consensus on this and have yet to see a post supporting this block. What do you think? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment that makes it clear that your use of "personal attacks" is 100% against the letter and spirit of NPA and that you have been here long enough to know that. Not only was there no object of the "attack", the characterization is 100% acceptable per long standing community consensus on describing actions and behavior and ignoring the real life characterizations of an individual. An RfC will be filed later over this and your recent history of very bad blocks based on poor judgment later unless you make the appropriate steps towards rectifying the situation via apologizing to Malleus for such a clear overstepping of your authority. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck in your deconstruction of en.Wikipedia. Maybe that's what it needs, let the free market of ideas have sway. Speaking only for myself, I only use the bit to implement consensus. I blocked Malleus owing to the consensus-driven policy WP:NPA and I unblocked Malleus owing to the consensus that his remarks were not a PA but a supportable observation that many admins are indeed sycopantic wannabees. Some are also sockpuppeteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For something controversial and non-urgent like that don't you think the wise thing should have been to get consensus first? Rather than wondering which way consensus is likely to go after the event. Seems to me to be the commonsense way of going about things. Maybe that's just me though? --WebHamster 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deconstruction of Wikipedia? My dear, I have spent more hours in my short time here building up this encyclopedia to a high quality level than anything I have witnessed from you. Your actions took a policy that was created to protect content editors, removed the need for an object, removed the whole idea of "personal", and then applied it in order to bring harm to a content editor. You have defiled the very purpose of the rule, have abused the community's long term consensus on the matter, and brought harm to a long standing high quality content editor. You have attacked the heart, spirit, and strength, of Wikipedia in one move. You owe him an apology. You cannot simply "unblock" the attack upon him. You must apologize and make amends in order to remedy the harm that you brought about. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've attacked the " heart, spirit, and strength, of Wikipedia in one move." I think WP:NPA needs a rewrite. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can think that as long as you want, but the community disagrees and you contradicted the community. You owe an apology to Malleus for this action. This is the last time I will state the bloody obvious on the matter, as I will be devoting my time to compiling the rest of the evidence for the RfC if you refuse to extend Malleus the most basic of courtesies after making such a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I implemented community consensus. I do think the community might want to rewrite WP:NPA and I'll be happy to abide by whatever new policy is set forth there. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You implemented it after incorrectly guessing what it would be in the first place. You have to admit that makes your assessment skills look rather dodgy? Like I know what your answer will be! --WebHamster 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only for vandalism, Webhamster. You abused it and it was taken away from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And that validates your dodgy decision how? --WebHamster 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like baiting to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some have said I'm a master at it. I disagree. --WebHamster 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a vast difference between "abused" and "misused". Not that I would expect you to understand that, what with your delineation of write (sic) and wrong processes being a tad dodgy and all. --WebHamster 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will use the above as evidence in the RfC if I do not see an apologize coming after I make this very clear - "I implemented community consensus". WP:NPA 1. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Who was the contributor that was object to the comment? There was none provided, so there is no way that this falls under "personal". 2. "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" - Calling someone a sycophant by definition is a comment on an action, as sycophant is a modifier dealing with -behavior- and only -behavior-. These two points are 100% essential to the community's definition of a "personal attack" and wont change because the dictionary definition of both "personal" and "attack" match exactly what the policy states as intended. You blocked without having an object while the comment was about a behavior. This is 100% against acceptable. This is now 100% clear to you. Now you can apologize (as many others have requested you to do), or you can most likely be desysopped for making it clear that you don't understand the community's most basic of policies nor do you make the even basic attempt to correct these violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We disagree. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on what? You have not provided an object for part 1, and part 2 is very simple. Now, part 3 is this "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Now, since consensus made it clear that you were wrong about him making a personal attack, you have to apologize in order to strike your own personal attack. So, on top of you owing an apology for a very bad block that went against policy, you have to make amends to prevent your own being blocked. Perhaps you wouldn't mind a desysopping for abuse and a lack of accepting our policies, but you might actually care about being blocked for the disruption and attacks you have made? It isn't cowardice to admit one made a mistake an apologize for it, so why not just do the right thing? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What do I care about? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yourself? Your status? Not being blocked? Anything? There are plenty of reasons why there is one logical and easy choice to make, and yet you refuse. So, perhaps you care about nothing. It was pointed out that there was no object to the term sycophant, and pointed out by another that NPA needs an object. You blocked anyway, even though NPA makes it clear that they were right. You claimed there was an attack, even though NPA states that making such claims is a personal attack. You assumed there was an object, even though AGF alone would tell you that your assumption is inappropriate. You have disrupted the encyclopedia by hassling one of our top content contributors and blocking him against policy. You also show a disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. Do you actually care about the encyclopedia at all? I haven't seen any action from you as of late that suggests you do. You have claimed that policies should be rewritten, that mistakes don't need to be apologized for, and that harm can be done without even feeling the least bit bad for it. You were blocked many, many times before and was even restricted by ArbCom. Your attitudes show a return to such previous state of acting. A simple apology would go far to showing that you are actually here to help and not harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening Gwen with an RfC if she doesn't apologize and appropriately grovel seems a bit much as far as perverted justice goes. If, however, someone proposed a policy whereby non-admin editors were able to impose this kind of thing as a formalized punishment when admin actions go against community consensus it might be kind of fun... But seriously, I think this campaign has gone far enough Ottava. If you thought an apology was appropriate, a polite request for one would have been a better way to go about it. There's certainly a gray area involved here, and splitting hairs over wording and definitions of what is and isn't a personal attack doesn't seem useful. It comes down to judgment. I'd like to see more restraint on admins part, they need to use discussion and to exercise restraint just like the rest of us do when dealing with frustrating circumstances, but the apology by way of threat approach is rather unseemly even if it were complied with. And yes I know that this is often how it's done when the roles are reversed, but hopefully that will change some day soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people have asked for an apology, and multiple people have stated that there is more than enough to certify. Will I pursue the RfC if she apologizes? No. However, I feel that an RfC is more than due. But here is the thing - I expected that she wouldn't apologize because she thinks what she did in usurping the community's authority, blocking against policy, violating NPA, Civil, and the rest, and causing harm and disruption, means that she should probably be desysopped and blocked for at least a month as the only way to prevent future behavior like this from happening. Perhaps a month block would be a lesson not to allow her to have sysopping especially after multiple blocks and a maybe ArbCom statement saying that she completely abused her status as an editor. There was no justification for her actions or treatment of Malleus. You know it, I know it, and regardless of what she may say, Gwen knows it. It is impossible for her not to read the extremely clear statements at NPA and think that a comment without an object, stated to not have an object, could even come close to meeting the requirements for NPA. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. She can redeem herself via apology, but she probably wont even though that option has been laid out before her by multiple parties and is rather easy to take. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have to say, as someone embroiled in this brouhaha, that what Gwen showed was a lack of judgement, in my parlance, a "fuck up". I don't think she should be subjected to an RFC or a blocking, or even a bollocking and/pr then make an apology to Malleus simply for a fuck-up. I think all of those sanctions are pretty much useless in the scheme of things and will serve no purpose from a project standpoint. What is needed is something that gets the point across to Gwen, improves the project and help stop this sort of thing happening again. I'd suggest that Gwen make a voluntary effort to spend a full week editing and discussing at WP:NPA and it's talk page to see if she can actually do something to improve it. Just a suggestion, I'll go back into my corner now. --WebHamster 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How dare you say I fucked up ;) Isn't that a personal attack? Shouldn't you be blocked for that? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if you wanted to fuck up ;) --WebHamster 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, this was a personal attack aimed at one of the three admins who supported WH's loss of rollback. Policy is no longer in line with consensus, hence I unblocked. I think the place to talk about this is Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks, but that's me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have even the vaguest glimmerings of what the word "truth" actually means? Who was the individual being "personally attacked" in your opinion? Surely a "personal attack" must have a target? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the loopy dialectics about truth. Yes, you straightforwardly called one of the 4 admins involved (none of which was me), one of the three who supported the action, a sycophantic wannabee. That's a personal attack. Doesn't matter which one, it was aimed at whomever you had in mind. I'll not play your house game by dropping usernames to and fro. I'd unblocked you months ago when I mistakenly thought you'd undertaken to be more civil. As the unblocking admin, I took further action. If policy has fallen out of line with community consensus, which it may have done, I'm ok with that and either way, I implemented consensus and swiftly unblocked you. I understand that your rudeness and wanton snark are wholly supported by many editors and trust me, I can happily, easily deal with that. Maybe the project needs a bit more snark, let's see how it spins out. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the admin version of Where's Wally? --WebHamster 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're baiting now, WH. Take it elsewhere, or nowhere, but not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Master WH to you Ms Gale! Do you a deal. You unwatch my talk page and I'll do the same to you. In any case there's bugger all perch round here that I can see. --WebHamster 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A lady and a scholar. But an empty damned fish pond! --WebHamster 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinkin' ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It might go easier for you in future if you took the trouble to check your facts before over-reacting to a non-existent problem. Why do you assume I was referring to an admin? Is User:Blaxthos an admin, for instance? Does it really make a difference whether my comment was directed towards an admin or not? Are you really all such sensitive flowers that the truth hurts? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Daisies, Malleus. I like daisies, I don't know why, I always have. Most folks I've met get panged now and then by the truth, such as it is. After Ckatz blocked you last August, I had a look and unblocked you and I'd have unblocked you again, in a heartbeat, if you'd put up an unblock request saying you wouldn't make personal attacks anymore. As it happened, I unblocked you anyway because policy has fallen a bit out of line with consensus. Thanks for your many steadfast contributions to the project and cheers to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you or anyone else believes that I would ever make an unblock request, much less one with a confession of guilt and an apparently sincere contrition, then we're clearly living in different universes. If you ever see such a request from me then you should reject it immediately, because it will the clearest possible proof that my account has been compromised. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I didn't support the removal of rollback. In fact, I disagree with removal at my talk page, yet Cirt still revoked it, citing a now removed note I had left at the top of my page, the intent of which was so admins could reverse my actions when I wasn't around - not reverse them even when I said I don't think they should be. Because s/he invoked that clause, I think that the removal of the rollback may be considered a "first action". I think rollback should be re-enabled - it shouldn't have been removed for a single misuse. Of course, that won't put the genie back in the bottle, but such is life. –xeno^talk 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think WebHamster has gotten the hint and can be trusted with another go at rollback. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think he had the hint a long while ago. –xeno^talk 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that he gives a monkey's cuss whether he has rollback rights or not? If you do, you've sadly misjudged him. It's a pretty useless feature anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Naptime, Malleus, naptime. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm afraid you seem to be (perhaps unintentionally) stirring the pot too often. (unwatching as well - seems to be the best way to end this, but feel free to visit my talk page if you want to talk more on this, Mal) –xeno^talk 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start this. Would you be quite so sanguine if I'd blocked you for a week? Somehow I doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple grammar

What Gwen states: "Truth be told, this was a personal attack aimed at one of the three admins who supported WH's loss of rollback."

