User talk:Gwen Gale/archive14

Jaycee Dugard
Jaycee Dugard
Born	Jaycee Lee Dugard; May 3, 1980 (age 44); Garden Grove, California
Nationality	American
Children	Two daughters; Born c. 1994, c. 1998
Parent	Mother: Terry Probyn
Relatives	Stepfather: Carl Probyn

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FYI: Vote at WikiProject Economics

WikiProject Economics article importance vote. —SlamDiego_←T 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I certainly understand the point that you made, though I just thought that you'd be interested to watch whether the process would be as unconstructive as I'd previously indicated. —SlamDiego_←T 11:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans

I reduced the block -- simply to try (and it's probably futile) to reduce some of the drama and to show he isn't being hounded. One last attempt at GF. If the CU comes up positive, indef him, and if it is negative, then we have a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ok! I'm watching Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frei Hans. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to see Lars got on top of it quickly. A quick end would be best for everyone if it is both quick and tidy. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, looks like there's a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So there is, I've suggested to SheffieldSteel we unblock Frei Hans now, no point in letting this drag on and this idiocy should have a response and that's the best one I can think of. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support an unblock (even though there are only hours to go) at least as an acknowledgement that FH has not been the only worry here, not by a longshot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Users Hrafn and Dave souza somehow think that that the article and its talk page belongs to them. Hrafn felt free to introduce his own biased POV to the discussion, he didn't even attempt to disguise it to not appear as such. When challenged that this view does not belong in an article he could not give any defence but instead tagged the discussion as supposedly not relating to the article. He seems to apply policy or rather what he perceives to be policy only when it suits him. The discussion is very much related to the article. To make a claim that it is not based on a view he introduced into the article is disingenuous. Both are now tag teaming to try and hide the issue in a discussion that is very much still active. Biofase ^flame| stalk 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article called Creation science. Since this one is called Creation–evolution controversy, it understandably deals with the controversy, so WP:RS drawn from the scientific side will tend to have much more sway there than in the core article. You should try to cite sources which bring forth the other PoVs in the controversy. You won't get anywhere by writing long, unsourced text about bias on the talk page, which is mostly for discussing sources and how to fit them into the text. What you did write has only been tophatted, so other editors can still read it. You might want to try talking about each worry you have step by step, in small chunks, citing sources along the way if you want to add content. While there likely are some very meaningful holes in evolution theory, there are far bigger ones in what is called Creation science (as it is often forth in publications) and one mustn't be too quick to give sway to beliefs drawn from faith-driven but fallible takes on the Bible made by individuals, over theories drawn from observation and 150 years of study and review of biology and the fossil record. One thing creationists miss is that evolution is a fact, whilst Darwinism is a theory which describes evolution as arising from natural selection, which is also a fact. The tussle comes in putting the two together. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you entirely understand what I am trying to get across. Other editors originally made the starting comments. What just gets me is that an editor can feel he is free to make his own comments but when those comments are challenged, and only when they are challenged, he can dig up some "policy" instead of substantiating them. What you say about not getting anywhere writing long unsourced text may be true, but I don't see how I would get anywhere in any case when a small group of users don't seem to want ANY discussion at all. As you say it's still there so if someone wants to comment on it they can. The amnesia on why I refuse to edit such controversial topics is dissipating and I shall extend my policy to talk pages as well until a final solution is found to these ownership problems. Cheers Biofase ^flame| stalk 03:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Biofase: your accusation that I "feel [I am] free to make his own comments but when those comments are challenged, and only when they are challenged, he can dig up some 'policy' instead of substantiating them" is incorrect. (i) You had already been warned that "Your claims are … increasingly off-topic -- as it has increasingly little to do with the actual material in the article." On further examination, it turned out that the complaint that started this digression, "adding quotes around 'scientist'", is in fact not in the article. This renders the remainder of the thread entirely off-topic. (ii) Far from refusing to "substantiat[e] them", I have pointed out to you, on your talkpage (which is the appropriate place to discuss matters deemed off-topic for article talk), that my use of the word "pseudoscientists" is fully justified by the definition given in Category:Pseudoscientists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said it is not whether the debate is off-topic but your derogatory and inflammatory comments directed towards fellow human beings that is the issue. Please substantiate your claim that all of these people are not scientists by providing reliable sources that they have falsified or dishonestly obtained their qualifications or let the issue go as I am prepared to do. Until such a reliable reference is present I will not respond any further to your comments. Your opinion on who is or isn't a scientist is not valid on wikipedia. Biofase ^flame| stalk 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Biofase: given that you yourself eliminated my substantiation of my position on your talkpage I will have nothing more to say on the subject, beyond directing you (again) to WP:PSCI and Category:Pseudoscientists. If you find a perfectly WP:SPADE definition and description to be "derogatory and inflammatory", then that is your problem not mine. I never made the claim that anybody "falsified or dishonestly obtained their qualifications" (and I dispute that this is necessary to legitimately describe an individual as a "pseudoscientist"). But this page is not the proper forum for discussing this, so good day to you sir. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Biofase, you'll need to either bring new sources to the article, or draw further from sources already cited by it. It's the only way. I don't see that you've done this. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some disturbing image

Hi, Gwen, could you look at this image? As I was curious as to why an user is so agitated in a discussion on Hummus in pop culture, I visited his user page, and found it. Are this kind of attack images allowed to be here? Since you've participated in discussing Hummus with the user, could you give me pertinent policies on the matter? Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That image doesn't link to his user page. Is there a diff you can show me? As for the image itself, I think it's being used in an unencyclopedic way by the users to whose UPs it does link. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He happened to feature the image (A diff), and the image is currently linked to other editors. Oh, well, I thought I might nominate it to MfD if it violates policies.--Caspian blue 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is on commons. The policy worries stem from how it's being displayed on user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an MfD on the user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Have a good day.--Caspian blue 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

75/76/RevAntonio

Thank you for what you have tried to do to deal with the irrational poster 75/76/RevAntonio. There is a very long history of abuse. Would you please keep a lookout for his return as he never takes the hint. Thanks again. Finneganw 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

First, calling an editor "irrational" is a personal attack, which isn't allowed. Second, I've left a note about your signature at User talk:Finneganw#signature, personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair warning

You seem rather reasonable, but I'm often wrong about things like that. In any case, I'm advising you of my "hypothetical": finneganw I believe is a sock for user aggiebean, well known at Talk: Anna Anderson. This user has been the roadblock there for YEARS. My suggestion is you look into that...finneganw is already suspect of being some other user's sock. This place is a regular sock-drawer. Now aggiebean and perhaps even you have brought in that rabid Nishkid and have slapped some protection against editing there. The damned page will never be done properly until Kiernan and I get it done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.123.46 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it did cross my mind those two may be one in the same. Please tamp down on the personal attacks I've seen elsewhere in your contribs, though, they help nothing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very well. It is a bit hard and excessive of me. I will stop. But I hope I see, within reason, a proper investigation into this rotten matter. Have you not gone back to see? My anger was more uncontrolled months ago, but have you not gone to see what was done to me? At the expense of any progress at the page--and now DrKiernan takes all my ideas as his own. Presently, while everything except your page has been semi-protected against me, I see the raving loonie who has killed progress there--aggiebean--is still posting, as is finneganw. In fact the notorious ChatNoir24 is also apparently free...though I wouldn't doubt a semi-protection against him too. Nishkid is out of control here, an unworthy admin. Try to deny that Nishkid64 is making things worse by serving as their pet admin. I think even DrKiernan can't take much more of that garbage Talk: Anna Anderson 76.195.80.131 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda

A year ago, the AFD for Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda was closed by you as "Keep following no consensus, topic has unknown notability and may indeed be promotional. Strongly suggest a rewrite to rm advertising slant.". The AFD discussion had only three comments. One voted "keep". The sources this editor listed are all self-promotional (of the subject, not the editor) or 404. I can't find any reliable sources on this person via Google or Google News.

I'd like to reconsider the decision not to delete. I am posting here following the recommendation on Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review: "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page." WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it, see my new close of the AfD. Note that the root article was Sri Nithyananda, Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda was a redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

75/76/RevAntonio 2

I would suggest you look at my discussion page as the editor in question is NOT gone. I would hope you will deal with him. He is a source of constant attack not just on my page but others. He has been banned for periods of time for such behaviour.Finneganw 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RevAntonio, raising the 'dead'

And I would plead for some fairness here. The user above is using Wikipedia for a personal vendetta against the entire 75/76-IP range. "Attacks", "harassment" and other nommes provocateurs are this person's favorite way of saying "I don't like this editor's opinions or challenges." In any case, now I cannot post and see my posts are cherry-picked and deleted. The username RevAntonio is being resurrected time and again, and it is time they stopped that tired ruse to cover their own tracks.

Can't you see how people are running scared? They have bogged that page for over 3 years, chased away all the good editors. Nishkid64 is vindictive--sorry, it's the truth and we all know it. Now, go and watch the meltdown continue at Talk: Anna Anderson. You will see the culprits. Oh, and notice finnegansock now using his proper signature, as if that proved anything good!76.195.80.131 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Re-edited to remove offense. Please see my post above, and thank you, Gwen Gale.76.195.80.131 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, sorry to be back under the circumstances, but I will have you note the racket finneganw has raised at User talk: DrKiernan. Please read...do you see what they are doing to Kiernan? And when I say "they" I use it loosely. She's badgering and LYING to Kiernan about what I've said at other pages...because those remarks I allegedly made about him DO NOT EXIST. See, GG, this is how they work!75.21.96.166 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making far too many personal attacks. Talk only about sources and content. The article has been semiprotected, which I think will help. If the PoV you're trying to put forth is anything other than that all the Romanov kids' remains have been found and identified through DNA tests, you're going strongly against the reliable sources on this topic and you will need to give your own reliable sources otherwise. Bickering over bits of wording will get you nowhere. Since you seem to be caught up in a meaningful content dispute, you may also want to think about getting a user account. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See my warning at Talk:Anna Anderson#warning to all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. "Personal attacks" seems to be something of an abused concept around here, but I accept my personal responsibility in the matter. Every time I suggested what you and Kiernan are doing with the article even now, I was accused of personal attacks. And you do know that user bookworm, who was begged by Trusilver to go help there at the Anna project, was insulted to the end of her rope. To conclude, I hope you have issued the others with similar warnings. I realize they do not "attack" as I do--I hope you've seen at least a portion of the history, which shows that I always acted in self-defence. The post at the talk page was excellent, and I look forward to seeing what you did with the entry itself. In spite of the lies that float around here ref: me, it's all I ever wanted. To see Anna Anderson outlined encyclopedically, no POVs. Thanks GG.75.21.96.166 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, forget about the bygone, that's over, stop commenting about other editors in any way. If you want something done in the text, cite a source on the talk page without saying anything about other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I will truly take to heart what you have written above. Perhaps you are one of the kindest people here, or perhaps you do not know my full history...so I would comment further to you. I am the one who is the "threat", against which the semi-protection is in place. Presently there is no real block on my IP range because...that is another story, suffice it to say I will not allow it. Truthfully, I've earned all that animosity, but I have NEVER vandalized anything except mistakenly, once, 6 months ago. So, sadly, I cannot add things, but I think what you and Kiernan did over there will finally fix the last 3 1/2 years of bickering. And I'm so happy you do not think I am a sock of the "other" editor.75.21.96.166 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Local notability

Hi again,

can you clarify for me the requirements for notability when adding content to an article about a small town such as Charlbury. I questioned whether the infrequent bus service and the local branch of the WI were really worthy of inclusion but others felt that they should be included.

The references provided for the additions are mostly to the subjects own website rather than some independent source. My concern with such additions is the article sprawl that develops with everybody adding their own tenuous connection – along with a link to their website of course.

The truth probably lies somewhere between WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:LOCAL, WP:TOWN perhaps with a brief detour via WP:ROTM but, as is so often the case, there seems to be so many ifs and buts that I end up non the wiser. As ever, your thoughts will be most valued . Lame Name (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all that. Although more or less any human settlement is in itself taken as notable on en.Wikipedia, aside from showing that it's indeed a human settlement and giving readers some broad, encyclopedic notion about it, anything else having to do with the topic should be at least regionally notable, which is to say, not notable only within that spot. Say, a bus schedule would be notable if it were an odd one (such as one bus a week coming through the village and only stopping if the village hall is flying a green flag, a tradition dating back to 1936, or 500 a day coming through an outlying village of only 800 because it's the birthplace of a Britain's Got Talent winner). Also, WP:RS has a lot of sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Hi. Since reading and contributing to the discussion this afternoon, I had been trying to put into words my thoughts about the potential impact on Wikipedia. Personally I think it's is an unproductive.

I just wanted to say that your jump the shark analogy hits the nail on the head very well! leaky_caldron (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As a one-off, I think it's ok. If this grows into say, a monthly stunt, yeah, it'll be Fonzie on water skis. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New Miss Pakistan is Ayesha Gilani

Ayesha Gilani is the new Miss Pakistan World Please add that in the article that you have created. Thanks Sonisona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.8.216 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't create that article, I dealt with it by beginning the article again, drawing the text only from reliable and independent sources speaking of which, one would need to be cited before putting something like that in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

so much for closed editing?

Now and then I check up on Citizendium. So far I've been underwhelmed, other than to say the writing maybe tends to be slicker than at en.Wikipedia and there are fewer spelling mistakes. The Cz article on Abraham Lincoln is even worse than the one here, which is startlingly misleading (owing to the flawed sources which are nonetheless the most widely published and from which both articles are drawn). Meanwhile, Citizendium still doesn't even have a stub on AE. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal -- yes, you are named as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I must say I cracked up when I saw it, meanwhile someone beat me to blocking FH indef for that wholly beyond the pale, time wasting breach of good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying not to make jokes and innuendo about being those other people all day... but if you can't laugh at yourselfs... Verbal chat 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to rub it in and I don't know why FH has done all this, but I guess it's ok to hint that the CU made me laugh. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, see the sock-puppets talking to each other :P --Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? Why wasn't I listed? bah. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia a microcosm of the real World

I just saw your comment on the global warming talk page, citing an article in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ has been an outlet for sceptics for quite some time now. This reminds me of editing Wikipedia in general. Sometimes you have people who don't agree with a consensus about how to edit an article and create a POV fork. The people sceptical of anthropogenic global warming are doing something similar in the real world.

The normal procedure for scientific discussions is via publishing in peer reviewed journals. Very few sceptics actually submit articles to peer reviewed journals. Instead, they directly take their argument to the lay public, bypassing scientific peer review. This then creates a false perception of a large dissent in the scientific community about global warming. Count Iblis (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

With most (but not quite all) peer reviewed journals, the peers are government funded scientists (university, scientific agency and military employees along with grant feeders). Since this money comes mostly from utterly scamming, lying politicians of all stripes, the latter get back mostly what they want to hear. Degreed scientists have mortgages to pay, kids to feed, like anyone else. Peer review has always had its flaws, but the moral hazards seen today are overwhelming. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would then have to lead to articles being unfairly rejected. The sceptics would complain about biased referee reports. But that's not what we are seeing. When in rare cases this does happen, you do get angry reactions, like e.g.

this or

like this paper rejected by Nature. The author has included the referee report in the updated verion of this preprint and as you can read, he was not pleased. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The papers aren't being submitted, for fear of losing employment, promotion, grants, moreover when some politicians and bureaucrats are calling for the criminalization of publishing any speech which doesn't tow the government line. Either way, it's easy to follow the money and there is meaningful dissent. Time will likely out all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh

I, uh, I've struck out your recent !vote – you had already !voted - #10. It pained me to do it, too, because Skomorokh needs all the support they can get ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering why I hadn't seen that RfA earlier :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans

Good bold action. 'Nuff said. --Cerejota (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have requested third-party input at WP:AN, but I think discussion should be retained at Talk:Anna Anderson. DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The block you made should likely be looked at, too, so that might help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I must state that DrKiernan has been doing his very best to keep edit wars away from the Anna Anderson page through encouraging discussion rather than hasty alteration. It has been a very wise way to go considering the huge problems that have occurred on the page in recent years. It has also largely worked. Finneganw 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Going by the text of the article, I don't agree. The article is unencyclopedic and almost wholly lacking, to the level of misleading readers. I've said more about this on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome to your POV which is not shared by other edtors at Anna Anderson. Would you please take part in discussion as DrKiernan has requested? You are a newcomer to the Anna Anderson page and have been made welcome. I would like to think you would be good enough to discuss changes as requested by DrKiernan. Also if I happen per chance to leave something out in signing off it is not intentional. Thank you for your concern. By the way the nonsense being touted around that Aggiebean and I are one and the same is completely unfounded and quite frankly ridiculous. We are not even on the same continent or hemisphere! Finneganw 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

First, GG, I love what you're doing and I hope you keep at it, you are correct about this silly article. Now, say, isn't this poster (above me) by finneganw the one and same who Kiernan blocked? Who is now posting again under the "red" signature? Or did I miss something? Like did I miss maybe one editor got pilloried and gagged, while another got a slap on the wrist? GG, what do you say? Is this the fair, forget-the-past peace you hoped to attain?75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Am slipping back in to ask something. I have seen evidence that finneganw is a sock puppet which is offensive enough (but I will not make that accusation). So, I see that finneganw is also laughing at the rules, laughing at Kiernan, mocking rules that were fairly imposed. Perhaps I haven't a leg to stand on; here it goes anyway: I'd like to see finneganw banned from the subject for a while. Let us see what user aggiebean does in that event. Fair's fair! Or do WikiAdmins not consistently enforce their own rules? GG, I ask you on the level.75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I see is far too much emotion (anger, one way or another) from almost everyone. Worries abound, I don't see much at all that's encyclopedic about either the article or the talk page threads. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GG, you are right--and that is what I have also been saying for a while now. Don't you see, I CHANGED as an editor and wanted to see a correct encyclopedic version of Anna Anderson. I wanted it because the stories of Princess Anastasia's survival meant something to me and my family for private reasons! I was a supporter of Anna Anderson, but those loudmouthed editors helped me see the truth. When I went back to help them, look what they did to me. I am not dredging up anything, but injustice that is simply ignored, "bygones" language, that is too much to ask. Be fair or be silent, that is the lesson to be learned from that talk page. But I see the unfairest of all continue to run rough-shod. Finally, GG, please don't get into the ring with Kiernan. He's done hard work there, he outlined an excellent article. Please don't change his hard work with frivolous things like the hundreds of Anastasias type of thing. They'll roast you for that, as a friend I warn you!75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries IP, I shan't be roasted. One last time, please don't talk to me about what's happened before, I don't care, because it won't help the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. It was unfair of me to think I might be able to "talk to" you. Now perhaps this: you are, in fact, doing a tiny bit of trampling in the wording of your proposed version. The entry still says there were hundreds of phony Anastasias. That is unnecessary. It is the kind of thing that sets those people off, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry. That is only point 1; there are a few other points. But not now....75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)--I edited a few typos and added some words.75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much emotion, too boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GG, listen, if you are thinking what I have been thinking for 2 months...why hasn't this article been proposed (or whatever you call it) for deletion? As you say, and I have said this countless times, it is too contentious a subject. Wikipedia will never get it right, because people either have immobilized POVs or they are like you and become bored. No one cares about this entry except a few of us. Propose it for deletion and everyone can lose this obsession.75.21.121.80 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll never be deleted because the topic is highly notable. Lots of articles about notable topics here are a mess in sundry ways, even some of the highest traffic ones, but most do get more helpful with time, as will this one. If I can't help out now (not saying I can't), soon or later, someone will. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear GG, with a hopefulness I really cherish! Hopefully you're right. Don't stop working there. But I disagree with one point: notability is highly subjective here. What IS notable about Anna Anderson? Everything that is notable about her as a fraud, will be argued off the page. Therefore, what you think hopefully, is, in reality, a kind of everyone's-sick-and-tired mediocrity. Then the mediocrity is never challenged. Resolved, yes. Good encyclopedic entry? No ways. It would be burdensome to refer you to example pages, but I think you take my point? And to be more clear: I left out the idea that deletion of the page may chase 'em all away, and it could be re-proposed by responsible editors. Still, Godspeed in your hopefulness.76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

She was a highly notable scammer (although one must acknowledge she may have been so loopy, she didn't have a grip on what she was doing). Have you read WP:Notability and WP:Biography? The article however is highly unencyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

- Let me just respond quickly, I don't really bother reading the wikicommunist manifesto. Admins break it as often as editors. Plus, in reality you are preaching to the choir here...she IS notable, jeez, that is my point. And the notability deserves accurate, unbiased representation. Have you read the talk page archives?76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)--OH I left out something: several editors over the months have said no one cares about Anna Anderson entry here. I cannot verify that statement or attitude, it's at the talk page. But when does notability trump ennui? You see, for many, the notability is Princess Anastasia's, NOT Anna's, because nearly everyone hoped rather than believed she was Princess Anastasia. That is information I can verifiably source for you upon request.76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what's been happening. Meanwhile, if you won't read the policy pages of this privately owned website, we have nothing to talk about anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord, GG, I'VE READ THEM, and read them and many many others! Do you actually dare to pretend admins as well as editors get away with ignoring "policy"? Failing enterprise indeed! Whereas you have not read the talk page history for an appropriate appreciation of the trouble. Ain't that the way it's supposed to work?76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Bye IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Again

[1] Apparently, your efforts to explain what is and what is not vandalism haven't yet reached a satisfactory effect. Ninguém (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think his/her efforts to stop edit-warring between you and me "haven't yet reached a satisfactory effect". That's because you keep following my edits, or checking my contributions page to know what I am doing or what I am not doing at Wikipedia. Unfortunetly, I'm too busy to check other users's contributions pages, I have better things to do with my life, and when I'm in Wikipedia I read articles, I do not read contributions page of other users.

I want to be far from this "Ninguém", I do not have time to play this game anymore. I know this user won't stop finding ways to rise news edit-warrings or discussions, because he's not stoping until somebody block me. That's why I'm not making part of this trouble.Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems edit-warring is back

Long time no see. Unfortunetly, I am here once again to say user "Ninguém" is once again edit-warring my edits. Funny, I have been out of Wikipedia for some days (too busy) and while I was out, user "Ninguém" almost did not post anything in Wikipedia. Now that I am returning, the user seems to be once again active in Wikipedia. It's incredible how fast he is able to edit an article I have recnetly edited. In a few minutes, he's there posting or reverting something. When I am not posting in Wikipedia, he is not posting too.