What Malleus stated: "there being too many admins when it takes three of them plus one sycophantic wannabee"

As Gwen has acknowledged, there were three participants. Malleus was directing criticism to a non-existent fourth player. Since there is an obvious numbers difference, it is clear that the very basics of Gwen's understanding of the matter is extremely flawed. So, not only did she not have the requirements for a NPA, her own reading of the matter was very incorrect. Gwen, are you going to still persist? Will you admit that your own understanding of the incident was flawed? Then, after having this pointed out, you make a clear violation of WP:CIVIL in comments like "Naptime, Malleus, naptime." Instead of doing what is appropriate (as per NPA - "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.") you have abused your blocking privleges, declared that policies should be rewritten to conform to your views, and persist in being incivil and making personal attacks. What makes you think that any of this is acceptable? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So many admins, so little time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if I say that there is currently stupid people, that would be a personal attack according to you? And where in NPA does it say that? NPA makes it clear that these show up in direct conversations and are used against people. It also makes it clear that the appropriate response is not to label them as personal attacks but to instead deal with the merits of the statement. You failed to do this. When was the last time you read the policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you said "Currently, there are stupid people," I would not see that as a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the injured party here, and I'm really not bothered, Gwen made what I would (obviously) consider to be a big mistake. What she needs to do now is to address what she will do to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. If they continue, then she will have to accept the consequences. She's had her reminders to read what the policies actually say, instead of following her idiosyncratic interpretations of what she thinks they ought to say, it's now down to her. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've made personal attacks before and I guess you'll likely keep on making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to take some time to very seriously consider your position here. I'm not demanding a ritual humiliation, simply a recognition that your interpretation and application of the NPA policy is incorrect. It is of course your choice though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take some time to consider the benefits of being more civil and cutting back on the personal attacks. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DONTBEADICK might apply too. Soxwon (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never supported that essay, I don't think linking to it is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said Gwen, it's your choice what happens next, no matter who thinks who is a dick. Which unsurprisingly you don't appear to consider a "personal attack". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A guideline a personal attack? Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, please take the worries you've had over the personal attack you made on WebHamster's page to ANI or another project page for wider input. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion with you is clearly unlikely to be productive; by your logic if a guideline was created on "sycophantic wannebee" then to suggest that an unnamed person was a "sycophantic wannebee" would have been perfectly acceptable. I have wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you why your behaviour as an administrator is problematic. Take it or leave it, but be prepared to live with the consequences of either choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, watch out for that whip ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Baiting redacted) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Baiting? Another accusation of impropriety that is far from the truth. You do realize that Civil spells out very clearly that you are not to make such accusations. Furthermore, you have no right to "redact" a comment like that. You can remove it, but you cannot alter it as it clearly does not contain anything of high incivility that would make such a thing acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere, if you like, but not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

my comments

User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#I_was_mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think Wikipedia's civility policies need some talking about, consensus has shifted towards a more open-minded outlook on how editors word things. I'm ok with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (again!)

Gwen, reading some of the comments above about your own blocks and arbcom and some comments made about you, I wonder if you would please consider a request from me concerning your involvement with my edits to the abovementioned page, and that is that I would ask that since you gave me an indef block for suggesting I'd like to insert a particular edit, not actually inserting it, and since you are (or seem to be) friendly with Collect, an editor judged problematic by many (see his RfC) and who is opposing all my edits on many pages, I would ask that you recuse yourself from further involvement with me and instead supply me with a short list of admin names that I may use to give oversight to my edits to the Copperfield page. I do give you my word that I shall use the admin/s and not go merrily off, doing my own thing. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't use the above baiting to skirt WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? I asked you a genuine question. Will you please supply me with a short list of admin names, or must I go off and find them myself? THANKS!! ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I told you two days ago more input is always welcome but given the gleeful goal you've so clearly laid out you can't wedge another thread as a way to skirt WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My "gleeful goal" (read: hard work) to balance hagiographies notwithstanding, I shall seek another admin to give oversight. I would appreciate it if you would bow out of this now, since I have assured you I shall not proceed to edit the page without admin input to possibly controversial material. ► RATEL ◄ 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Does not apply. I am not "repeatedly" seeking other opinions, simply one other opinion, since I believe you have an animus towards me based on your association with Collect and based on your mistaken understanding of my motives. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:3 which states that Ratel, your actions are 100% correct. Gwen Gale, you accusing him of forum shopping when asking you to re-evaluate yourself is highly inappropriate. Mediation, third opinion, and the use of places like AN and ANI to re-evaluate the involvement of an admin are -always- acceptable. Ratel, I would take your case directly to WP:AN and state that Gwen Gale put forth a partial guideline under improper conditions in order to intimidate you from seeking a third opinion on the matter. Such actions show a recognition that they are wrong and are not something that impartial and unbiased admin do. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep saying wider input's ok and you keep coming back here. Ratel, as I said, you should try BLP/N first. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel I was wondering if you have taken this discussion to other editors yet? I would like to read about it more. can you please provide me with links so i may do so? I tried looking for your blocks using the tool i found on your scratchpad. i was able to find your previous blocks but nothing about you currently being blocked. are you in fact blocked? I am not on either side but i have been following your debate with collect and gwen gale and I find it very interesting. I agree that you should take the case to other admins. I am watching this page but feel free to respond directky to me if you wish! Thanks! :)Emely1219 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have already read most of that. Is that the block that you are now discussing with him or is he blocked again? When someone is blocked, is there automatically someplace for someone to comment on the block like a public forum?Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I unblocked him after he acknowledged WP:BLP (that's all in the thread I linked to above). Ratel is not blocked now. When someone is blocked, they can put the {{unblock|reason}} template on their talk page and admins who watch Category:Requests_for_unblock will see it and look into things. Also, the blocking admin will more often than not be watching too.

See User_talk:Ratel#BLP for my latest discussion with him. Your input is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kamila Shahtakhtinskaya

I was very happy when article about me was posted in Wikipedia, and now you are telling me--Lack of importance???? This is very ver-ry offencive -makes me ask ritorik Question---How important are you? and so is anybody? But honestly --that is not that many people like me!!!! S98.231.22.80 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)incerely, Kamila Shahtakhtinskaya

That was deleted a year ago. Shahtakhtinskaya is a piano teacher in the states. Please see WP:BIO for en.Wikipedia's notability standards. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the BLP worries have settled enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, they haven't, no way will this be an FA any time soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Per an RFC case I seem to have to do (sadly) in light of your recent actions, I'd like to know if you have any standards for administrator access recall? This would help the RFC I'm going to prepare and, I sincerely believe, make things easir and less drama fuelled. If you don't have or do not believe in recall standards that's fine. If so a diff on either my talk or yours would be great. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you might want to spend some time reviewing the project's civility and NPA standards and practices. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think you might want to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here. I'll take your response as "no comment" re: RFC. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear (thinking you might have read the end of the thread higher above), I meant they likely both need a thorough updating and you might be able to help out with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Know nothing about any of this and only here because i have gwen's page watchlisted and recall caught my eye; if i was her, here's what i'd say (i'm sure she's much nicer and less abrassive than i am, one of her faults): "Do your own research, pedro. Want to attack me because i was involved in an outcome that you don't like? That's your business. But asking me to help you with researching a hit piece against me? No. Let me know when you file the RFC." I'm sure she'll simply give you what you want and be back-bendingly polite. But that would be my response if I were her.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone asked me if I had recall standards I'd point them to the very clear ones linked from my user page. Complex stuff here, obviously, but "do you have recall standards?" gets "check out WP:CIV and WP:NPA". To be fair Bali - that's not really a "do your own research" reply is it? Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bali, see User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#personal_attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW - they aren't actually linked Pedro... –xeno^talk 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, if making things easier and less drama-fuelled is what you desire, may I suggest letting this drop? That ends the drama on the spot. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently so. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Gwen - Okay, consensus seems an RFC is a bad idea. Please don't block valued content editors for a week on the basis of "their block log". Block to minimise damage to Wikipedia - that's the point of the button - not to be punitive. You need to reasses your use of the block button IMHO but I'm stiring drama not helping so I'll drop it now. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I think civility and PA standards are shifting towards a more open-minded outlook, which I believe could be helpful to the project. If you have any more questions for me, please don't be shy about asking. Gwen Gale (talk)

Indeed. I think we need to re-evaluate both concepts. I'm bemused that you feel we need to re-evaluate when yesterday you were happy to block Malleus under NPA/CIV however. The inconsistency is, well, odd to be honest Gwen. Still, I'd be happy to help trying to gain the mythical "consensus" on where we stand with these policies/guidelines. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there'll be sundry takes on these policies and guidelines for awhile yet, but it seems things are loosening up. I'd stepped in last August and unblocked Malleus after another admin had blocked him for incivility, so I saw myself as an unblocking admin with some responsibility in the aftermath. The feedback on the block starkly showed me that standards are shifting here among a meaningful swath of experienced, skilled contributors and truth be told, I'm happy to see it, I tend to agree with Malleus and others about what some call the "civility police." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can do some positive work (time permitting) there and my apologies again for my brusque approach earlier. Much as Malleus and I have severe disagreements I'm a bit of a stout defender of him, and that may have clouded my judgement in the way I initially approached you. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have the occasional disagreement with pretty much everyone Pedro, but I consider it healthy that we're not all expected to agree all of the time. I welcome Gwen's comments about taking a fresh look at the civility and NPA guidelines/policies, and I hope that she's serious in what she says, as it seems very plain to me that they are not working and are in any case very unevenly applied. I'm glad you've decided not to proceed with the RfC, because even though I'm the injured party I wouldn't have endorsed it. Anyone's entitled to a few mistakes, even an administrator, and I've got no evidence that Gwen makes a habit of this kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

image in the LEAD at thumb left

See the extensive discussion at Image_in_lede_section_on_Copper and on the talk page at Copper.SBHarris 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There must be a way... Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed protected

Hi Gwen, do you still have concerns given the current edit? Also an admin has protected the article for no good reason. Bengali71, WebHamster and I are editing and discussing together to improve the article and we are making progress. The protection also includes the edit that you and a couple of other editors say should be redacted; this also make no sense. It's my understanding (despite on this ocassion my vote for inclusion) that in line with BLP contentious content should be removed. It should not be kept in an protected. I've asked the protecting editor to remove the protection or strike the contentious content, but they haven't. What's the correct next step? Amicaveritas (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amicaveritas, I've recused myself from any further admin actions at Syed Ahmed. I think the edit warring there is the biggest worry. If you think the edit warring has settled down you might make a request for unprotection at WP:RFP or wait for User:Tanthalas39 (the admin who protected the page) to answer you further. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Users

I noticed the recent discussion on Hummus. If you read the talk page and view the edits of User:Supreme Deliciousness, it appears he has an agenda in his editing, aside from trying to improve articles using "sourced information". For example: editing comment like this and talk page discussions like this, this, this and this. Just thought I would bring it to your attention. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been a strong consensus among experienced editors who have knowledge of the sources to be had about Hummus that any national cuisine categories are not helpful or at all fitting. The sources to be had support the notion that this dish is thoroughly Levantine, which is to say, Levantine Arab and happens to be widely and understandably popular in Israel and has been adapted into Israeli cuisine but its origins are straightforwardly not Israeli. Sources as to Jewish origins cite biblical texts and are much fun to think about but wholly unsupported as to their translations. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct and I was not challenging the sources nor making a case towards including ANY Jewish or Israeli origins or positions; I was only bringing to your attention how it is my concern that certain editors, based upon previous edits elsewhere, may be attempting to use wiki rules in order to further a their own POV.