I think it's clear the other user follows my edits. It's also funny an user who claimed to not to be associate with Wikipedia, who seemed to be leaving the projective, is once again active (only because I am returning). With hundreds of articles in Wikipedia, it seems the other users is only interested in the articles I recently posted. This is really strange. I try to be far from the other user, but it's impossible because he follows me and spends hours a day checking my recent edits. Please, do something aboout. It cannot keep this way. Opinoso (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When your blocks are up, I think you two should stay away from each other altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He is again commenting on my motivations:

[2]

Even though you have warned him not to:

[3]

And he is doing this while blocked for personal attacks and harrassment. Can you please take the necessary measures to stop that? Ninguém (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for you. Comment only on sources on content. Do not comment on the other editor or you will very likely be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From ANI

Hiya. SNIyer12, was last seen around his User-main page on July 5. It sure isn't friendly of him (this continued snubbery). GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we don't to cowabunga the guy. We just want him to pick up his phone & address our concerns. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake (in a quick glance, I thought the link at ANI was his contrib history), I've left a note for the editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You can ask me for further help on this here, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall, thanks. PS: It appears, he continues to snub. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From SNIyer12

Sorry for not responding earlier. I've started using the edit summaries again. If it's a minor edit, then I try to indicate it. However, most of my edits were to avoid redirects. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page, we can talk about it there. Thank you for answering me. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rapidly loosing patients with SNIyer. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the worries, please wait. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick ? About Deleted Articles

Are you able/willing to userfy a deleted article? I worked for years on John R. Palmer, it was then decimated then AfD'd some time ago. Now there's some references I need from it...and I might just try and fix it up. I created a sandbox at User:Bwilkins/jrp if you're willing/able to do this favour! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! As usual, your awesomeness know no bounds! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it's thankless

User talk:Rlevse#funny you should say that....

I've long said being on arbcom is a thankless task. The flaws aren't with arbcom members. If the behavioural policies were given more heed, by far most RfARs could be dealt with before reaching arbcom to begin with. The time may be nigh to have another look at what arbcom is meant to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is wobbling. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

Herbert L. Becker appears to have material which was found iffy for the David Copperfield article -- you might wish to look at how it is worded, but one section defintely appears mopre about Copperfield-Schiffer than about Becker. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

KC has taken it out now: It looks to me like a few paragraphs of coatrack with which to slip in that old Paris Match smear about Copperfield. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello. In these cases: File:Basij member with a knife.jpg, File:Basij Militia members.jpg, File:Mohammad Javad Basirat.jpg and File:A close shot of an armed basij militia.jpg OTRS is not applicable. As you may already know, if the one who took the pictures reveals his real identity he will seriously risk his life. The Iranian government definitely tortures and kills him. I will never ask him to reveal his identity! Please trust me and upload the pictures again. The pictures are very very important for this encyclopedia.--Breathing Dead (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To be on Wikipedia, the pictures need independent verification from a reliable source as to their content descriptions, otherwise they're violations of WP:BLP. Also, even if the descriptions could be reliably sourced, for copyright reasons these would still have to go through OTRS. Anonymous licence grants aren't enough. If the owner of the images wishes to stay anonymous, there are ways to handle this, but this would have to do with steps taken outside Wikipedia first and I cannot give you legal advice. Besides, the descriptions would still need to be reliably verifiable through a published source. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Now in this case: File:A shot of the demonstration of 18-Tir.JPG , I have to say that are you blind or just love to annoy people? Didn't you see that file's tag? I PERSONALLY TOOK THAT PHOTO! You need to restore that file immediately or I will report you for your abusive behavior!--Breathing Dead (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to file an OTRS ticket, for starters. You should do that through commons. However, if you describe the people in the photo as demonstrators, BLP worries may be raised. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

you know what? what you say is total nonsense.However, if you describe the people in the photo as demonstrators, BLP worries may be raised. What the hell do you think they are? I am sure those who are going to see that pictures are all human beings and can easily find out even without a comment that the people in that pictures are demonstrators. However I don't know about you. well some people have less mental capabilities and you sound like one!--Breathing Dead (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You also might want to think about posting the images on Flickr. Either way, you should be doing this at commons, not here. If you carry on making personal attacks though, you'll get yourself blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says I Should not upload the picture here? I took the picture by myself and I LIKE to post it here to use in article. And surely it is none of your business.--Breathing Dead (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Free images go on commons: Wikipedia:Uploading images#Free license images. You only posted them on en.Wikipedia because they were deleted from commons, if the licences are ok and there are no BLP worries, they belong on commons. Free images uploaded to en.Wikipedia will wind up on commons anyway, so take it there. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted the image which I took personally to English Wikipedia because I LIKE it and I don't like to upload it in the commons. Since it is not against any policies of Wikipedia. I will upload it again in here whether you like it or not. You have to prove that I didn't personally take this picture or stop the act vandalism which you are doing right now!--Breathing Dead (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll block you from editing if you upload that image again to en.Wikipedia without an OTRS ticket. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I will talk with Mr. Ahmadinejad about your hard work to clean up his mess. He will definitely send you a medal of honor.--Breathing Dead (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been given a lot of slack with these personal attacks. You should stop them now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup: A shot of the demonstration of 18-Tir.JPG has been restored over at Commons, where free images belong. If there are BLP worries with the image, they should be dealt with on Commons. If there are BLP worries as to including the image in an en.Wikipedia article, those should be dealt with on the article talk page, as whether to include the image in the article (a deletion discussion would be held at Commons, not here). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson request

Despite your vendetta-joining, I'm here solely to ask that you go to the talk page to intervene. Aggiebean, as per usual, is bullying a helpful new comer user john k I think--he's user John Kenney I believe. She is mercilessly insulting, baiting and goading him simply because he disagrees with her. And he is no sock puppet. Or do you only selectively enforce your rules as I suspect you do?75.21.103.13 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You attack me and then ask for help? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I see ol' IP75 is back and still tormenting me by attacking me behind my back! He's trolled my talk page and others and has been nothing but trouble on the AA page and other pages, and has been blocked several times.

Dear Gwen, just asking- Why did you undo my change of description of my website in external links? I don't know if you were aware "Anna Anderson Exposed" is my site and I wrote it. I do not consider my site a 'list of AA's fraud attempts' as it currently states but what I had originally put, a site explaining- in great detail- all the ways and reasons she wasn't Anastasia, and never was. Please return it to the description I chose, 'a site explaining why AA wasn't Anastasia.' Since it's my site I should have the final say over how to describe it, right?Aggiebean (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do that. Diff please? There is no way I left an edit summary anywhere on this website saying list of AA's fraud attempts.

I don't know who first posted the wording, but when I changed it back, you reverted my changes. I saw it in the history.Aggiebean (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, DrKieman reverted it back, talk to DrKieman. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please be aware that another admin is handling Anna Anderson. I tried to help, my help wasn't wanted, I left. Please don't ask me about this article again, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You call that "handling"? And yes, I know the Way of the Wikipedia Double Standard, so, no, I didn't exactly ask you to do anything since I already know your type...and yes, it's fun insulting you. Were you unaware that I am the Revolution? ;)75.21.149.8 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're the revolution, please block me. Zoo Fari 06:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for your assistence handling something unpleasant with grace and elegance

Hi milady (a one-time request, I promise) ...

Having seen from time to time (to my eyes) unfortunate spectacles of contention on this page (serious smile) ... and finding myself with an unpleasant dynamic with another administrator in which there is disagreement about whether a matter is concluded ... and I therefore do not (never would) wish to put unwelcome words on her talk page ... but principle demands I pursue the matter a bit further (serious smile) ... etc etc

Would you allow a topic on your talk page to act as neutral ground (under your eyes, but without requesting you say anything about it) to conclude informal steps of dispute resolution? (I can conduct my part in sonnet form for your amusement if that would help clench the deal. :)

Or ... suggest somewhere else other than puppy's house. :)

Feel free to decline with impunity. P.S. tomorrow's my birthday. :) Kindest regards, (off to bed now)Proofreader77 (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff or two? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm the puppy referenced, but I cannot make heads or tails of the post. I don't have any idea what the concern might be. I know of no matter which is not "concluded", as Proof puts it. The only matter I was involved with was archiving on Talk:Sarah Palin, and I templated the two editors who did it (they were very nice about it) and added them to the probation list, told everyone else to move on, and if a matter needed more discussion to simply start a new section and then link to the archived discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks KC. Seeing this tophatted thread I'm shocked... shocked to learn of a disagreement over talk page archiving at a political topic, moreover the article of someone as uncontroversial as Sarah Palin.

Pr, talk page threads get stale quick and might even be loaded with uncited assertions, original research and (shudder)... bickering. If disagreements are ongoing, it's more helpful to keep the discussion fresh by starting more or less anew, the policies don't change (much) and it's far easier for newly arrived editors to give their input. Either way, my talk page isn't the place to talk about this and I tend to stay away from political articles altogether, since most of the sources on them are flawed to begin with and shrill PoV runs deep, making them black holes (or I might say fuzzballs) for time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Responding to requests for diffs in context of "cake"

(smile) I'll assume that the birthday greeting's have your cake and eat it too means to ignore the above request for diffs.

I understand why it looks like a good deal ... but it is not the specific undoing that matters now, but a clarification of larger issues illustrated by this sequence ... and specifically that administrators must not aide those who play the game with "tactics" which (yada yada yada bad result for NPOV not in a heavy sense, but by granting a license to dominate etc etc).

The context of the administrative action is one in which user:Simon Dodd is a form of bully, not particularly awful unless the context presents itself to illustrate that fact ... which it did (snipping elaboration) ... which he prematurely wiped into an archive ... which was ruled wrong ... yet the fruits of the wrong act were locked in as sacrosanct ... the wrongdoers wrists slapped with feathers ... and those wronged (in effect) threatened with sanctions if they undid any of the results of the bad act.

I would only pick a "paradigmatic" case to pursue which clarifies larger issues. The details are of no great consequence. The principles are. (And I do need administrators who do not understand my rhetorical methods for helping counter bias-by-wikibully ... to understand they do not understand ... and not get in the way of them. :)

LOL But anyway ... I think I promised sonnetization ... so let me conclude this resolved request to you (no), on your talk page with one I wrote before sleep:

(SPT.001) (untitled for the moment)

{SPT.001.01} _ TO RULE AN ACT WAS WRONG, yet still lock down
{SPT.001.02} _ the fruit of that misdeed ... would seem perverse.
{SPT.001.03} _ The doers warned as if they wore a crown.
{SPT.001.04} _ Undoing their misdeed proclaimed as worse.

{SPT.001.05} _ A KNIGHT OF JUSTICE rides in on white horse.
{SPT.001.06} _ A lovely horse mis-doers wish was dead. :)
{SPT.001.07} _ The path of reason somehow turned off course.
{SPT.001.08} _ "An act is bad," "undo it," should be wed.

{SPT.001.09} _ AN ACT THAT'S WRONG MADE SACROSANCT is vile.
{SPT.001.10} _ A knight and horse in battlegear crusade
{SPT.001.11} _ however long it takes, and with no guile,
{SPT.001.12} _ to guarantee some principles don't fade.

{SPT.001.13} _ The lance may break or miss. That's always true.
{SPT.001.14} _ But there are things a knight cannot but do.

Thank you for the time it took to consider this. As promised, I will not ask such a thing of you again. (Now to determine which venue to pursue this.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest dropping it, forum shopping is frowned upon here. You have now complained on the article talk page, ANI, my talk page, and Gwen's talk page. Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection: Mischaracterization. (Noted for the record.)