I have been editing this article for quite some time, and am very well aware of the problems face by Hummus and many other food articles, in regards to nationalism etc. That is precisely why I felt you should be made aware of this situation. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The short pith is, there's nothing untowards about editing towards a PoV supported by reliable sources. So far as hummus goes, it's most strongly supported as Levantine. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to using sources to push your own PoV, if that were entirely the case, then rules wouldn't exist in regards to Good Faith and Gaming the system. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than attack editors, try citing reliable sources on the talk page and gathering consensus towards whatever outlook you're pulling. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your viewpoints are indeed interesting and worthy of further exploration. Happy editing! --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Could you please take care of user Vivalatinamerica ? The user is obviously disruptive and, like I told you before, he uses his account and many IP sockpopets to vandalyzed articles I posted. Please, can you do something about? Opinoso (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for edit warring, though this may not stop him once the block lifts. Let me know if he starts up again, the blocks will swiftly get much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Opinoso (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of refs

Hi Gwen, I would value your thoughts on a couple of refs I added to the end of the Edward Elgar Publishing article. Admittedly not the strongest refs, although both Preston McAfee and Ariel Rubinstein are notable in their own right, but they make a valid point.

The two editors reverting the edits seem to be of a single purpose and one having a warning over spam linking last year. A message was left for me claiming that these were not reliable sources. Persist or concede? Lame Name (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the sources cite something which is very likely verifiable, the sources are indeed not taken as reliable on en.Wikipedia, mostly because they're self-published opinion. It's true they're believable given the verifiable backgrounds of the writers but I don't think they meet the threshold of Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources since they're not writing about a topic in their fields but rather, their own experiences as customers of the company, hence they can't be taken as independent sources. I wouldn't carry on trying to put these sources in the article. As an aside, low-run, high quality academic printed books can be amazingly expensive to buy because they indeed cost a lot to develop and produce: Publishers tend to lower the risk of doing them by charging high prices to a known but very small customer base and skirt marketing and inventory risks altogether.

However, User:Katywhumpus has been spamming other articles and does seem to have a COI, so I've left a post about that. Also, I'd say User:Mark griff also has a COI and likely has a close link with Kw, or may even be a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your time and thoughts. Onwards to the battle of the Tuna Fish Sandwich :-) Lame Name (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Worthy topic! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I see Cml has put forth a 2nd AfD nom on the topic, the outcome of which will never be a deletion. I'd glark maybe at least 50,000,000 of them are eaten every day worldwide, maybe a few million daily in front of Internet-linked computers, so why deny folks the fun of readin' up on the butty they may happen to be munchin' on? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for 3rd opinion

Could I get your opinion at Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) plz? Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented there. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it goes without saying, but I wanted to clarify that previous comments had nothing to do with you -- my problem was with the frequent misstatements and misrepresentations. Your opinions are, of course, always welcome! Cheers!  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What. You mean I threw that plate of spaghetti pesto against the wall for nothing? :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, why is this too much to ask for? I felt that reporting on the blogger's activity didn't warrant inclusion in the bio. All I ask for is another MSM source about the subject, that's all. Yet all I get is the g-news search thrown at me and comments of "seriously?" and "you're obviously ignoring the dozens of MSM sources there" when they can't point to just one. I'm not unreasonable, I even went through it and looked at the promising ones, but they turned out to be Op-ed pieces. I guess I'm just trying to ask if I'm being unreasonable. Yeah it's a part of his criticism, but if it's limited to a WP:FRINGE, why does it get it's own section? Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, wide op-ed commentary can bring notability. Forget finding a source which doesn't throw in the word liberal, most political labels (left, right, liberal, conservative, green, neocon, whatever) are swiftly becoming perjoratives not fit for the ears of children. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And obviously improper within Wikipedia articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I already know your stance Blaxthos, shut up. As for GG, but is it really good to have such sharp criticism without more than a scant NYT article on the subject in terms of objective outlets? I know I appear to be doing this ad nauseum, but I thought we tried to make WP:BLP articles picky about sourcing, and I don't like the only source being just an article commenting on the activities of the blogosphere. Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a political talk show host. Nothing untowards about putting a neutral post up at BLP/N though. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see at least three meaningful, non-blog sources cited in that section. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As do I, an AP article talking about Tiller's death, w/o a mention of O'Reilly; a piece by O'Reilly criticizing Tiller; and the NYT article. But do the first two relate directly to the subject w/o WP:OR? Soxwon (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the Salon and Courier Express citations. The AP article should be skived, it has aught to do with O'Reilly. Meantime see if you get more input at BLP/N. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Salon? A neutral MSM source? They're a liberal magazine, I thought they were in the same category of MMFA, good for a fact check perhaps, but by no means an indicator of notability. As for the Courier Express, I'd lump it into the yeah but category as it's an Op-ed piece by music critic Nat Hentoff. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say any of them are neutral. Few if any sources are neutral, which does not mean reliable, which has aught to do with truth.. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But like I was saying, I lump it with MMFA, good for fact checking, not necessarily an indicator of notability: as seen here.

There are going to be worries about how to source and write this (which I talked about in my first post on the talk page) but from what I've seen so far, I think there's enough independent and verifiable coverage to lend the notability needed to bring it up in a section of a criticism subpage of a BLP about a political talk show host known throughout most of the English speaking world. Keep in mind, he gets paid to stir up and deal with this kind of stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I can respect that, what about on his main page? Soxwon (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's a separate page for criticism, then the main page should only be biographical. ► RATEL ◄ 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ratel, your comment on BLP/N worried me as being soapboxing. Soxwon (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not deliberately. BoR has broad enough shoulders for this, and it comes with the territory, as GG says. ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the comment We cannot have public commentators pillorying private citizens in this way, and it needs to be mentioned on wikipedia. doesn't fit with BLP. Soxwon (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but I was not commenting on a BLP page, but on a criticism/show-related page. I was also expressing my opinion, as an inclusionist. ► RATEL ◄ 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, criticism in a BLP is almost always a worry and this must be handled with so much care. As someone has worthily brought up at BLP/N, should there even be a crit subpage for a BLP? I think, wontedly there should not be, but a political talk show host gathers published criticism like daisies in the field. It's indeed his job to do this, it builds ratings, which stirs up advertising income, which most likely ups what he makes himself. To put it straightforwardly, what en.Wikipedia must not do in any way, shape or form, is allow its narrative voice to even hint that he willingly stirred up a crime. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said this many times, en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be startled to learn who runs some of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24

Hi, Gwen. Hope you are doing well. If you have the time could you please look into something for me? You unblocked this user under the conditions he would not edit war, amongst other terms laid out for this user to follow. He has done pretty well since being unblocked, but I'm concerned about his behavior on List of nu metal bands. There has been a dispute about which bands to add, amongst other trivial arguments. To make a long story short, others have backed off because they do not wish to engage in edit warring, but Ibaranoff continually reverts to his version of the article despite consensus reached on talk, and the content he is removing is well-sourced. I'm not asking you re-instate the block or anything, only for your advice really. If you have the time could you encourage him to discuss more and revert less? I started trying to somewhat mediate between him and another user, but the other use involved has asked me for advice on what to do next and I don't know what to tell him to do. Thanks for your time, Landon1980 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked deeply into his edits but he seems to be asserting he's only removing unsourced categories. Only as a first step, bands/projects shouldn't be categorized under a label unless they have either self-identified spot on with it in a verifiable way, or some halfway reliable industry source (which is to say, not a fan) has put them under that label. Given the skeinish history of popular music influences over the last century along with all the stylistic and marketing categories now thrown about, if a WP editor has an unsourced notion that what they hear in some recording fits one category or another, that's nothing more than their own opinion both on what they hear and what the category means, in other words blatant original research. Does that help... or am I missing something? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I see the bands he is edit warring with the other user over are sourced with Allmusic, MusicMight, and a couple others. Landon1980 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some diffs which show edit warring? Removal of sourced categories? Allmusic is ok for style cats, I think, MusicMight too unless the sources themselves are being questioned as unreliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)He hasn't violated 3RR, it is over the span of a couple days, but sure. I'm not very involved in this matter, and to be honest I don't care either way about whether those bands stay or not. I'm just trying to figure out what the next step is, since the other user asked. Third opinion is useless since I offered a third opinion already, so I guess RFC would be next? Anyways, I'll get the diffs and post them in a minute or so. Landon1980 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Low-level edit warring is blockable, moreover when it has to do with someone who has been blocked like that for edit warring and undertook to stop doing so, to get unblocked. With some diffs, I can warn the editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few threads at the reliable sources noticeboard in regards to MusicMight, all of which consensus was it was reliable. The other source being used seems to be reliable too, it's a published book by a reputable author. Landon1980 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the main thing to stay away from with style cats is original research or sourcing them to fans, both Allmusic and MusicMight look independent enough to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Landon1980 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him. He also doesn't seem to like Brave Nu World as a source but so far I don't see how readers could be misled by sourcing a short category listing to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no edit warring has occurred here. I expressed a valid concern that the inclusion of multiple bands on this list may not reflect the overall sourced content. Blackmetalbaz initially ignored my concerns, but now seems to understand. This isn't about any single source. It's about the overall brevity of combined sources. Focusing too heavily on one or two sources when the overall research concludes that the genre term is not being used accurately in any given instance does not reflect WP:Verifiability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Most bands and projects fall in to many and sundry categories these days, unless there's some consensus I don't know about, there's no need to find overhwelming and wide support for a single stylistic category. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You say he seems to understand, but this diff says the exact opposite. He merely just does not wish to edit war with you. We do not need to further this dispute on Gwen's talk page, as a courtesy to her. You need to engage in discussion on talk, three reliable sources should suffice. Landon1980 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can say straightforwardly, three are enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help out with this. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff's next move caught me a little off-guard. After basically telling me people like me are what is wrong with Wikipedia, he then nominated the article for deletion. Food for thought I guess :), if you can't have your way on a given article, just delete it. Landon1980 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Landon's attitude has shown a refusal to help provide any sort of verification towards the claims made in the article. All I've merely asked for from the start is further research. The list was bundled with another article. The deletion nom. wasn't a specific target of that article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I see you are who nominated Nu metal the first time around as well, with the result being a snowball/speedy keep. I always try my best to assume good-faith, but I'm having a hard time believing you are not trying to be disruptive. Landon1980 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please directly discuss issues with me rather than arguing about it on someone else's talk page? My longstanding history of good edits and five featured articles clearly shows that I am not attempting to disrupt anything. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Your history is does not give you an excuse to blatantly step on anyone in your way, and you've shown that you have edited disruptively to the point of blatant sockpuppettry in order to achieve your goals. You've shown that you're prepared to edit war, and do anything in order to achieve that end. So far, consensus appears to be against you. The articles are sourced to a particular thing; in the past, you were unblocked on the condition that you would not edit war again, and what do I look in to find? Edit warring. I shall be reporting you for this violation, bringing up your socking in the past, as evidence of past disruption to achieve an end, should your edit warring continue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember you, Ibaranoff24. I'll tell you now as I told you months ago before you were indef blocked, trumpeting your resume doesn't help you. Anyone can look at your block log and see how you've behaved, so I'll advise you again that bringing up anything you see as a positive in your past will lead editors to dig up the negatives as well. It's best to just handle this matter in the present tense, and let your current edits stand on their own. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left another warning. I guess he thinks he's not edit warring, but he's mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no edit warring has ever occurred. Surely you have better things to do than to outright harass me on my talk page? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I've commented on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmph! That kinda does look like me after I've tried to eat a triple-mozzarella cheese pizza. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gwen. I wanted to let you know Ibaranoff has started a thread at AN regarding your/our actions. Thought you may want to comment there. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way...

...to get a page that has been deleted? I'm in a dispute over the condition of a certain article. The article was using links and redirects to hide the letter "e" (don't ask). Now the editors are asking for an example of how the article was using tricks so I tried to remind them of a specific instance. But all we can see are wikilinks and a deleted page. The page dating from when the article was poorly written has been deleted. If I could show the page being redirected to the "hidden meaning" article it might be a help. In case you are wondering this is all in reference to Gadsby. Padillah (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But I must ask, what's the deleted page? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. intrawar. From back in Oct. 2008 Padillah (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The only content it ever carried was #REDIRECT interwar period. Not a helpful RD by the bye, the Latin prefixes intra and inter are not at all the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the redirect was, in fact, an attempt to redefine the word so that they could maintain the Gadsby article as a lipogram. The problem was they couldn't find a good way to say "set between WWI and WWII" so they redefined 'intrawar' to mean 'interwar' and hid it behind a link. This is the state that I do not want the article to get to again and why I am trying to keep evidence of it's convoluted ways as fresh as I can. How can I show that content to other editors? Or do I just send them here? Padillah (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Send them here. It's ok for the article to carry something showing a lipogram, but it's not ok for the article to be a lipogram. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you fully grasp the situation: there are some editors that didn't want to use REF tags because they have 'e' in them. So far it's managed to become a mediocre article but there are machinations afoot to try again with the lipogram idea. Thus the request for evidence. I'll let you know how it goes. Padillah (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I grasp it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

User:Nagle put up that comment aobut Criticism pages because he put up an AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League and is attempting to deflect criticism directed at him there for wishing to delete only that particular criticism pages and not the Criticism of.... pages of individuals and organizations that can be viewed as left-wing, anti-American, or anti-Jewish, such as Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Osama bin Laden. Historicist (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism pages can easily be taken too far, they should be held as criticism sections of the main article unless it becomes so long and unwieldy that whole sections need to be spun off into their own pages, or the criticism section begins to throw the main article weighting out of wack. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem in Brazilian people

Hello. There's an user posting a picture of a woman (who looks Black) but the user claims her to be Pardo. I asked for a source, and then the user posted a book as a source, not avaible online. I really doubt the book reports the woman as "Pardo".

Since in Brazil people self-report their race, nobody can say what race the woman is, or what race she is not. The user edit-wared and did personal attacks on my talk page. The user is now posting several pictures of people in the article, and saying what "race" each of them are. I propose to remove all the picture and not label what race people are without asking them what race they think they are. Please, take a look. Opinoso (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not on unless the photos are tightly, thoroughly sourced in a verifiable way. This said, I think she could be "pardo" but that's only my own take and not worth anything for a caption. I've seen these "race image" flurries in articles before, seldom liked what I saw and maybe the most helpful thing to do is let the editor settle down and get bored, which will likely happen sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take care of this?

(I have asked Hoary, but it seems he is busy, so I am asking you, too.)

[15]

As I have explained, I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia. Opinoso's edit here is just plain useless and noxious. And can you please explain him, for the 298,320,983,280th time, what is vandalism, so that he stops misusing the word?

Thank you. Ninguém (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hey Gwen,

I seen you deleted an entry for me MICHAEL RYAN LAWRENCE based on G11 (blatent advertising)

I am a filmmaker who has recently released JACK IN THE BOX, my first post film school film. I was the writer director and have had a lot of people ask me about my career and doing the normal research on the web which is mostly Wiki and Google these days. I have a lot of entries on Google for myself and my film company PHILLY PHILMS however none on Wiki. I don't know what else to do? I tried myself to post articles on wiki for both myself and my company to help inform others who search, not advertise and they were deleted.

I then had a fellow collegue of mine FMJCAST do the same and they were deleted? Maybe you can be of some help.

I am not trying to promote myself via Wiki.. I just would like the same benefits of any other filmmaker who can be searched on wiki and given some background information and professional experiences. Why is some filmmakers allowed to have their name as DIRECTOR on wiki and I am not? Furthermore, my production company PHILLY PHILMS is a legitimate filom production company responsible for 6 films, 1 music video and 1 commercial (so far) and I can't that to become a listing for reference? This makes others thinks that it is either non-existent or not worthy of a wiki listing.

Thanks for any advice. Cheers!

Mike Lawrence

www.kidnapjack.com

phillyphilms@gmail.com

Phillyphilms (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Ryan Lawrence

The first thing I would ask is that you read WP:BIO and WP:COI and let me have your thoughts. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Gale, please delete my account

Hi Gwen Gale, thanks for your ruling to block my account JohnnyTurk888, could you please help me out by deleting it as soon as possible. I have no wish to participate in Wikipedia any more and would welcome you in deleting the account as soon as possible. I would do this by signing in but am blocked from doing so. Thanks, JohnnyTurk888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for retiring the page. Would like the account deleted too if it hasn't been already. Cheers.

(ec) WP:RTV is seldom done for a blocked user. Your block is for a month, you're welcome to come back when the month is up. In the meantime I've courtesy blanked your talk page and put up {{retired}} tags. If you ever do want to edit again, you can take the tags down yourself. Likewise, after the block is up you can ask for WP:RTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like that seldom done move for my account please. Please get onto it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.216.120 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how you've taken up edit warring over your own talk page whilst blocked for a month, I've restored it with the declined unblock requests and protected it from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I read the right to vanish page that you kindly linked to and would like to request that please. I have no wish to participate further in Wikipedia and would like my account to be deleted and all edits withdrawn, to the fullest extent possible. I appreciate the invitation to return and the spirit behind it but am not interested in that in light of what I've seen here. Can you please attend to this as soon as possible. I was blocked very quickly and would hope a reasonable "right to vanish" request could be dealt with just as quickly. Thanks and thanks for blocking indefintely too, please also delete the account. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi and I noticed you deleted my request to delete my user page, not sure if that was deliberate but if you could just get onto deleting it (its blank anyway) or just deleting the account, that would be great. And "vanish" my edits and other private information also permanently too. Thanks.

Seeing as how you're edit warring over your own talk page whilst blocked and evading the block with dynamic IPs, I see a very strong need to keep your talk page history for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You've said you haven't blocked my email? Not sure what that means, but I haven't sent any email to Wikipedia or from it so I don't know what you mean.

Is there a reason why my account cannot be deleted, I'd really appreciate it if you could and see no reason why you'd wish to keep it and am concerned about identity theft issues. I'm not evading any block I assure you, I have no wish to edit Wikipedia at all now, just to have my account permanently deleted or vanished or whatever language is used here. Sorry I'm not explaining myself perfectly but I think you know that I just want the account deleted and hope you can assure me it will be at the earliest convenient opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a month and we'll talk. If you're found posting on this website again within the next 25 days and I hear about it, I'll lengthen the block to two months. Stop now and we can talk about it in a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consensus approach required to delete my account and so on, is there anything further I can or should do to facilitate that? I would welcome your guidance as soon as possible and thank you for your patience to date.

I don't wish to talk about it in a month or any other time in the future. I feel a bit like one of the Corleone's, you won't let me go. Why can't the account be deleted as per my request? I don't wish to inconvenience you, but I'm sure an editor of your power can arrange this so I'm a bit puzzled as to why this would be so difficult... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're puzzled at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can asssure you I am totally mind-blown by how difficult you seem to be making this. Please delete my account or explain why you can't and what I need to do to facilitate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The pith is, I'm worried you'll come back as a sock (you've already edit warred over your user space and have been posting to the site with dynamic IPs). After your behaviour today, you'll have to wait. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A sock? I'm not proposing to return at all, I give you a solemn promise. All I want is my account deleted so no-one can edit as me. I don't see why the issue is complex. And my behaviour today is what? Asking to be deleted??? Is that a breach of procedure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, nobody can edit as you. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So my account is deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted. As I said, you can ask for RTV when your block is up. Badgering like this is what got you blocked and re-blocked to begin with. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On the administrator page, it was stated a "dev" can delete my account. As I won't be returning at the end of the block, I would like to happen now. I'm not badgering anyone, purely asking for my request to be actioned. You retired the page and then in a way that seemed quite bloody minded then reinstated it after I asked for my account to be deleted. You then blocked my IP address for a time in order to stop me asking, again to me that seems bloody minded. I'm not sure what purpose keeping my account open serves, I have no further wish to use it, there is a way for it to be deleted by a "dev" and that's what I'm asking for. You seem quick to block but very slow to delete accounts on request, is there a reason for this ? Anyway, in truth I don't care why you're being so reluctant, I would just ask my request be honoured. I have not and will not edit any pages of the Wikipedia again. I therefore ask for my account to be deleted, which is technically possible and desirable so that I cannot be the victim of identity theft in my absence from Wikipedia. Please arrange this, as soon as possible, I see no reason for you to delay a month other than a naked and inappropriate use of power for its own sake over someone who is in disgust with the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We can't delete your account - I can't, Gwen can't, practically noone can. The "devs" or "developers" are the chaps who write the software and maintain the encyclopedia's software front - they have no reason to spend time deleting your account either. We can think about deleting your talk and user pages at a later stage, but your account will stay forever, I'm afraid. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But if a developer can do it, why can it not be requested? I have been blocked for 30 days at great speed and without consultation. Fair enough. I just ask for my account to be vanished, which there is a page on wikipedia all about. That is all I ask, I don't wish to make a fuss beyond asking for what I assume would be a simple thing. And you say my pages cannot be deleted either, in a sense I don't care about that, as long as my account is permanently deleted. I thank you for the patient response Fritzpoll but I am struggling to see why my account cannot be deleted, it is a simple and easy request common on any system. I don't want to have to come back to Wikipedia every week to ensure no-one has identity thieved me. Many people know who I am as an editor in my community and I wish for it to be certain that I am not repeated in any way I have not consented with. I hope I make myself clear. I understand the "devs" might have other priorities than attending to me but if it was put on the action list, I would be happy with that if it took, say, a week. Other than that, I think it is gravely sinister not to delete accounts upon the request of the user. I know you are saying you are not able to do this so I mean this as no adverse reflection on you. I just want to be deleted and myself both blocked AND unable to be deleted so I can just forget about Wikipedia as I wish to do so. My request might be frustrating but I assure you it is well reasoned and should be a priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can edit from your account if it's blocked, not even you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate very much your interest in this issue Gwen and your patience in understanding what I've been saying and not just shutting me down like a squashed lizard. My point is that if the block passes in the 30 days, the account still live and not deleted, I would be forced to return constantly to check on its use. That isn't right. Or fair. Especially when it is possible to vanish or delete the account and I have asked for this I think as politely as it is possible for a man to do. Anyway, I will stop talking now and let you do what you can. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it in a few hours if nobody says otherwise (or a consensus shows up) in the meantime. Mind, if this happens, if you do come back as another user after the block is up, your talk page history will be undeleted. If you try to come back before 25 days have gone by, it'll likely be months before you can get the talk page history deleted again. Please wait now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is most appreciative indeed. You have been patient and kind. I have no wish to return as any user or in any capacity here. Enough is enough for me on the Wikipedia. It does not suit me for reasons stated. I will wait patiently and gratefully knowing that you have shown me great kindness and sympathy despite inconveniences you endured in responding to my comments. Thank you in advance and warmest regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Meanwhile, I don't mind if you post as an IP (as you've been doing) here on my talk page, but please don't do it anywhere else on this website, since technically, you're evading your block. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted your talk page history under WP:RTV. If you would also like a name change, do not post here but rather, log on and ask for it at User talk:Johnnyturk888, which you can now edit. As Thatcher already said elsewhere, if you're worried about your account being hacked later, log on, scramble your password and log off. Unless the password you have now is easy to guess or you think someone else either has it or could get hold of it through you, there is likely little need to do this. If you want to come back after 13 July (when your block is up), you can, but your talk page history will be restored, likewise if you come back with a new username. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