COMMENT: While any talk page content issue is mute, the behavior issues (more than one) are not. Attempt at informal resolution of one aspect, concluded. I understand there are formal procedures for dispute resolution of different kinds—procedures I am not yet versed in, other than the general idea that one should attempt to resolve issues informally before "going there." (Complete elaboration of objection, with special attention to AN, will not be attempted here.)

NOTE: This subsection was in response to Gwen Gale's request for diffs on this page in the context of her reply on my talk page with the characterization have your cake and eat it too. At the time I composed this no one had responded beneath her request to me to provide "diffs" (which she had not struck through or removed).

Protocol: Having referred to user:Simon Dodd explicitly in this subsection (because it was clear Gwen Gale was aware of that), I will notify him that this (closed) topic exists.

No further comment or replies from me here. (Sincere apologies to Gwen Gale for this idea.) --Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I know you watch my page, but just in case you missed this, Ratel has posted a nice little note to you on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading it as you posted this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastille Day (my birthday) reflections of (our) exchanges past on Gwen Gale's page

Not a topic for discussion, just taking a few moments for reflection of our exchanges here ... after I somehow noticed your userpage (must have noticed something you said somewhere), liked the painting, and decided to note you as someone I'd ask if I ever needed to ask anything ... I.E., Diffs of a different color :)

2 Sept 2008 "Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment" // (current events wrangling)

re 08:34, 2 September 2008 Gwen Gale (→Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment: cmt)[4]

(in a subtopic I originally created then later corrected title[5]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 Proofreader77 (→Excess details about Trig's birth) //Adding talk subtopic with sarcastic suggestion of article subtopic to clarify issue under heavy discussion [6]

(to be continued ... I think you can count exchanges on one hand ... note: "little case studies") Proofreader77 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Well, it was a few more than five. But it was a pleasant time-travel experience. Cheers. (no reply necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WP:Civility/Poll

Observation: The recent sonnetized episode here was really about issues in the discussion there. As for the negative aspects many allude to ... there is no transcendence possible until, e.g., Jesus comes back. :) _{(Now to go practice walking on water.)} Proofreader77 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a close friend or kin or trusted someone on the job can be snarky or short to one's face with few worries, but it's something else in writing and when written online, only stirs up harm. Notions as to what the project'll put up with may ebb and flow but I glark things will either tend to draw towards a steadfast take on being civil or, if not, it'll be a broad hint en.Wikipedia is in its death throes. As a big believer in open content and en.Wikipedia as a means towards the goal, I think there's nothing to show this website will (or won't) be carrying forth as the mostly widely noted and read open encyclopedia in say, 5 years. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments under "Too lenient" (re inequality of application), but consider "Too lenient" not the right subtopic title for that.
I agree with the word "unenforceable" (in practice), but see that through the lens of untransendable "social" aspects of "the game." :)
HEAVENLY ASIDE: If everyone was on salary, "perfect civility" might be achieved ... while continuing to build the project. See "paid editing." LOL AKA "in heaven" ... not while "the life on earth game" continues apace. :)
(5 years) MATHEMATICAL PROPHECY: The number of people willing to do (e.g.) RCP ... in a land where the issues of inequality of application are treated as too complex to practically enforce (i.e., "justice" cannot be had) ... cannot remain numerically large enough to support the necessities of the project's growth. (Smarter bots may solve the problem, but that's a pretty darn smart bot. :)

(appreciate your indulgence, which I consider a birthday license, now expired :) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember User:NWill User talk:NWill#Mass move of films with Spanish titles??

Hi Gwen. user:NWill is mass moving pages again, apparently against consensus as an editor expressed on his/her [NWill's] talk page User talk:NWill#US Open (and as usual w/o discussion). Would you mind to take a look at it? Tanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Undone, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen it on my watchlist.Tanks again, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanks? Yer taps! :D Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, here: h :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been rude to you. Sorry! :-* :X --Breathing Dead (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

However you don't deserve the above comment, but I don't remove it. I just have to say "grow up kiddo" you are such a revengful little girl. By the way, I don't believe on those things that muslims say about women and I consider women totally equal to men, but sounds like that you disagree and insist those things are true. Well I don't know, you are a women maybe you think those comments comply with what you are! :-)))))))))))))--85.198.7.140 (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like original research to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because you don't want to think and don't use your sense of conclusion and logic. You are just saying it because you don't like me and you are doing pertinacity just like a kid. The facts which I used in that writing were undeniable. All muslims (the ones who actually are believers not those who are only muslims in name) believe whatever written in Nahj al Balaghah. You are accusing me of incivility, while I apologised you when I thought I was rude to you, but you didn't answer to my apologies, you didn't even say something like "no problem" or even "apologies accepted". How come you accuse me of incivility? And just to inform you, I did not do this, as your stupid friend accused me of doing so. I am not that stupid to do such things. I really risk my life by editing here, as the islamic regime of Iran tracks anyone who writes opposite views of them, and if they identify the person, they immediately imprison, torture and kill him! Have you ever written some thing with the fear of being brutally tortured and killed? I have apologised you although I have been under immense amount of mental pressure by seeing the scenes of brutal murder of my friends, countrymen and countrywomen by the Islamic terrorists. How come you call me incivil? I am trying to add some useful contents to this encyclopedia to show the people what really the truth is, whether they like it or not. However I never use unreliable sources, you and others couldn't find a single problem in my writings and you just insist on talking about general rules and not defining what particular rule I broke. It is really surprising, I am writing against the roots of sexual apartheid against women in a large area of the world and you (as a woman) block me indefinitely! Why do you think everyday lots of innocent women get tortured and killed by fanatic muslims all over the world? Isn't it these kinda of religious lessons? Just do a simple search in google to see how big is this tragedy even in the 21st century. Hey I did some of these searches for you. I know the scenes are disturbing (disgusting) but it is nothing comparing to what I have actually seen by myself. Why don't you take a look at this. What about this? What do you think about this? Yeah and this. Please read this one too. I can show you hundreds more. I spared you to see even more disgusting pictures of beaten women by fanatic muslim men. In my opinion there should be total equal rights for men and women in all aspects. Don't you think we should endorce our opinion by adding some contents with reliable material to this encyclopedia. I am NOT asking you to unblock me. You see it is very easy for me to sign in with hundreds of IPs without even you notice. The heavy filtering of Internet by the Islamic regime of Iran which spends millions of dollars on it could not stop me, how come a privately owned website could? I am asking people like you, who at the moment live an easy life, to think twice! Fundamentalism should be condemned with all means and by the harshest measures, or you will pay the price. We are paying heavy price for being under the rule of a fundamentalist regime and you don't care. However your turn can be anytime! Didn't you forget 9.11? Breathing Dead (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.129.147 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Breathing Dead, you can still edit your talk page. Posting as an IP here is block evasion and any edits you make as an IP can be reverted on sight by any editor. If you want to be unblocked, please carefully read your block notice. If you have anything to say, please log on as User:Breathing Dead and say it at User talk:Breathing Dead. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: User:Collect

Following the close of RfC/Collect, I seem to have continuing difficulties with him at the Fascism article. The specific discussions can be found at Talk:Fascism/Archive 25, Talk:Fascism/Archive 26, Talk:Fascism/Archive 27, Talk:Fascism/Archive 28, and Talk:Fascism, This all involves a continuation of dispute over the wording of the first sentence/paragraph of Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum. During this time Collect has misstated the results of of an ANI on the OED as a RS and the RfC on Fascism, and has generally prolonged the discussion (which has been ongoing since January) by misrepresenting what people have said, claiming that agreement or consensus had been obtained when it had not been, and misrepresenting WP policy.

Furthermore Collect appeared to accuse an IP (now registered as User:FormerIP) of being a sock: "BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"Talk:Fascism/Archive 26#Try for another four years, perhaps? despite the request at RfC/U "in the future avoid making accusations of sockpuppetry outside of normal channels". I discussed this with Collect on his talk page.User talk:Collect#NPA

I would be appreciative if you would look into this and provide whatever advice you can.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this thoroughly. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that TFD is looking at the posts where the IP first appeared using a number of floating addresses instead of a static address, and was clearly not a "newbie" to WP. Pointing out that they were SPA is not illogical. Collect (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be bringing up the topic of socks in any way at all unless it's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In which case I beg your indulgence. I had not thought that asking about SPA was the same as accusing a person of being a sockpuppet of any persona. Collect (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy against SPAs in themselves, at all. My understanding is, the way you brought it up was a broad hint there were socks in the drawer, as a smear. You can't smear editors with whom you don't agree, even IPs, by making this kind of crack and you'll need to abide with IPs floating about. As for the article, there are lots of sourced takes on the collectivist scam called fascism. The article should cover them all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I made and continue to make no accusations of socks. I did think, moreover, that the IP was not several people, which resulted in him registering as Former IP. The issue in Talk:Fascism, moreover, is whether an opening to a section ought to reflect the entire content of the section. Merci. Collect (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: "Would I be saying that about the editor/IP if I agreed with their edits?" If the answer is no, be very, very wary about saying it. The worry with section openings is they're sometimes spun with a misleading PoV, which can be daunting. You might want to hold off and see where input from other editors leads things. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have, in fact, joined in. Note [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and four other distinct editors all with the same position here <g> Is ten editors enough to make consensus against 2 (3 if we include Anarchangel))? I could find another four if we go back a couple months on it, but I am sticking to very recent editors here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I think the most helpful thing you can do now is wait for other editors to give that consensus sway in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing problem