You have some ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have some back :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Received, and thanks :-). Good advice, and I'll try to keep popcorn handy when checking my watchlist ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski

Gwen, I was wondering if you recall how the dispute resolution process was employed to resolve the BLP issue in this article. A couple of editors have arrived at the article to reinsert the "arrest" issue, which I recall as being settled in the DR process, perhaps through the BLP noticeboard. But I can't recall how it happened or how precisely people such as yourself became involved. Can you refresh my memory? Thanks. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was WP:UNDUE as put forth in Wikipedia:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, but either way, that's what has sway here. I'd say anything about the arrest can be removed as a straightforward BLP violation (your edit summary was also close enough). If it happens again, put a note up at BLP/N too and I'll put the article back on my watchlist. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on me

Could you please tell these two users to stop commenting on me? [16] [17] Opinoso (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And also it seems Ninguém is now using his account to rise disruptions between me and other users. He's even sending his e-mail to another user so that hey can discuss "about me"[18]. Opinoso (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, outing isn't allowed on en.Wikipedia. Please don't do that again. Editors can share private emails as they please, if you're being personally attacked, please give me some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

here the user said I am "arrogant" in Portuguese ("E para piorar, é arrogante"). Translation: "And even worse, he is arrogant")

He also called me "crazy" (louco in Portuguese)- ("Só encontro loucos aqui!"). Translation: "I only find crazy people here".

These comments are not welcome. Anyway, I do not want to be label as "crazy" or "arrogant" only because I did not agree with images being moved with no need, or an euphemism of a Black woman being reported as "Pardo". It's easy to accuse other people of "ownership" because the person protects articles from these types of adits. Opinoso (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If being called "arrogant" (I won't even talk about "só encontro loucos", because, whatever it is, personal it is not) is so much of an insult to you, maybe you are willing to apologise for having called me a "Portuguese nationalist", a supporter of Vargas dictatorship, etc.? Ninguém (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack has a very straightforward meaning on en.Wikipedia. Ninguém, I've warned you about this before: Please comment only on sources and content, never on other editors. Stop it now. Opinoso, likewise: Please don't call Ninguém names like "P nationalist" or whatever, which could be taken as smears. Comment only on sources and content, never on other editors. Please take this as my last warning to both of you. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, Gwen. This discussion is (or should be) about me; it is against me that Opinoso is complaining, after all. The only thing I have done is to counter the complaint. Cannot I even defend myself when accused?

But let me ask: so, this is your last warning. What comes after the last warning? Ninguém (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

After a last warning from admins, the next step is a block. Gwen seems to be trying very hard to keep that from being necessary for either side, so please try and heed her warning. Dayewalker (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was what I wanted to know. I hope it is for real. Ninguém (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More a weird thing

[19]

Seems to invite me to break my silence on other posters, just a few hours after you issued your final warning. Ninguém (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blow it off. Don't make personal attacks, comment only on sources and content, not other editors and you'll be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User KiK

After your defense of his last two visits, KiK seems to feel that he now has carte blanche to edit freely in Wikipedia, and is flouting the community ban.[20] I don't want to be rude, but, the question is, are you in favour of enforcing community bans generally, or in favour of enforcing community bans except when the editor espouses a viewpoint you endorse? LK (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Only because you're asking, I didn't defend "his last two visits," your question is mistaken and I guess, rude, I straightforwardly told him to stop because he was doing harm and said I'd block him if he did it again, if someone else didn't get to it first. I've blocked the IP and rolled back the edits because I agree it's most likely him. Meantime, please stop wantonly flogging your own PoV, you clearly have a conflict of interest as to Austrian School and both of you have done harm: The pith is, I think it very unlikely you'd be so keen on reverting his sockpuppet edits if you agreed with his PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting?

I haven't done much work with images lately. What's the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23 mean? Aren't non-free images without a valid fair-use rationale deleted after a waiting period? Surely we aren't somehow voting on this now... Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Most of the editors "voting" keep aren't even talking about WP:Fair use. It's not meant to be a vote at all, but a discussion of how the image fits (or doesn't) NF policy. None of them are acceptable fair use, given that Wales has said Iranian copyright is followed on this website. Moreover, while acknowledging how horrific and criminal this woman's death was, the whole article has become a kind of PoV political advocacy, "Obama paid tribute.." and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Mullah, Like You

You for all intents and purposes just called me a dipshit by removing my completely reasonable comment at the Neda talk page. You dipshit. No one gives you the right to be like the Iranian Mullah just because you dislike someone's views on a matter. 74.233.165.176 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The German phrase

Hi, Gwen, if you read the discussion between me and Pedro more carefully that NeutralHomer linked, you will notice that Neutralhomer is trying to make a false WP:Point to look CoM bad. In the discussion, I bolded the first letters of "Sensible Sig" which reminded Pedro of Nazy SS, so I said about some of German language. CoM who also requested to clarify Pedro's RfA Nom just joked with Seig Hail. I don't know why Neutralhomer is misleading the whole context and you who can read German said like that to ANI.--Caspian blue 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. CoM's sieg heil was a bad joke (it means fuck you to most folks brought up speaking English, among Anglo-Saxon speakers, anyway), but this is what what WMC cited, so I'm neutral, it's not cool to call someone a jerk online. Offline's often another tale. Am I missing something? (not a leading question) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to agree that we disagree with each other. The joke is no way to be construed as "Fuck you" in the context. I and Pedro were talking about "German language" because of some confusion on the meaning of "SS". I think Mathsci's harassing threats ("I will make you be blocked for 1 week") and various uncalled allegations ("not very intelligent changes", "I have no idea what is going through your head") are more than disruptive. I'm not sure why you just watch Neutralhomer making "more drama". Acting like a jerk does not directly say that CoM called Mathsci is a jerk. If so, Mathsci's allegation is like he called CoM unintelligent? I do not understand this situation.--Caspian blue 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed it closely enough to say anything meaningful. I do agree that saying "you look like a real jerk" is not quite the same as saying one is a jerk, but it's still on the edge, which is why I'm neutral on the block: I'll be neither for nor against it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a diff on the chat about the meaning of SS? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the willingness to listen to my message. User_talk:Pedro#Re:My comment on Pedro's "Sensible Sig" Pedro's question regarding "Nazi SS" and My answer with German knowledge and Pedro's answer and CoM's joke.

And would you watch this continued drama by Mathsci[21]? I can not imagine how this two edits to the article is a Mathematical trolling?[22][23] I also recommend you to read Mathsci's user page written in a very tiny letter that denounces editors.--Caspian blue 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this [24]. Gwen you asked me to give you a diff on that SS.--Caspian blue 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, stray 2nd finger on the mouse, sorry :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I grew up speaking English and French at home, with sundry cousins babbling at me in German. I learned at, dunno, maybe age 5, mixing funny idioms betwixt languages brought only blank stares or worse, unhappiness, which is to say, humour in one language doesn't translate word for word to another, it's rather a set of both background and outlook, c'est à dire, c'est l'ensemble qui marche. What's more, try it online and you're canny sunk half the time even if English is hardwired into you from childhood and more or less all the time if you snatched it up later than say, 14, unless you've got the unwonted knack, but that's more often than not souless so either way, one's doomed unless one's Johnny Carson with his sidekick who died only yesterday: If one didn't grow up speaking English, one's throes at bein' funny online in English are as likely to piss folks off as makin' 'em laugh. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is like an allegory that I, non-native English speaker can not understand well. The consensus is reached like the block is a bad mistake driven by the admin who was not sober when blocking. His comment to me does not make any sense at all. He is obviously unwillling to unblock CoM because of his sleep at this time or whatever reason. I thought you can unblock him and fix the current ridiculous situation. Oh, well, I gotta go...So thank you for listening.--Caspian blue 03:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Caspian, I was trying to say, "be wary of trying to be funny in English, online, if you're not a native speaker of English." As for CoM's block, as I said, I'm neutral on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see CoM never put up an unblock request? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I have a very thin skin on incivility so I'm rather one of people who are inclined to be upset at obscure jokes by native English speakers. :) I believe that you were trying to help him even though he who has been very angry at the ridiculous situation does not seem to think like that. Even intelligent people could not judge rightfully when they are drunken or angry. So...well, I think there is nothing to be overturned at this point. Your disengagement from him would be rather good for you and him, I guess. I appreciate your help anyway, have a good day.--Caspian blue 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's cultural too, what might seem uncivil or "cold" to others, might seem ok to English speakers brought up among Anglo-Saxons, in whose culture teasing among friends and loved ones can sometimes be taken as a sign of trust and true feelings (though it can have a dark side too, bullying). Meanwhile, although Hollywood has brought the f word to the world, one can't learn how to use it by watching movies alone, one must grow up in the thick of it, the back and forth of kids and teens. I never even heard the word until I was maybe 9, my mum shielded me from it, the f word was utterly taboo in my family. Much later, I heard she said it lots when family wasn't within earshot haha! :) I learned how to throw it about from Americans my age and I only ever use it in face to face conversations with close American and Brit friends, never elsewhere. The English I speak with non-native English speakers (which I do every day) is not at all the same as the English I speak with Americans or Brits, accents too, likewise with friends, likewise again online.