I am having problems editing constructively with this person User talk:Lawrencekhoo, and I noticed on their talk page that you had crossed paths previously with them. Instead of discussion on talk pages this person reverts and lectures afterward about things such as edit warring. My recent experience is here Money where this person reverted a picture along with material they disagreed with. I try to be a consensus editor, and have a tendency to make changes and then change those changes along with others for the most part. I am not perfect, but find working with this editor problematic. Here is my last edit to that article [13]. I am starting to get the feeling that this editor is now following me around on several articles and addressing me aggressively which I do not like as in an argumentative way instead of consensus idea building. skip sievert (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Given what's happening in the word these days (moreover in the states and in Europe) Money has become a political topic. Since the many sources to be had on both political and economic topics tend to be flawed and weak, the most one can hope for is a wide take on them following WP:V. WP:NPOV is tough to reach because many editors on these topics will edit them as though their PoV is the neutral outlook. WP:COI also abounds from all sides. If you're being followed, I'll need some diffs to look at. If the article falls into a slow edit war, it can be protected. If you stick steadfastly to sources, line by line if need be, you'll get much further but owing to the above, it can be a lengthy slog. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed also that L.K. is using this tool (Twinkle) also as if I am a vandal on the given article Money. That does not seem fair to me Wikipedia:TW as per here, [14] – This seems wrongly aggressive to me also, as the edit summary used in conjunction to using this tool does not really reflect any value of the editing I did. skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok to use Twinkle for sundry tasks other than vandalism so don't worry, you're not being scarlet lettered with a big V. As I said above, stick steadfastly to (verifiable) sources, line by line if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok... but, he has removed information that I did that way despite it being sourced. Thanks for the general suggestions though. Removing a picture recently and other basic editing mistakes makes me wonder that this tool may be misplaced. skip sievert (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, he's saying there is no source to support the assertion. Unsourced assertions can be removed in good faith. Either way though, I need to see a diff for each edit which you may think brings on a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He just inappropriately tagged the statement about gold being legal tender. It is. The source says this Named after the famous South African President and nature conservationist Paul Kruger and the South African monetary currency, Krugerrands have been legal tender worldwide since the first coin was struck at the South African Mint on the 3 July 1967.... I am finding this an abuse or contentiousness that is not appropriate. He argues for some reason that it is not cited as to the statement which it clearly is ... actually in both citations. I made in conjunction this edit in the body of the article Although some gold coins such as the Krugerrand are considered legal tender, there is no record of their face value on either side of the coin. The rationale for this is that emphasis is laid on their direct link to the prevailing value of their fine gold content. [15] Retrieved July-18-09 – The information I put in is sourced. I am viewing his editing as tactical as to putting up roadblocks for what ever reason. I am not a gold advocate in any way. Just trying to make the article interesting as to value and information. This is also the section where he removed the picture previously Money#Commodity money The article body reflects the few lines of lead I put in as to information. Failed verification with two reff/notes?? I am finding this very problematic [16] as in unhelpful as to making the article good or creative as to presentation. skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The source, which is an advertisement and hence rather unreliable, is utterly flawed, Krugs aren't legal tender worldwide. They can easily be swapped for meaningful value in most places but that's not at all the same thing as legal tender. Here, he has reverted an edit because it doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source. He can do this. You, meanwhile, can come back with a source which is verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. American Eagles are imprinted with their gold content and legal tender "face" value. An American Eagle's value is based on the market price of its metal content, plus a small premium to cover coinage and distribution. [17] – The market value in connection with commodity value is what I am trying to get at in regard to fiat currency. skip sievert (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AEs are legal tender (for their face value) only in US jurisdictions. A market price on the underlying commodity value of a coin's metal has aught to do with legal tender. Truth be told, this is the whole pith of fiat money, which more often than not has no meaningful value other than being, through force of law (coercion), legal tender in a given jurisdiction. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have tried to break down some of the distinctions which I hope are more clear now. I connected face value into it and some more ref/notes that I think are illuminating. From all indicators S. Africa does actually use the Krug or can as legal tender also... but I have not really emphasized that in the lead now. On the plus side of all this L.K. tagged something for a change which gives a chance to look anew for info rather than removal as has been the case. In the last go round on the talk page I mentioned that as a better method of going ahead. skip sievert (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly L.K. seems to have removed information from another article which backed up an argument he does not endorse from the Money article from the Gold coin article. [18], I say oddly because it looks like he is removing information that does not jive with his opinion of what money is. This does not seem like a good edit approach, and makes me think he will go to real extremes in editing selective information for selective effect or at least according to the duck test , it appears this way. - skip sievert (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow... take a look at the last comment in the talk here Talk:Money#Commodity money, and also the erased comments from someone ! I now think that L.K. should not be given any extra editing tools. He is manipulating other pages as to his pov and calling other Wikipedia articles that conflict with him unsourced. He is using tactics instead of making improvements, which I believe are directed toward his bias's. I know that sounds strong... but I am just reporting my experience. Now he is accusing me of wiki-stalking because I reinstated some material on the other article mentioned above. I have a general interest in mainstream and heterodox economics and am not pro any type except maybe energy economics as to my own pov... but the level of vitriol in trying to cooperate to improve this article and the intense aggressive stance of L.K. is wearing thin. The removal of important information that bears direct connection to the debate on this article is very suspect as to good editing practice (in my opinion) [19].

Do you mean this? What comments did he erase? I need a diff (showing the "edit difference") for each and every thing you're telling me. If you don't know how to link a diff, please read this, I need to see a true diff, not a link to text. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One example of him removing information [20] which was pertinent to the debate on another page. The strange thing was then accusation of wiki-stalking... when I edited the article before he did... though I restored the information he removed in a later edit.

This exchange occurred on the Money talk page today which I think was rather negative by L.K. also. Also it shows me that he is aggressive and maybe sloppy in what he is doing.

Since you ask the same question again, I shall repeat the same answer. I removed the information because it was dubious and unreferenced, and contradicted the other articles on legal tender and money. As for the code for gold being XAU, that is just trivia and irrelevant. As for the photo, I have no idea what you are talking about. I note that it is still inthe article. LK (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious with that statement about it being trivial? You removed the picture [21] and I put it back in [22], where you not aware of that? skip sievert (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) End – skip sievert (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, all text should be cited to some kind of verifiable source. Cite them. Unsupported text can be removed by any good faith editor (either of you), but one can't replace that unsupported text with other unsupported text. Clashing PoVs are very, very ok and can be written into the text together so long as all are cited to verifiable sources. LK, you can't cite what other articles carry as support for an edit: Being a tertiary source, no encyclopedia text is a reliable source, but it may be a more or less handy gathering of secondary sources with some text (the "Wikipedia narrative") to string them together as a way to give the reader some kind of a jump on glarking the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente

Can you please explain your recent edit on this article? How is a referenced item from a newspaper "unsourced original research"? I'm already having to deal with User:Laura289, who claims to be Mr. Celente's personal assistant, making unjustified edits to this page in blatant violation of WP:CONFLICT, as well as harrassing me with ad hominem attacks sent to my personal email. Having a WP administrator make the same edits is not helpful. KarlM (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the WP:BLP worry isn't foremost, it still has sway: The sweeping assertion you restored didn't seem to be at all supported by the citation. One would need to cite not only the prediction, but some reliable commentator's independent take on the outcome (not your own original research, such as citing your own take, which would be cite spanning), but someone else's published and reliable commentary that a) GC made a prediction and b) it didn't come out that way. The name of the commentator would most likely need to be put in the text, maybe even along with a straight on quote. By the way, WP:COI is indeed allowed, so long as the conflicted editor puts the needs of the project first and carefully heeds policy. Truth be told, if COI wasn't allowed, this website would grind to a halt quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can see that. I might see if there are any refs for the second part, but it's so minor it hardly seems worth it. User:Laura289 has amply demonstrated a history of not heeding policy, as well as refusing to engage in any discussion on the talk page, which is why I don't take any edits she makes at face value. KarlM (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what you say may be true about the editor, I only looked at the edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Eek

Sometimes I deserve a smack with a wet trout, and last sunday was one of thoes days. Thanks for reasoning and my apologies for any harsh words from me. I was acting like a child. Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Wow! Cheers, I'm glad you've thought it through! Thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

<wanders away with head held low> Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Naw, chin up! Learning about stuff can be startling, happens to me all the time, I even kick meself now 'n then ;). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you see it like that. I feel like mr wonder years here; lessons learned and all that! Must be a better Ceoil, and not such a bother. Anyway, no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt Ceoil's moment of self-realization, but FYI, I noticed an edit from a surely legitimate User:Gwens Gale. Outriggr (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, the cognoscenti know how to deal with this stuff (was reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention) so forget I mentioned it. Mainly I wanted to make fun of my buddy Ceoil. Outriggr (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, been awhile since someone's done that, thought I was slipping :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

iambic pentameter/pentametre

Re: [23]

I understand there is a general rule about not making such "English" spelling things "an issue" (or if it is about UK, then go with English spelling, probably :) ... but if there are two occurrences of the phrase in an article, and someone changes the spelling of one of the occurrences ... What to do? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. This is a case where both are linked to an article ... the "metre" spelling to redirect. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Puppy dealt with this. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

A silly question perhaps, but I take it you're not Dark Phantom Of A Bewitching Playwright (talk · contribs)? The user signed themselves as you on my talk page (although the signature leads to She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain) and if it's not you they should be warned not to impersonate others. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone's sock. I've blocked them, awaiting an answer as to who they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Breathing Dead

Hello i saw you have blocked Breathing Dead . this user is one of fawiki trols whom i have blocked lots of his account , just wanted to let you know about this , they are all his socks . --Mardetanha ^talk 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing her. So, what? I and her are friends and that blocking was a misunderstanding. I once apoligised her for personal attacks. now what are you trying to say? I love you Gwen. hehe :X:X :P

And you see, my contributions were quite constructive, just take a look at LEDS-150 and see how nice I created a high-tech article? ;) I believe you(Gwen) are such a discerning person and you don't decide based on rumormongers. :D --Thirsty for Truth (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me know which account you want to settle down upon and maybe we can talk about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

apollo 11

Apollo, the dream that fell to earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI and comment if you wish

Hi Gwen, as you were involved in this matter earlier on you might like to read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of community ban: Igorberger.--VS ^talk 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record...

FWIW, I originally only included the parts of User:Laura289's email that dealt with the Gerald Celente article and would normally have been found on a talk page, and specifically excluded the insulting bits. She (the sender) then posted the whole thing. Don't know if that changes your opinion or not. KarlM (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Email#Abuse handling. The next time you don't want talk about something by email (which is understandable), please leave a message for the sender on their talk page asking them to bring it up on-wiki. Also keep in mind, I'm not aware of any policy saying you have to even acknowledge an editorial email. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

0rr

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect: Rifleman303, with one edit, has no history of bad faith edits. This edit [24], while obviously misguided and not appropriate, misses the "straightforward vandalism" requirement by a mile. SluggoOne (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

I think if you're going to make signatures a policy, then all three areas should be part of it: user page, user talk page, and user contributions. Actually, if you can get to either of the first two, you can get to the other one of the two; but contribs require extra work to get to. I include all 3 in my signature so that anyone can get to my contribs easily rather than having to hunt for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the policy would be, so long as a sig carries at least one link to the userspace in an easy, one-click, undisruptive way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

...and carry a timestamp. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a timestamp. And contribs link should be there too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on contribs, also. We need to be given more fields to work with, though, because those of us who pimp our sigs don't have enough fields for all of the colour code, plus talk, plus contribs. Radiopathy •talk• 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, contribs would be handy, I'd have no worries about a policy which asked for a link to them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

close

You might want to consider tweaking the wording of your close. You said "So long as this is only a guideline, such lacks shouldn't bring forth a block ...". I notice that 66 editors, including me, supported Viridae's statement, which concludes: "Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed." It might be accurate to say there is not unanimous support for blocks, but there is certainly not consensus that blocks are inappropriate, regardless whether the SIG is a guideline. Indeed, there is far more support for Viridae's statement than any other. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree he should have been blocked had he not tweaked his sig, but no admin with wits would be willing to block for that, only to be baited by the third or so who are spitting mad their narrow PoVs of whatever stripe, however strong their good faith, true enough here and clueless enough there, aren't highlighted by en.Wikipedia. Had he not rehacked his sig, maybe I'd have blocked anyway, but I'll never know. The pith is, guidelines aren't policy but WP:SIG is begging to become one. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If this were an actual rule and not a guideline, and if there weren't so much hypocrisy about it, you wouldn't find me among that 1/3. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeking to debate the issue here, just to point out that the actual discussion did seem to support a block, but the close seems to imply that the discussion supported the idea that a block would be inappropriate, so the close seems to be slightly inaccurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't block someone for skirting a guideline, we can only cite the skirt if other policies have also been breached. WP:SIG should be policy, as I hinted broadly enough in the close. This said, I'm canny open to any ongoing thoughts you have to share about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an explicit comment (by Baseball Bugs) on the RFC about SIG being a guideline. It got one-third as much support for blocking. I am suggesting that the close should reflect the fact that blocking did gather substantial support (much more, in fact, than the argument about SIG being a guideline). I am not saying that there is necessarily consensus in favor of blocking, but I am saying there does not appear to be consensus to say blocking is inappropriate, which is what the close suggests. If people during the RFC had felt that the status of SIG as a guideline were more important, they could have commented differently. Also, WP:BLOCK says that "persistently violating other policies or guidelines" is grounds for blocking (my emphasis). — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree! But no admin with a grip can block over a guideline without any other policy worry to stand behind. So long as the community flees from making WP:SIG policy, these kerfluffles are going to get stirred up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to make your close accurately summarize the support for the comments at the RFC, where many people did say that we can block over this guideline with no other policy to stand on. The argument you are making was also explicitly made at the RFC, so there is clear evidence of how much support it had among the editors who commented at the RFC. Your close could state, for example, that more editors found blocking to be appropriate than found that SIG being a guideline is a determining factor. At the moment your close seems to ignore completely the substantial number of editors who supported blocking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll get a fight the next time this comes up too. Make it a rule instead of a guideline, and there's no fight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, make it a policy, please. As I said, no keen admin would block over a guideline alone. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I deeply appreciate it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the incivility perpetrated by admins every day without any kind of sanction, if Docu were actually blocked over this silly issue, there would have been a firestorm. Close it and be done with it – and switch it from a guideline to a rule, to avoid such debates in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What, no puns BB? :D WP:SIG should be policy, until then, there'll be gnashing of teeth over the odd siggy. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine for getting my Irish up, begorrah. I should Docu for that. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dublin' 'r nothin' then? :) Aye, I could do with an Irish coffee either way :) Methinks I'll canny brew one. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe an Irish seven-course meal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My only worry about those islanders is, they didn't come up with spaghetti :P Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's hard to make spaghetti out of potatoes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