Sorry I couldn't help more with CoM. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RTV user not vanishing

I understand you deleted the pages of User:Johnnyturk888. Please undelete them, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of MJ

Thanks for the s-protection, Gwen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! My own thoughts about MJ aside, this topic's already got so much traffic but as Liza Minnelli said today, "When the autopsy comes, all hell's going to break loose..."AP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Mullah, Like You

You for all intents and purposes just called me a dipshit by removing my completely reasonable comment at the Neda talk page. You dipshit. No one gives you the right to be like the Iranian Mullah just because you dislike someone's views on a matter. 74.233.165.176 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The German phrase

Hi, Gwen, if you read the discussion between me and Pedro more carefully that NeutralHomer linked, you will notice that Neutralhomer is trying to make a false WP:Point to look CoM bad. In the discussion, I bolded the first letters of "Sensible Sig" which reminded Pedro of Nazy SS, so I said about some of German language. CoM who also requested to clarify Pedro's RfA Nom just joked with Seig Hail. I don't know why Neutralhomer is misleading the whole context and you who can read German said like that to ANI.--Caspian blue 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. CoM's sieg heil was a bad joke (it means fuck you to most folks brought up speaking English, among Anglo-Saxon speakers, anyway), but this is what what WMC cited, so I'm neutral, it's not cool to call someone a jerk online. Offline's often another tale. Am I missing something? (not a leading question) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to agree that we disagree with each other. The joke is no way to be construed as "Fuck you" in the context. I and Pedro were talking about "German language" because of some confusion on the meaning of "SS". I think Mathsci's harassing threats ("I will make you be blocked for 1 week") and various uncalled allegations ("not very intelligent changes", "I have no idea what is going through your head") are more than disruptive. I'm not sure why you just watch Neutralhomer making "more drama". Acting like a jerk does not directly say that CoM called Mathsci is a jerk. If so, Mathsci's allegation is like he called CoM unintelligent? I do not understand this situation.--Caspian blue 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed it closely enough to say anything meaningful. I do agree that saying "you look like a real jerk" is not quite the same as saying one is a jerk, but it's still on the edge, which is why I'm neutral on the block: I'll be neither for nor against it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a diff on the chat about the meaning of SS? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the willingness to listen to my message. User_talk:Pedro#Re:My comment on Pedro's "Sensible Sig" Pedro's question regarding "Nazi SS" and My answer with German knowledge and Pedro's answer and CoM's joke.

And would you watch this continued drama by Mathsci[25]? I can not imagine how this two edits to the article is a Mathematical trolling?[26][27] I also recommend you to read Mathsci's user page written in a very tiny letter that denounces editors.--Caspian blue 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this [28]. Gwen you asked me to give you a diff on that SS.--Caspian blue 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, stray 2nd finger on the mouse, sorry :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I grew up speaking English and French at home, with sundry cousins babbling at me in German. I learned at, dunno, maybe age 5, mixing funny idioms betwixt languages brought only blank stares or worse, unhappiness, which is to say, humour in one language doesn't translate word for word to another, it's rather a set of both background and outlook, c'est à dire, c'est l'ensemble qui marche. What's more, try it online and you're canny sunk half the time even if English is hardwired into you from childhood and more or less all the time if you snatched it up later than say, 14, unless you've got the unwonted knack, but that's more often than not souless so either way, one's doomed unless one's Johnny Carson with his sidekick who died only yesterday: If one didn't grow up speaking English, one's throes at bein' funny online in English are as likely to piss folks off as makin' 'em laugh. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is like an allegory that I, non-native English speaker can not understand well. The consensus is reached like the block is a bad mistake driven by the admin who was not sober when blocking. His comment to me does not make any sense at all. He is obviously unwillling to unblock CoM because of his sleep at this time or whatever reason. I thought you can unblock him and fix the current ridiculous situation. Oh, well, I gotta go...So thank you for listening.--Caspian blue 03:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Caspian, I was trying to say, "be wary of trying to be funny in English, online, if you're not a native speaker of English." As for CoM's block, as I said, I'm neutral on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see CoM never put up an unblock request? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I have a very thin skin on incivility so I'm rather one of people who are inclined to be upset at obscure jokes by native English speakers. :) I believe that you were trying to help him even though he who has been very angry at the ridiculous situation does not seem to think like that. Even intelligent people could not judge rightfully when they are drunken or angry. So...well, I think there is nothing to be overturned at this point. Your disengagement from him would be rather good for you and him, I guess. I appreciate your help anyway, have a good day.--Caspian blue 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's cultural too, what might seem uncivil or "cold" to others, might seem ok to English speakers brought up among Anglo-Saxons, in whose culture teasing among friends and loved ones can sometimes be taken as a sign of trust and true feelings (though it can have a dark side too, bullying). Meanwhile, although Hollywood has brought the f word to the world, one can't learn how to use it by watching movies alone, one must grow up in the thick of it, the back and forth of kids and teens. I never even heard the word until I was maybe 9, my mum shielded me from it, the f word was utterly taboo in my family. Much later, I heard she said it lots when family wasn't within earshot haha! :) I learned how to throw it about from Americans my age and I only ever use it in face to face conversations with close American and Brit friends, never elsewhere. The English I speak with non-native English speakers (which I do every day) is not at all the same as the English I speak with Americans or Brits, accents too, likewise with friends, likewise again online.

Sorry I couldn't help more with CoM. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Bookbound barnstar
		To Gwen Gale, for her scalpel-quick agilities with balanced and factual words of reportage (and also for contributing to the Web "meme," as reported in the The Washington Post, of "Neda," the slain Iranian protester).  — Justmeherenow 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That link to the WPost doesn't say the name's become a meme, Jmhn. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

True, Gwen. (But it does talk about the meme of the Internet -- especially Twitter's -- facilitating the contemporary opposition movement in Iran; which for brevity I described the way I did in the barnstar, but do please edit it to more accurately reflect reality(?)) Peace! ↜Just M E here , now 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand why you handed these out (all I did was ask for a confirming source, which this is not), but thanks for the thought behind this :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - I've re-edited it to mention your scalpel-quick agilities with balanced and factual words of reportage. (This particular barnstar award is one I've fashioned by simply cropping the basic recognition Wikipedians' can award themselves merely for amassing edits. Jimbo Wales apparently has 4,000.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you kindly. Also, thanks for being understanding about the sourcing and OR policies. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it leans wholly on other published sources and it can take some time for those to catch up. Moreover, there's much more to the sad Neda tale than meets the eye and it could take years before verifiable sources are up to speed on that. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose so, Gwen. (Hey, having spoken of Wales, he answered a query on the topic of Neda Soltan, which I figured ought to merit his being awarded the barnstar, too(!)) ↜Just M E here , now 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Barnstars? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RTV user not vanishing

I understand you deleted the pages of User:Johnnyturk888. Please undelete them, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of MJ

Thanks for the s-protection, Gwen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! My own thoughts about MJ aside, this topic's already got so much traffic but as Liza Minnelli said today, "When the autopsy comes, all hell's going to break loose..."AP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A set of eyes on possibly a DYK?

If you have 2 seconds, I wouldn't mind a set of good eyes scrutinizing Buffalo 461 - based on its importance in Canadian history, it would make a good DYK (I think), but could use some additional proofing/suggestions (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If the text were factored into fewer sections, further tweaked for syntax and readability and the inline citations cleaned up I think this would make a very fit DYK. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you! I've amended the sections (the one about crew originally had the 9 people listed, but someone removed it), and done some citations cleanup. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit more clean up, but the citations still need fixing up. Would you like me to do that? The article name is ok, by the way. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your awesomeness knows no bounds. If you have the time to fix my problems, it would be appreciated! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do it, cites are cleaned up now along with other bits. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, even professionally I have someone qualified edit my work! How does a hook like "... that the nine people killed when UN Flight 51 was shot down over Syria on August 9, 1974 is the largest single-incident loss of life in Canadian peacekeeping history?" sound?

Heh, when I was 6 they told me I was a fit writer but methinks it went to me head somewhere along the way :P How 'bout that the loss of nine military crew members and passengers when UN Flight 51 was shot down over Syria on August 9, 1974 remains the largest single-incident loss of life in Canadian peacekeeping history? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...I've also been told that I start things well, but am best at letting others finish them LOL. I appreciate your help...I should run on over to WP:DYK and submit! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a bash, who knows, it might go through! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

175 billion?

(the loan) or million? ↜Just M E here , now 16:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Text says billions, could be a typo though, the whole thing's rather sloppy and shrill. I wouldn't trust it at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Netquantum

No big deal who cares, what is the difference, you did not understand the meaning of "democracy" - for sure wikipedia would not be here today without the public and the general concensus! that is the point!

I have been editing since the first day and will do so as long as the internet is the internet. Netquantum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.7.235 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The public, open editing and democracy aren't at all the same things. If you carry on as you have done, any other accounts or IPs you edit from will be blocked, one way or another and as I also said in the block notice, this will happen until you abide by en.Wikipedia's policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think, re: Obama topic ban?

Since you noted before that ChildofMidnight's edit to an Obama-related AfD was not done in bad faith, since it was unclear whether the ban covered AfDs, I'd like to get your take on this before thinking of taking it anywhere. Talk:Gerald Walpin#Sources from AFD, where CoM is of the opinion that an article about a person fired by the president, a firing of which there is still a mini-controversy out in the fringes, is outside the scope of the topic ban. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Only so you know, I thought the ban straightforwardly covered AfDs but my thinking was, CoM mistakenly didn't know that and had edited in good faith. Now I think CoM is testing the edges of his ban. Gerald Walpin, of all topics, has everything to do with Obama. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's what it seemed like here too. Almost analogous to someone pushing 3RR by making a 4th edit at 24h,1m. Thanks for the input. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of leveraging the earlier mistake as a way to wikilawyer the topic ban. Put another way, mistakes are ok, but so far as an arbcom topic ban goes, there are bounds even to mistakes and it's far too soon to be nudging them. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I dropped a note on CIreland's page since he issued the other warning, so we'll see where to go from here I guess. Thanks again. :) Tarc (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Gwen, could you please explain to this lady why I don't want my name to be associated with Wikipedia, and why I have a right to that?

(And, by the way, is she right in complaining about "vandalism"?) Ninguém (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and have already followed up, please wait, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ninguém (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems it is solved; thank you very much again. Ninguém (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Buffalo 461

On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buffalo 461, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Penn High School

Hi Gwen! Please could you take a look at Penn High School#Notable Events. I think there's a combination of BLP concerns and inadequate sourcing there, and I'd be interested to know if you agree.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "shooting incident plot" is wholly unsourced and must go, it's a wanton violation of WP:BLP.
• The security officer firing isn't much more than a local hiring/firing worry and at most was only locally notable. The sourcing is way too thin to carry it in the article, again, WP:BLP.
• The music player ban showed up in a story on MTV.com. So long as names aren't named and the text stays short and pithy, it may be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the relevant cuts and watchlisted the page ready for the drama.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Popcorn! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Instead of starting drama like you two would have liked, I'd rather discuss the Penn High School article here.

• First of all, the "shooting incident plot" was in national news. I believe with more sourcing, it should be in the article.
• Next, the "security officer firing" was also more than "locally notable". There was also a major walkout protest at the school. There are many sources for this, same as above.