At least we've Rösti here in CH :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear about that Irish spirit they've just learned about? If you capture one by hand you get ten wishes, but if you try to grab it by the arm or leg it lets them drop off and escapes. They're calling it a leperchaun. HalfShadow 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where's me shillelagh when I need it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Bah, I don't wanna be part of your dumb ol' club anyway... HalfShadow 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give thee a hint, on en.Wikipedia, I'm the leper with the most fingers. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Shillelagh? Gimme a scythe 'n I'll sweep it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

re: not vandalism

Regarding this revert, please see this, this, this, and this.

I think you'll understand why my judgement by that point was that the edit was, indeed, vandalism. Someone has already AGF'd your revert back to the neutral version of the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism. It was an unhelpful edit and ok to revert it, but not by calling it vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for your firm and merciful (and thereby wise) close of the Docu RFC. When the time has come to close the range, one doesn't make a martyr of the last cowboy. Anarchangel (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT CANVASS

As I'm sure the accusation will be made regardless. Is this edit cutting out too much information? I thought I was just rmving repeated information. The afghan info was not mentioned in the source. Soxwon (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not canvassing, but why are you edit warring over that? Also, having looked at the source, I think the word "unprecedented" is original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, no real reason. Thanks for your opinion. Soxwon (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've trimmed it to absolutely match the source, so I'm not sure what can be objected to. Thanks again for your help :). Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted and trimmed it. Still have to take another look about the Afghanistan connection mentioned here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the article's talkpage, Afghanistan is mentioned in relation to timing of the release, not as a reason. It said clearly "Canada's role as an ally," which I reflected. I didn't mean to whitewash. Soxwon (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your talk page comment, that the text should follow the source more closely. The worry is, you're on the edge of 3rr now and should wait 2 or 3 days before undoing anything again. Try waiting for another editor to fix it. All of them (the "big media" outlets) lie anyway, it's what they're paid to do, so you might want to think about whether it's worth your time. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I'm just going to leave it alone and wait for Blaxthos' personal attacks... Soxwon (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of inappropriate bullshit. One, Soxwon, STOP running to Gwen and seeking her opinion... Show some respect for your fellow editors on the appropriate talk page instead of selectively seeking an opinion from someone. Take note that her opinion has seems to match that of the experienced editors with whom you seek to war. Two, stop playing the personal attack card -- there is a clear difference between a personal attack and pointing out when you're misinterpreting or misapplying policy. Gwen, sorry to drop all this here -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to respond, because he's fragmented discussion all over the place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mh. It is clear that the source article is talking about Afghanistan [What else could it be] but if editors are not happy with it we could insert a loooong quote (which I don't think would be the way to go): "The Fox News Red Eye show, which in March featured a group of pundits taking turns trashing Canada and its reliability as an ally, caused a national uproar, with the Canadian government calling it `despicable' and `disgusting." So which way should we go? @ Gwen: BTW, good catch regarding the "package-deal" OR. I missed that one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Afghanistan does seem to be the context of the kerfluffle but given the "sloppiness" of these kinds of sources, it would be safer to find a source which says what the "Red Eye Show" episode was all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you actually see the clip (just watched it on Youtube) they seemed to branch out into other military areas (police forces) and generally insulted the military altogether, not just their role in Afghanistan (the whole thing's pretty embarassing). Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your last statement, Gwen, but shouldn't we discuss this at the article's talk page?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't want to waste my time talking about which set of lies to source :) Happy to try and help out "down the lane" so to speak :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be really funny ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Soxwon. Can you give me/us a link to the video you're watching? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was just seeing what they were saying. most complete version I can find. Also, a bit more digging and the outrage is indeed over Afghanistan, but that's on the Canadian's part and should be noted as such. Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out shortly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Response at article's talk page.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ramdasia section: Reverts by you

I would like to know why you have reverted the Ramdasia page? I have constantly provided valid links and proofs but the user Ravinder121 is deleting them without providing any information why and is not engaging in any kind of discussion regarding this.

My argument is that Ramdasia is a subcaste of Chamars but because Chamar are a traditionally a "lower caste" this seems to have offended Ravinder121. Any proof or links that I provide backing up my claim are very quickly deleted by him, while he himself provides none or links that just offer vague associations.

Here are my links that prove my points: Castes and Tribes of Punjab by G.W Briggs written in 18th century lists Ramdasia as Chamars. How do you explain that? [25]

A research paper on scheduled castes of Punjab: Showing that Ramdasia's are Chamars [26]

Official Constitution of India: Scheduled Castes Amendment [27]

I would suggest you ban user ravinder121.

(unsigned post at 01:45, 26 July 2009 Bal537)

I've protected the page from editing. You'll need to gather consensus for your edits and sources on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?

OK, kidding. But all seriousness, you've helped with a couple of situations and I opened the ANI about Bal537. Looking at today's contribs, the user is clearly obsessed with this type of unsourced and potentially defamatory edit (dealing with castes is a touchy subject so I'm told). I'm inclined to indef. The user is not listening to reason, and has already shown that they will continue this path no matter what. I need a beer. Law_{type! snype?} 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read this page yet? Haha! Only kidding :)

I know enough about it to say, any kerfluffle over castes on the sub-continent can be even worse than going on about "ethnicity" and "skin hue." Touchy subject may have been wryly closer than you thought. It took me a day to get up to speed on what Bal537 has been trying to do. It's not vandalism, but the soapboxing, lack of openness to talk about it, shoddy sources and crummy writing (which is not owing to the twists of post-colonial Indian English syntax) bring it so close, I've spared the other editors my wonted rant about the narrow definition of vandalism on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If this was a typo, I would assume that only those > 74 years of age would have caught it. I was thinking of calling my grandparents to translate for me. Haha. Kerfluffle. That has to be the stepchild of 'peccadillo' or 'hullabaloo.' Both those passed spellcheck, btw. Even though 'spellcheck' did not. Got to love stream of consciousness typing. OK. I'll help clean up this mess when I wake up, now that you have caste an interesting light on it. <- Did you see what I did there? I'm freaking rad. Law_{type! snype?} 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kerfluffle's not that old! I've been hearin' it all me life! Heh, stumbled into some too :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bal537 edits

Dear Administration, I would sincerely thank you for reverting back FALSE edits made by user Bal537. I would request you to permanently safeguard Ramdasia section from FALSE edits in future.

User Bal537 is a vandal.
He has no respect for the edits made by Administrators on Wikipedia
Ramdasia [Weavers(english), Julaha(hindi)] are not Ravidasia[Cobblers(english), Chamars(Hindi)]. This user is hell bent on promoting his FALSE stories.
He has been warned on several occasions before.
He created FALSE page Chamar ramdasia to spread FALSE information.
This user has used spoofed I.P addresses on several occasions to indulge in vandalism on Ramdasia section.
He is posting same FALSE information on Ravidasia[Cobblers(english), Chamars(Hindi)]section too.
I would request you to remove URL Chamar ramdasia completely.

I would also request you to permanently BAN user Bal537 from making any future edits on Wikipedia.

Thanking You, Singh online121 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 26,2009

Dear Admin,

I would request you protect Ramdasia section for maximum period of time. There is a user with id Bal537 who has indulged extensively in vandalism on Ramdasia section.

This user Bal537 has also indulged in malicious edits on Chamar section and has tried to project various communities including Ramdasia,Jats,Kashatriyas and Brahmins as descendants of Chamar Community. Maximum No. of spurious information can be observed on the Chamar section.

It is my humble request to please keep Ramdasia section protected from any future malicious edits.

regards Ravinder121 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching the articles and have warned User:Bal537. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It's me, The Hated One, just dropping a line to thank you for weighing-in on the move to ban Finneganw from Anna Anderson. We haven't seen eye-to-eye in past, but I'm damned glad someone's seeing through that bastard, finally. By the way, kerfuffle is the word and my family have been saying that for about 150 years. It does tend to be used more by Brits and Canadians.75.21.103.17 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled kerfluffle, though I've seen it kerfuffle. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

July 27,2009

Dear Gwen, Thanks for your contribution and safeguarding ramdasia section from malicious vandals.

However, there is one small error which needs to be rectified.

Weavers is an english word. Julaha is a Punjabi & Hindi word.

Therefore, opening line should be "The Ramdasia are a caste of Weavers (which means Julahas in Punjabi and Hindi)."

thanksRavinder121 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes passing the buck is rad. I bet you wish you never chimed in on ANI. You should know that if I'm there (voluntarily or otherwise) you need to run for the hills. Law_{type! snype?} 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Naw :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. But when I said passing the buck is rad – that wasn't my advice to you. That was me being highly amused that you are now effectively cleaning up what should have been my mess. You got the buck and I feel absolved. Law_{type! snype?} 12:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thiomersal

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Thiomersal. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

It's not reasonable to attempt to edit-war in an obviously-controversial change like this, while requesting the other side of the dispute not to edit war. The sauce should be for the goose and the gander both. Eubulides (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You edit war and then template me? You've reverted enough. As I said on the article talk page, please wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted three times in the past hour, and have supplied no sources supporting your claim. The existing text is supported by a reliable source. Please reconsider your position, which at any rate has very little to do with thiomersal. Eubulides (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted once, you've reverted twice, why are you edit warring? Why are you misrepresenting my contributions? Why don't you want to wait for more input on the talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You reverted three times.[28][29][30] For the purpose of 3RR, "revert" doesn't mean simply "go back to an exact copy of a previous version", as that could easily be gamed by at the same time inserting some other trivial change. In this particular case, the reversions have all removed or undermined the point that affluent countries are the ones who've removed thiomersal from vaccines. Eubulides (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're highly mistaken. I've reverted once, you've reverted twice. Moreover, I disagree that my proposed edit was trivial (never mind that if you thought it was trivial, you wouldn't be edit warring over it). Please stop now and wait for more input from others. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Martintg "outing"

I don't agree that this even was outing but even if it was why go straight to an indefinite block? There is no need for that. Please remove the block and instead talk to the editor on his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but I've unblocked. I'm startled and sorry to hear you support that kind of harassment and unencyclopedic commentary. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Gwen, I think nobody supports Marthing's personal attacks to Offnier's alleged nationality/ethnicity. So 24 hours block could be suitable for the incivility instead.--Caspian blue 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I don't support harassment! But I don't support going straight to a block either. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef means 10 minutes if the editor acknowledges the breach and says they won't do it again. Hence, my block was wholly misunderstood and I wish you had assumed more good faith on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what indef means. I objected to a block, not the length of it. I did assume good faith, and still do. I figured that you simply made an error of judgment and so felt that talking to you about it was the best thing to do. No malice was intendede on my part and I didn't assume any malice on your part. Please don't it personally and if you want to remove this whole section from you talk page please feel free (if that helps). It's important for admins to be able to talk to each other frankly,but it was not my intention to upset you. If my words were too harsh I apologise. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to help, but you seem to think the editor's behavior is within policy and I don't. Until there's a consensus, there's not much to do about this and I was happy to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think his behavior isn't ideal. But I think that talking to him on his talk page is the first step not blocking. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not ideal? I think you're mistaken. Personal attacks and outing aren't "not ideal," they aren't allowed. The edits were meant to undermine and drive away the editor and had nothing to do with sourcing or building an encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And warning him first, "stating a person's nationality isn't on" would have done what harm? Why be so trigger happy? That's all I am saying. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you were "trigger happy" (your words, mind). Outing isn't allowed, personal attacks aren't allowed and those edits were beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No trigger happy would have have been to undo your block rather than to request that you do it. You didn't block him for personal attacks you indef blocked him for outing without warning. All I did was react to that. Clearly you don't like that. Not a lot I can do about that. I'm out of here, this is going nowhere. Happy editing. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm assuming you're re-instating the supported block (although not for "outing")?? I've marked the ANI thread as such (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, you're wikilawyering and now smearing me, aside from wholly undermining what I did to stop the editor's harmful behaviour. I don't think you understand the harm you've done, nor do I think you understand that outing is only another kind of personal attack. Lastly, your one-second block of the editor strayed from the blocking policy and carried a wantonly snarky summary. You've made lots of mistakes here: Your words say you don't support the editor's behaviour but your deeds say very much otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure

Gwen, in regard to your last comment on my talkpage, I've never thought in any way that you were "defending" Offliner. After reviewing the discussion at ANI, on my talk and here, it seems that all other admins who commented do not see this as a case of "outing". You are not the first good faith admin to be misled into taking action and I thank you for reversing your block. I would appreciate if you could now close this ANI report explicitly stating this was not a case of outing and also remind Offliner that making unsubstantiated claims of grievous misconduct is also a form of personal attack. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you two have carried forth your bickering onto ANI now. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I've not carried forth any bickering onto ANI, but merely restated my request there after some delay in your reply here, which is that I ask it be explicitly stated in the closing of the ANI report that the consensus view is that this was not a case "outing". To contend that alleging one's nationality, e.g. membership of a group comprising of 140 million people spanning the globe is a form of "outing" is untenable. If UserA calls UserB an idiot, is this outing as it could reveal personal information about UserB's intellectual disability? I think not. Should Offliner choose to bicker over my request that is his business and it was he that originally brought the matter to ANI in the first place, it is not relevant to my reasonable request in regard to closure of the ANI report. --Martintg (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"If UserA calls UserB an idiot," it's a personal attack, which isn't allowed (and may be UserA muddling someone else with a glance caught of himself through the looking glass). Besides, IQ and wisdom aren't the same things. Could be I've known cats with brains the size of walnuts who were wiser and more aware than some people I've met. Call it what you like, by commenting on the editor and not content or sources, you were trying to undercut him by splashing some dish about him, not the topic, onto an open wiki. Any shred of personal information about an editor comes in handy on a search engine. Meanwhile there are reasons why WP:COI is only a guideline: Anyone with knowledge on a topic and its sources is likely to have a conflict of interest. The guideline only reminds that policy has sway. One of those policies is comment on content, not on the contributor. You strayed from that policy so it doesn't matter if a few admins disagreed on whether or not what you did was in that hue of personal attack which is called outing on en.Wikipedia. If there truly is a COI, it means the editor with the COI is breaking some other policy or consensus in some way, willfully or only mistakenly in good faith. So talk about the policy, or the sources or the consensus, not the other editor. Any shortcomings of Offliner's as to policy don't have much bearing and I would have gotten to him soon enough anyway. I think you both should drop this and stick to sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It does significantly matter whether it was outing or not, because outing is a particularly egregious form of misconduct, warranting an instant perma-block as opposed to calling someone an idiot which would warrant a 24 hour block, so to claim "it doesn't matter if a few admin disagree whether it was outing" isn't really supported by the fact that many admins strongly objected to your actions to the point that you reversed the perma-block. It was not a case of "splashing some dish about him", but to inform about the COI issue that I saw in this particular article. To continue to contend that my poor choice of words was "outing by any other name" is to unjustifiably impugn my reputation (being a trusted autoreviewer with over 9000 edits). This is why I ask that the report be closed with the words to that effect e.g. "Closed: concensus is this was not outing" --Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it again, whatever you want to call it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the gracious handling of "not the place for a PR bio"?

re: [31]

I'm pondering the wisdom of saying there would have to be an article about the person rather than the show, and the article would have to be sourced not a PR bio ... but also pondering if it always true that all details must come from secondary sources. (Yes, I know COI etc etc, but I'm just trying to find a better way than deleting with a terse PR comment) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The diff you've given me is wholly a flog (unsourced advertising spam), you can revert it with no worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Was just trying to avoid flogging a flog. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT – 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of T-Wayne

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Wayne (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mindless cloysome, far too lengthy and heedlessly templating bot script, begone! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall I...damage him, ma'am? HalfShadow 02:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, my steadfast friend. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

GET THEE GONE, YON HORRIBLE EXCUSE FOR TECHNOLOGY! **KRANNNNNNG!* HalfShadow 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll shrive, you've made me think of blocking the surly bot. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a hint. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

How does one go about politely to get someone to stop following them around? Especially when they can't seem to help but making negative, personal, opinionated and inappropriate comments such [32]. He has just tagged an article I wrote [33]. Since sooner or later, he is going to say something personal and inappropriate about me (we have such a history), other editors could have and should have handled it, I believe. Nowadays, I certainly try and avoid him. I don't think I have ever looked at his/her edit history. Anyway, what can I do to prevent these continuing personal comments? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was on the edge of civility, rather snippy but not a glaring breach of policy, either. Rather than dwelling on that, I think you should try dealing with any content worries by editing the articles and posting to their talk pages whilst citing some reliable sources. Remember to be careful about straightforwardly citing assertions to independent sources and not drawing your own conclusions from sources. The easiest way to stop someone from following your edits on en.Wikipedia is to make it boring and a waste of time for them and the keenest way to do that, is to not talk about them at all but heedfully follow the sources themselves and write text with much care. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

“Mark J. Machina”

I think both that there ought to be an article on economist Mark J. Machina and that there used to be such an article. But when I recently tried to make a redirect “Mark Machina” to “Mark J. Machina”, I found it red-linked. (I requested ans got a speedy deletion of the redirect.) I didn't find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Machina or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Machina, which suggests either that my memory is failing me here or that the article was speedily deleted. I don't want to walk into a buzz-saw by recreating an article without knowing why an earlier version were deleted. Is there a way for me to look into whether the article were speedily deleted and why? —SlamDiego_←T 04:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though there has never been an en.Wikipedia article on Mark J. Machina. Either way, I don't see anything to stop an editor from trying to start one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's disease. Anyway, thank you for looking into the matter. I've created appropriate stubs. —SlamDiego_←T 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing

As you seem to be taking requests for amendments, would you add a reminder for some of the (admin) participants to remain civil? -- User:Docu at 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

At RfC, e.g. some stating or endorsing "Screw it, I'm sick of these threads". -- User:Docu at 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh :) I hope you'll abide by WP:SIG. However, if there's a reason why you can't do this, please tell me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you notice that I did .. -- User:Docu at 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you do anything about the civility issue? -- User:Docu at 06:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility is a tough one these days on en.Wikipedia, unless it's either a very long pattern or very blatant personal attacks. Has anyone been uncivil to you since I closed the RfA? Or do you have other lingering worries about it beyond a few comments having been a bit snarky? Keep in mind, the signature thing was in itself a civility worry (not that this forgives any incivility back), now that you've so helpfully dealt with that I was kind of hoping everything would settle down on its own. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't read all the way through, but it was a somewhat funny that some even thought that I shouldn't have changed it in between (Roux).

Back to the opinion by Viridae. I'm not sure about this, but he writes himself that this his post is a re-post of an opinion written earlier. So it's not just an occasional slip of his. Whatever the conclusion on the signature question, I feel it should be addressed in the closure of the RfC. -- User:Docu at 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave me doesn't work. Meanwhile, the RfC was about the incivility of your signature and although you've at least put in a link to your contribs, you've hidden the link by keeping the text black. It would be even more helpful if you'd sign your posts with 4 tildes and be done with it. As I said in the close, the signature policy should likely be updated. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the diff. Sorry about that. His main comment is here. -- User:Docu at 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as for this, I agree it was uncivil but that was a month ago, stale now. If it becomes a pattern, I won't be the only one to see it. As for this, 66 editors endorsed what he had to say and although it's strongly worded, given the consensus that linkless signatures are in themselves uncivil, I don't think it would be fitting to chide Viridae in the RfC close for speaking his mind straightforwardly. However, if Viridae has been uncivil with you since the time you fixed your sig and I closed the RfC, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As he re-posted his earlier comments, the issue should still be addressed. Some newer editor may have agreed with part of the text, but signed despite not agreeing with its wording. Thus it's not an abstract issue for some uninvolved newbie editor may when coming across a thread he has nothing to do with on 日本穣's talk page, but a more general one. -- User:Docu at 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This diff shows straightforwardly that all 66 editors endorsed the whole, reposted comment after Viridae put it there. I don't see how any of them could have been mistaken as to what they were endorsing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I asked one about the wording at Wikipedia:Editor review/MacMed (Q3). -- User:Docu at 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is your only contribution to that project page. It's not a question about wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He had signed the opinion stating "Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. ". -- User:Docu at 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at Wikipedia:Editor review/MacMed. Why did you say you asked about wording there? You didn't ask about wording at Wikipedia:Editor review/MacMed. This wholly aside, he signed nothing with Screw it, I'm sick of these threads, he put that in an edit summary and either way, while a bit edgy as an idiom, it was not uncivil, taken as a single edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your closure by the numbers, I do not agree with it, or with the RFC. Please let me know if you are open to recall. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Open to recall"? I think Gwen can happily ignore this comment. Tony (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Which comment? I would not have thought Tony was up to self-referential humor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

odd

[34] as part of a colloquy and the associated posts on other usertalk pages seems quite odd to me. Merci. Collect (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

By colloquy I take it you mean original research? Stick to sources, quote them if need be and keep in mind, the text should likely show how they don't even agree. Editors might take the hint as to why fascism is such a tough article to edit these days. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that where one person says I do not consider English conservatism to be a "right-wing movement" or American conservatism to be conservative. (Their ideologies are better described as liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism respectively.) If these terms are used to describe them, they are certainly incorrect from an historical perspective. However I should have used the term radical right. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) and I responded saying that editors' opinions do not count, that a second party then proceeds to make multiple posts culminating in You posted words on a page. That is not the same as answering a question. You made zero attempt to explain what you meant. Please explain what you meant when you said that Four Deuce's comment "is a splendid example of why editors must not inject their opinions into articles." You've said you didn't mean that he was trying to inject his opinions into the article. You've said you didn't mean that his opinions were ridiculous and thereby a good example of why it would be dangerous for editor opinions to be injected into an article. So what did you mean? Please help me understand by explaining, and again I will beg you again to make a clear and direct response instead of speaking in riddles and talking about how you are bemused at how we are misunderstanding your words. Since we obviously misunderstand, please explain. This is my fifth request... --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC) which I found to be an extraordinarily odd response to my concerns as posted. Nothing really to do with the topic of the article at all at that point, just a bit of hounding going on. Collect (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to answer it. Meanwhile, as I said, you should stick to citing sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And, indeed, I did not respond to the baiting. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Collect's accusations of hounding and baiting that are "odd". Moves in a game?