Please try to contribute to the article, by adding sources, instead of just removing the notable information. Thanks, Kevinmon (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, please have a look at Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can source this stuff from national news, and keep names or identifying details of particular people out of it, then I would have no objection to some coverage of those incidents. Sorry Gwen for talking to someone else on your talk page, no rudeness intended.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

blocks are preventative, not punitive

Jimmy Wales has recused himself from making any blocks for six months. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy and practice

Gwen, thank you for your clear enunciation of the situation on Bishonen's talk page. Tony (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Wales, he's been here since the beginning, so his thinking on both blocks and how to handle civility may have "fallen behind the curve" so to speak, out of habit, which is understandable. I agree with him that sysops should be held to a "higher standard." A stern, very unhappy warning to Bishonen from Jimmy would have been far more helpful. Not so often, but now and then, I think about typing something truly snarky into an edit summary. By some lucky fluke in the weave of my "wetware," I've long been able to waylay it before my fingers start tappin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzball (string theory)

Gwen, can you keep an eye on what is going on here on the talk page? As I’ve advised this I.P. editor from Germany, on numerous occasions I’ve e-mailed and spoken with the Ph.D. physicist who developed this particular aspect of string theory. He reviewed the article for accuracy, e-mailed his corrections, and I’ve implemented them. This Ph.D. (Dr. Mathur of Ohio State University) even offered to have one of his graduate students collaborate with me to add an Advanced theory section with formulas.

This I.P. editor keeps deleting large swaths of the article he disagrees with 1 2. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is how he originally made his objection known on the talk page. I moved it down to the bottom of the page where new threads belong. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The main thing here, is the IP removing sourced content, along with the original research worry that can show up on these physics topics. It's on my watchlist. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. He’s editing from the University of Bonn so I suspect he is young, impatient, and careless. He wrote (in his bolding) “Fuzzballs are no alternatives to black holes or a string physicists alternative to black holes! Fuzzballs are black holes!” As you will note in my response to him, the very first sentence in the article makes that point abundantly clear.

  Beyond that brain-fart, the nucleus of his objection was over an arcane detail about how fuzzball density varies depending on depth. That nuance has never stopped physicists and astronomers from noting that if you smash seven of our suns into a ball only 5.9 kilometers in diameter, that’s equivalent to two billion metric tons per teaspoon.

  Rather than delete an entire section of dead-accurate, signed-off prose, I added this little footnote, which was the proper way for this student to have handled it (after he read that first sentence again).

  BTW, with regard to my corresponding with Dr. Mathur, I did the exact same thing when I was writing Kilogram: I contacted the Ph.D. physicist at the NIST who is working on the new kilogram standard and exchanged some 50 e-mails with him while writing that article. He sent me pretty much every scientific paper ever published in journals on the subject. He even forwarded one of my observations on the instability of the platinum kilogram standard (I’m a fuel cell scientist and we use platinum to catalyze hydrogen in our fuel cells) to the BIPM in Paris so they could look into it. He also mentioned the theory in a BBC interview so it could be added to the article and cited. He and I are now pen pals. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over with more time to be had, I think there may have been hastiness mixed up with a wee language barrier :) This article is wonderfully written, by the way. Meanwhile, as the article otherwise says, two billion metric tonnes/tspn is far, far from infinite mass. Show me a singularity and I say something, somewhere, hasn't been found or thought through :) Speaking of mixing measurment systems and platinum weights, I think the metric system doesn't have near the human scale, understandability or sheer handiness as English weights and measures (and it's not that much harder to do physics in the latter) but alas, I guess science is stuck with the metric system at least for awhile yet. The physical platinum kilogram standard is flawed and won't last, though. Did y'all run into something other than the hypothesized gas exchange worry? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind comment on the Fuzzball article. As to “infinity”, I absolutely agree: infinite density and zero volume violates my *scientific faith*. That Dr. Mathur’s calculations with string theory arrive at the exact same dimension as the event horizon that Schwarzschild calculated 87 years prior, means a great deal.

  As for the metric system, I have to disagree. It absolutely rocks for most uses in science. Though I am an American, I do all my design in hard-metric and convert to U.S. Customary at the last second. The metric system falls a little flat in magnetics, where the old system based on “one amp-turn” works slick, but SI has its virtues in magnetics too. What is interesting is how the British customary measurement system was actually a metric system of its own. Being a maritime power, their system ties together the volume and weight of water at 60 °F. Their gauge system for the thickness of steel plate was also related to this. It worked really well for designing ships.

  As for the platinum/hydrogen thing, platinum is a powerful catalyst. Given a little bit of heat, it can disassociate methanol and other hydrocarbons, atomize (break up the diatomic hydrogen molecule into single atoms), and then ionize (strip away the electron) from the hydrogen atom. Then platinum can absorb the proton and electron into its metallic matrix; platinum is a great material for storing hydrogen. So here you have the “BIPM cleaning method”, which rubs (adding energy) ether and ethanol onto the surface and then hits it with >100 °C steam (more energy). All this added energy helps assist platinum in overcoming a hurdle known as “activation energy”. All the platinum does—as a catalyst—is reduce the activation energy for chemical processes that want to occur anyway (such as the oxidation of hydrocarbons). I theorized to the NIST physicist that the 30 µg instability the BIPM sees in the IPK for a month after they clean it could simply be catalysis of the solvents and absorption of the ionized hydrogen. My good friend at the fuel cell company I used to work at is a Ph.D. chemist. He suggested carbon tetrachloride would handily circumvent the problem.

  The cool thing is, though I could share this theory of catalysis of cleaning solvents with the Ph.D. at the NIST, I couldn’t write about it on Wikipedia as it was O.R. and wasn’t citable. He passed my observation along to the BIPM in France and a week later, while he was being interviewed by the BBC, mentioned my theory. He then e-mailed me the link to the published article by the BBC, which I added to the article as note 17. I did the same thing on Thermodynamic temperature; I got a lot of help from Dan Cole, who wrote several landmark papers on the goings-on at absolute zero. I must say though, that the guy at the NIST has been extra helpful to me and to Wikipedia.

  His extraordinary helpfulness is one reason why I went to war over using this photo for the watt balance; it shows the researcher and is a nice looking picture. The NIST released it for use in any article discussing the NIST project directly. Do you know if Wikipedia’s fair-use photo policy has changed since then? Greg L (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, getting the mathematical match with Schwarzschild, by other means altogether, is such a strong hint. As for SI and English measures, I do know SI's a great fit with scientific notation for now (as English units are friendlier for how people deal with weights and measures at their own scale) but who knows what the free market of ideas will bring later? Sometimes I think that for science, one day, all these metrics will fit no more or less than how Newtonian mechanics slide into relativity and QM today (maybe a big rethink on metrics will come when those latter two are at last brought together). Platinum is indeed handy stuff... clearly too handy for the Paris kilo! I think what you've been doing, to gather needed sources, is spot on the way to go for a tertiary reference like en.Wikipedia, published sources themselves need not spend time here if they don't have it or don't want it, but contacts with them can stir up all kinds of new citations (never mind quickly showing one where the sources are). I like that. As for the image, it looks great, but the ongoing trend here is towards wholly free images, letting anyone put WP content into any kind of GFDL/CC publication later, so images with anything less than a wide open GFDL/CC licence (which is to say, non-free/fair use) is becoming even less likely to last here, not more so. This is not to say IP laws will be at all the same in 20, 30 years, but they'll likely get even tighter and uglier before they snap to dust. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What

now... do I get rollback or not, what is your decision, I'm in a rush. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

THank you SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much!

Only so you know, you almost didn't get it back after I saw the above waiting here on my talk page. I don't go back on my word, but you've gotten lucky again. Don't let us down. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How to revive a page that I have never seen

Hi Gale,

I am trying to track down why the various links from Wikipedia articles to Sensory, Inc. lead to a deleted page. How can I see what had been posted previously and what caused its deletion? Sensory, Inc. is a significant R&D company with links to many notable research scientists in the field of speech recognition, and has made major contributions to this field since its inception in 1994. I'd like a shot at creating a page that conforms to all requirements as I was not the original author.

Thanks, Tom Tolbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxcoach (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensory Inc. was deleted twice by two admins over a year ago. The article text was wholly unreferenced and carried nothing to show the topic is notable. Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability policy for businesses and if you think the topic is notable, feel free to begin anew on a reliably sourced article. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to LM-7 on the Apollo_13 page?

I added a reference to the "number 13" section of the Apollo 13 page a mention that in the numerological scheme of things, it was lucky number LM-7 which saved unlucky number Apollo 13. You reverted the change in minutes.

Why?

Thanks in advance, Mike Wengler 199.106.103.63 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, hard core numerology has aught to do with Apollo 13 or spaceflight. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

something to share

I stumbled across this today: Wikipedia:Please don't go psycho. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

blockable offense?

I don't want to wade into the discussion there, but since Jimmy Wales has said this, I want to note that while I do think the editor's post was unprofessional, rude and more or less untowards and not allowed here, following my understanding of the written personal attack and blocking policies, I don't think a one-off edit like this by anyone is in itself blockable under written policies as they are now. Rather, I think the post was highly warnable but only a pattern (string) of such posts after unheeded warnings (repeated or egregious) would be blockable, or likewise might understandably lead to a de-sysopping with the founder bit. Does the founder not understand or know about the blocking policy as now written, or am I mistaken about the blocking policy? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) In the past you blocked this user for his incivility and lack of good faith. Unfortunately it seems he is back to his old ways: diff. I find the last comment particularly offensive. Being a Christian and a scientist, I find these articles interesting and this one appeared on my radar due to a posting by another editor. I left a warning that this is not acceptable on FF's talk per DR, but he has banned me in response (see my talk) and repeatedly removed the notability tag. Unfortunately the baiting seems to have wound up Hrafn also. If you could have another look I'd be grateful, but I understand if you don't want to/are too busy. Yours, Verbal chat 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also left a post at Talk:Perspectives_on_Science_and_Christian_Faith#Notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope my behaviour doesn't appear to be baiting (it isn't intended as such), but we do "have a history" I suppose. Thanks for your involvement. I'll back off those articles for a bit now. Verbal chat 15:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any baiting as such, but I would say, if you think the topic isn't notable, take it to AfD and be done with it. If you think it may be notable but you don't know, the tag is ok, but not worth fighting over. At the very least, it seems to be a verifiable journal so not much harm is being done in having a short NPoV article about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, for what it's worth, the topic looks notable to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Austrian school importance

Hello--I was surprised by this reversion. I thought my suggestion of goint to WikiProject Economics to argue the importance of the article made sense, and based one my participation in discussions about ratings there, I'm quite confident that article is not "Top" importance for the project. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as an economist (and I take it non-Austrian), I think it's a given you have a PoV and COI on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll bring it up at the project page. However, I don't think ruling out economists from judging the importance of articles for the economics project makes much sense. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment on it at the project talk page? CRETOG8(t/c) 00:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Economists are not alikened with scientists such as physicists. Further input is needed, perhaps some'll be stirred up on the project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't stir up adequate discussion, I'm going to go back to my own impression and re-score the importance. I don't see how there's a COI on that, it seems appropriate since I'm a fairly active member of WP Economics. So-if it comes to that, can you bring your objections to the the project page rather than just reverting? CRETOG8(t/c) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, may I chime-in as an economist who actually thinks that the Austrian School is more often correct on economic fundamentals than are its opponents?

The “importance” rating doesn't much function to steer readers; it functions to steer the editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics‎ to where their efforts might be better spent. Editors who are competent to edit articles on matters related to the Austrian School aren't going to be paying much attention to these ratings in any case; they will already understand that the Austrian School is under-appreciated.

My experience of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics‎ is that we just don't get productive discussion when the subject of the Austrian School is raised. Meanwhile, my experiences with Cretog8 suggest that a call that he would make would be as good or better than anything that might emerge from an attempt at discussion at the project. —SlamDiego_←T 02:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two COIs of my own here: I think unsourced "importance" ratings on articles do more harm than help to the project and wholly aside from this, that although with enough understanding and data, economics could one day be taught as a science, we don't yet have near the data nor the means and anyone who says we do is flogging pseudo-science (or truth be told, a winning scam pitched with groundless equations and algorithms). Meanwhile, pithily put, the outlooks of von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard most likely blaze the straightest path so far towards an understanding that economics has far more to do with human behaviour than the kinds of mathematics cited by "scientific" economists. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the “importance” ratings might indeed do more harm than good; but, again, their intended function is just to prioritize edits by member of these projects. There may be a case for a policy banning unsourced ratings, but there's not much point in fighting to move the ball up or down a field upon which neither side can score a goal. —SlamDiego_←T 13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe I can dream, meanwhile, that rating buckets like this won't last. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I would like to sincerely apologise for mouthing off against you here a while back, and for generally causing a stir. I see you have been in action with the latest round of Greg-bashing, and now see that your actions back then were all in good faith. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for saying that. This website's somethin' else, isn't it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

could you, would you...

goats will do this for hours on end

...have a peek at User talk:Avathaar, please? I've been trying my best to be a neutral referee there, but my past dealings with one of the parties involved there makes me a bit shy to be as firm as I probably need to be. A patient observer who wasn't feeling shy would probably be very helpful. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist. I've thought, so long as it stays on his talk page, there's little harm. However, please tell me if I'm missing something. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern is that it's become something of a satellite talk page, and that it's becoming something of a flame war. I'm just completely at a loss as to whether the intervention/mentoring/etc. can have any chance of succeeding under those circumstances. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm too lazy to dig up the diff, but I know I broadly hinted earlier that mentoring wouldn't work there, it very seldom does anyway. Worthy notion, mentoring, but the wished-for outcome mostly doesn't happen. However, it often does help the hapless, good faith mentor learn much more about how things happen here, quickly too, so I don't go on about it too much ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ew, I agree it's getting ugly. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, ugly. I didn't think the mentoring was completely hopeless though... I don't know enough about homeopathy to say whether the article has a slant. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy consists of taking herbal extracts, which may or may not have any useful effect, and by diluting them (with lots of shaking) in plain water until there is only 1 part per million or less, making a "remedy". No scientific study has ever shown any effect you wouldn't expect from well-shaken water, which is not surprising; that's all the stuff is. I am not making this up. Helpful, informative video is here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Many folk remedies should be looked at one-by-one and there are likely some worthy things to be learned through so-called "holisitic" and alternative kinds of medicine, given the flaws and corruption in modern health care and pharmaceuticals, but homeopathy is something else: Water which was once mixed, but no longer, as some (wontedly) toxic brew. I'm aware of no controlled experiment which has ever shown homeopathy has ever helped anyone outside the bounds of the placebo effect, that water in any way "carries forward" any echo (information) of whatever gunk it's been mixed with before. Even aromatherapy has more going for it and most of that's likely codswallop too (other than maybe what some might call a "psychological" outcome, since smelling strong, odd smells can be a canny trip :)

Anyway, there is nothing untowards about en.Wikipedia carrying an article about homeopathy, sourced claims, history and all, but the narrative must also carry straightforward sourced text about the utter lack of any known, helpful outcome (other than the cash homeopathic marketers and practitioners draw from it). There is no need to shrilly debunk the topic to smithereens, the article should stay sternly neutral, so as not to turn away the gullible, but that should also be enough to help most readers understand what some of the more reliable sources have to say about it. Meanwhile as I've already said, on en.WP, behavioural mentoring mostly helps the mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - never forget that aspirin was once a home remedy herbal tea brewed by native Americans. Dont confuse herbal and folk medicene (much of which works) with homeopathy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nodding, hair flippin' to and fro. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was trying something radically new (for me, anyway) and just ignoring the anon. The edits to my page occurred overnight, 'ere I'd have removed them shortly after they'd been posted. It's amazing how much our angry young anon quotient rises when school is out for the summer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd, ain't it? I wonder why that happens? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm blaming Wii and the New Math, since Latkey Kid Syndrome seems to have fallen into disfavor. ;)

Oh, look who rebooted their modem to get a new lease on Wikipedia? I am thinking a range block might be helpful, unless we can tie them down a little bit tighter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Memory Lane

In light of recent history maybe you'd cast an eye over the content dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism, with particular reference to the point raised by john k's post at the end of this [29] diff. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask for sources, is all and let them have their messy sway. Without sources, it's all original research and meaningless from the outlook of an encyclopedia. Go with quotes if need be. Meanwhile, most politicians, almost all of them, left, right, green, whatever, are either lying, scamming "fascists" or doomed to be if they stay in the game. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree about politicians. Thanks for taking a look. I'm just lurking there, not participating. :~) Writegeist (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin

ok i dont know wht possible offense this article has seemed to done to anyone but the personal page about manga writer Jun Mochizuki was deleted by you for reason of notability 1. u are not an expert obviously on mangaka 2. not only has this been deleted but many many many articles every week i look for are deleted by u mostly for opionated reasons 3.as an editor your job is to mediate what is and isnt acceptable as an arcticle through facts research and common sense u cant just delete articles as u please just cuase there not 100% the way you want them to be. ive seen multiple complaints and article deletions towards your editing surname i really hope u stop removing articles you now nothing about unless u are some type of mangaka expert you have no right to make the opinion that the Jun Mochizuki article was notable since you have not the slightest idea what it is about other then a writer. p.s i really hope Jimmy whales notices how your slowly ruining articles on his site its an abuse of editorial power and admin status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.167.17 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only about the article and nothing else you have to say, an editor tagged and I deleted Jun Mochizuki seven months ago as a CSD A7. The whole article carried nothing but this:

Jun Mochizuki is manga artist from Japan.

Works:
Crimson-Shell  	   	
Pandora Hearts

There was also a link to a blog in Japanese. That's it, no sources, nothing encyclopedic, no hint of notability. If you think the topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards and can write an article with reliable sources, please do. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice

Have you considered getting one?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:EDITNOTICE. Also, you have new mail.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322 again

Firefly322 is claiming you as an authority for deleting a comment of mine] on Talk:Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Although YMMV, I do not see this comment as being in violation of WP:NPA, so have restored it.

Although I had not intended to respond to your comment on my talkpage, I now think that some clarification is required. Firefly322 has a history (I can find the difs if you're really interested) of making false claims of anti-Christian bias against me. This is why I acted rather hotly to these accusations: [30] & [31]. (I would note that Firefly322 continued the theme further with this:[32].) My heated response was inappropriate, but provoked. I can tolerate bad attitude, and I can tolerate bad editors, but I find that I have little tolerance for the juxtaposition of the two. Something I dare say I'll have to work on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A challenge to the tag brigade

I tried. Who knows? Maybe we'll see something better. Have any ideas? I'm getting worried that we are hemorrhaging writers and researchers faster than we are replacing them, and most current editors would rather tag articles ten-per-minute with one of those obtrusive "this article needs someone to fix it but not me!" rubberstamps than do the actual hard work of finding cites. Antandrus (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be that en.Wikipedia is now going through the "pangs" of growing into its "late teens." The 10,000 or so core topics are covered (sometimes only with the dodgy, flawed sources to be had on them but at least covered) and the trail blazing thrill is dwindling. The truth is, building out thorough, sourced, neutrally-put articles is either boring (or not the pith of being here) for about 90% of editors. One of Wikipedia's great strengths and draws of volunteer time is that it indeed spins up like a very high traffic MUD (never mind the soapboxes) for many users, but it could be that the weaknesses this brings are catching up with the project and its output.

Altogether, I see too much time put into global and meta projects which output only shreds of widely spewed code, like importance ratings, infoboxes, style templates, wlinking boxes, almost without end, cluttering up articles with all kinds of content-weak stuff which in themselves stir up sundry bickering (and even arbcom sanctions) and meanwhile, not enough time put into building out the hard core text content. I think the free market (of content, web traffic and users) will take care of these worries for the world, but meanwhile there is never any guarantee en.Wikipedia will be the world's lasting bearer of this kind of content and ongoing, open editing, so yeah, I think this all could get out of hand sooner rather than later and will need some talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I added a citation and removed some impertinent tags from an article this morning. My reward was to be subjected to a tirade of threats and vituperation by editors who seem to care more for their tags than for the content in question. It is indeed a sad state of affairs but every cloud has a silver lining: I spent the rest of the day engaged in useful domestic chores like pruning the hedges and restocking the aquarium and so am able to contemplate the results with some satisfaction. I now enjoy a pleasant evening's music while I digest my dinner and peruse my watchlist. I have an article in mind but it is easier to engage in this cynical chatter... Colonel Warden (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm making spaghetti pesto this summer evening. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• • {ec} Which article could you be referring to, I wonder? What you describe sounds noble, but we shouldn't forget that removing tags while discussion is still ongoing, and there is no consensus or policy reason for the removal, is disruptive. I enjoyed a nice swim and watched a film with friends. Nice life. (after ec, I also had home-made pesto for dinner) Verbal chat 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • How about a 'Stamp out Info boxes' project? That could only improve Wikipedia, but it seems that once an article has one it's there for life, often condensing complex situations into a few numbers and words, and sometimes just plain wrong. And yes, once a tag is on an article and there is discussion about the article/tag, leave it for a few days, not hours. Make sure there's time for other editors to respond. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Guilty as charged! I add to the top of the page clutter because I can't be bothered to figure out the labyrinthine AFD process and so, unless it is an obvious speedy, I add a notability and/or ref (or refimprove) and/or cleanup templates. But sometimes it actually works. Yesterday Elliott Sharp, a lengthy and not too bad article, did not have a single reference (not strictly true as several perfectly good ones were listed as External links) and today it has several. I like to think that any article I add is referenced enough to have the makings of a good article. Given that the core of articles are already done and most of what is being added now is pap (if you have to write an article about yourself isn't that an instant notability fail?) and/or crap how about an instant delete policy for any new additions that do not come with several good references? It says right under this editing box "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Can't stop - off to do some more tagging - there are so many to chose from ;-) Lame Name (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes: First step would be to make them all horizontal footers... then top hat them... I'm somewhat less than half kidding. Oh, and while I'm at it, my bane, templated calculations for data buckets in those unencyclopedic and often wrong, whale-sized walls of numbers called "infoboxes" in astronomy articles (see a star like Sirius for what I mean). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by commentary

• I would like to nominate Gwen's first two paragraphs for the Too Good for a Talk Page Award. :) Carry on. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a very accurate assessment, and well written, so thank you Gwen. Unfortunately right now I feel like I'm complaining without having a suggested solution, thereby violating a rule I impose myself in RL, for the people who work for me. Finding citations is hard work; slapping templates is not. Maybe there isn't a solution, and every article sooner or later will either be "featured", "good", or "templated." Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by maybe 2011 I think it'll be all wrapped up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)