One editor asks another a question: '. . . am I getting you right. Are you saying...blah blah' [35] To which the other replies, 'I do not consider...blah blah'[36].

Collect then weighs in with: ' "I do not consider" is a splendid example of why editors must not inject their opinions into articles' – either a sly but ham-fisted accusation of POV-pushing or a nonsensical claim that the words "I do not consider" themselves show why editorializing in articles is verboten. Whatever, it certainly doesn't jibe with Collect's ed sum – 'it is not our opinions which count' – which anyway studiously ignores the context and purpose of the opining it sniffs at. No wonder he's asked to explain and/or back up his slur. Asked five times, he responds in classic pre-RfC Collect manner by yanking the other's chain, which (surprise!) seriously pisses the guy off ([37] et seq) – when he could simply have explained what he meant (say, with a reiteration of the edit summary) and/or apologized for the apparently implied but of course unintended accusation.

Yup, just like old times again already. And once the other fellow's goaded into reaching for the bold-face font Collect comes running here playing the wronged innocent.

Let there be light: User:Collect/z. E.g., 'One great technique is to use the article talk page to simply automatically disagree with any statement they make. They will respond, and if you habdle it right by misinterpreting everything they say, they may well actually make a "personal attack" Be sure to report this to the admin you used in step 4!' and '[S]imply blame your victim. Remember the admins out there have not seen all your handiwork, so they will give you the benefit of the doubt. At this point, the game is done...' Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I immediately replied to Collect's remarks by saying: "Collect, this is a talk page not an article. In fact the article is not even about conservatism in the UK or American conservatism. If you read above my comments were in response to Mamalujo's use of the term "Anglo-American conservatives" which he said "are typically included in the right". So I am not inject(ing) [my] opinions into articles, merely answering M's question to me. Kindly redact your claim. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)" The Four Deuces (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please simmer down, stick with the sources (which are mostly flawed and also unmatching anyway), don't comment on other editors and don't share your opinions on the topic on its talk page, sharing the odd opinion now and then, as a take on sources, is ok but it gets old and nettlesome quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spray paint, anyone?

Thanks, Gwen, for chiming in on my talk page. I agree, of course, but don't seem to be communicating my point very well. I think what really bothers me is that people believe that adding that giant tag actually helps the encyclopedia. Where this started for me was a conversation I had in "real life" (remember that place?) with people -- more than one -- who expressed annoyance at all those meta-tags at the top of articles. "Why should we care? We just want to read! Put your editor stuff out of the way!" I just find it insulting that people band together to form a project to order other people around "I'm adding this giant tag to the top of the article to order YOU to find references, because I'm too lazy to do so myself!" Watching the rate at which such tags proliferate, versus the difficult and slow work of citing (ten times faster? fifty times? somewhere in that ballpark), it is clear that all Wikipedia articles will have meta-content at the top before long. Isn't that what our standard disclaimer is for? All the best, Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wholly, utterly agree with you. Once upon a time I thought lightly scattered tags could be helpful on articles with truly glaring worries, but they've become a scourge.

Infoboxes too. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You Deleted My Revisions of the Gerald Celente Article

Why? The article I reworked was totally fact based. Every line had a solid reference; it was in good shape; with the many references, it would withstand scrutiny and last; but what you reverted it back to is unsubstantiated, with flaky sources; sooner or later it will get flagged for deletion. Please revert back to my version if you'd like to keep the article; as it is now, administrators will sooner or later find out what's going on, and delete the Gerald Celente article permanently. Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

It's highly unlikely Gerald Celente would be deleted through an AfD. Meanwhile, please have a look at WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, keeping in mind that most blogs are not taken as reliable sources on en.Wikipedia. If you want to talk about the article more, it would be most helpful to do that on the article talk page, so that other editors can have their input. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gerald Celente article which you seem to prefer doesn't follow WP:BLP in the slightest. It's NOT right. It's inaccurate, misleading. It's essentially an advertising piece for Celente. My revisions fixed these flaws. The Wikipedia policy is to GET INFORMATION RIGHT. I got it right. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Please take this to the article talk page and wait for input from the other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Dear Gwen Gale, can you look at this thread? The thread is going nowhere. You are neutral on this case, so perhaps you can decide what to do with the thread. AdjustShift (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also left something alike on the article talk page, I hope it helps. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I was considering calling on you as uninvolved myself, but thought all these adults could figure out a solution themselves. Thanks for reminding me slow motion edit wars are edit wars. This situation has been freaking me out, seeing a tiny page with virtually no essential sourcing draw this bizarre exchange. User:Alansohn's role in this discussion seems especially puzzling to me. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand it yet, while throwing quotes into footnotes can be helpful, I neither see how the quotes I saw bring anything towards supporting the text, nor how they might harm it and I don't get why this got stirred up into a long ANI thread. Could be a fluke owing to bits of WP:OWN on a low-traffic article or, some forework for OR could be afoot, I haven't a clue. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to build the page up using Cullum and google books, and render this conversation moot. I've discovered USMA Superintendents make excellent encylopedic subjects. Their careers are well-documented and they generally turn out to be actually fascinating, multi-dimensional and personally heroic page subjects. Samuel Escue Tillman is an example of what I mean, and is my own work, almost ready for GA review. Alden Partridge has been a long-time project (which really needs updating, I'll grant). Truly not stereotypical soldiers. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way that'll help a lot (!) and meanwhile if there are any meaningful worries, could flush them out into the open. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While I've got your eyes, may I draw your attention to my own COI drama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekserve? As my wiki-friend, you'd likely not choose to be closing admin anyway, so I feel like asking a knowledgeable editor like yourself, seasoned by personal experience, about my behavior in this matter. I've used WP:COI#Defending interests and User:Jerry's advice saved here in order to act carefully. IMHO, I have acted with the intention of producing the best possible encyclopedia. You and I don't have anything to prove to each other. I trust you. Grade me in this. Maybe after the process has been completed. If you deigned to offer feedback sooner, that's entirely up to you. I don't want to color the formal process in any way; my effort since nomination has been exclusively to remove wordings I introduced, and cite wording already on the page, copy editing as I go. Now that I've got all these reliable and in-depth sources gathered, I feel compelled to build the article up a bit in order to utilize them. That's just the way I build content these days. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic meets WP:ORG. Some admins and many editors still don't understand, WP:COI is indeed allowed (truth be told, this website would grind to a halt if it were not allowed), so long as policy and the encyclopedic goals of the project are put first. COI only becomes meaningful if it shows up with some policy breach, like edit warring, OR, disruption, PAs and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree self-selection and promoting one's personal curiosity has a bunch to do with how we get people motivated here; like the story Stone Soup, people can only contribute what they already have. I've posted a message on the nominator's talk page asking for a second look. I won't suffer in any meaningful way if the page is deleted, but it would be a shame. Some local businesses and personalities are notable. I've been using Elderly Instruments for inspiration, a very similar small business which is FA. 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

EB is still mostly written in canny COI and moreover was long a narrow one, given the tight bounds on how much coated paper could be be smeared with ink, stitched up in cloth and cardboard and then sold at a stiff price (think of the shipping alone). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I've been discussing shipping my mom's complete set (including yearbooks) of World Books across the country. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Postage is too high, value is too low (see eBay for pricing on old EBs <g>). Meanwhile I leapt in and removed the only apparent bone of contention in your article, and !voted Keep. Collect (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Those books, perhaps correctly undervalued by time and circumstance, represent both my reasons for pride in participation in this exact process of selecting and linking encyclopedic material, and my love for a mother who valued such material so highly. I have a good encyclopedia close at my fingertips. We write it together, and thank you for all of that. The half-ton of World Books, that's priceless. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Though I clearly support your action, I don't want to give any impression I came to you with this in mind, quite the contrary. As always, I do appreciate your frequent habit of cutting right to the quick of the matter, boldness personified, in any circumstances. To honor your intention, I do intend to finish inserting all my sources and building the page to WP:COMPANIES guidelines, perhaps to B-class. At that point, the page well-defended by citation, I'll again refrain from editing the page other than reversion of vandalism. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I'd have deleted or closed as "no consensus" if I'd thought either was more fitting (clearly you thought it unlikely I'd see it that way, which is ok). This said, had you not brought together the sourcing as you did, I'd have said it only barely met WP:ORG if at all and likely would have waited for someone else to close it. Good faith AfDs are kinda handy that way, stirring up sources and such :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like putting a friend in anyone's high beam headlights. But it's amazing what you find online these days. Before long, when the pedia hits, say 100,000,000 articles, everything and everyone will be notable. And then the pedia will be completely useless. Good faith AfDs, I say ye yea! I can see why folks' heads explode over these things. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to let the free market of published thoughts sort that out, not to say en.Wikipedia has this, but I can dream :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen Gale. You are an intelligent individual, and your closing rationale was pretty good. :-) Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to re-open Tekserve AFD

I'm requesting that WP:Articles for deletion/Tekserve be re-opened for further discussion. Your close was shortly after the article was revised to remove the claim that the company is the largest one of its type. In expressing my Keep opinion, I relied on that distinction. I believe that the discussion should have been held over long enough for participants to consider that factor. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic is notable. If you wanted the article kept, it was kept and I don't see how a bureaucratic re-opening would help anyone. If I'm missing something, let me know. If you now think the article should be deleted, please take it to WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did want it kept (weakly), but that was based on the claim that it was the largest business of its type. If that is not true, my position changes. The fact that it is not the largest of its type should have been allowed to be discussed. TJRC (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That claim is supported by at least one source that I saw, I don't know why it was taken out of the text, but either way, notability is not shown through en.Wikipedia text, which can't be cited for anything but rather, by the reliable sources which can be cited. Following this latter notion, the topic's notable whatever the openly edited text might have to say about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the hyperbole back, because it's sourced reliably. In order to satisfy other users, I'm dedicating myself to finding a very recent corroborating source. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's a worry, one can always write something like, "...what has been described on a website published by the city of New York as 'the largest single...'" Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

Do a new google search for the exact phrase "Thomas Henry Barry". Of course, the first listing which appears is the pedia bio. But look at the quick summary. What the engine apparently reads first (or deems most representative) is the quoted note (one of the disputed notes)! I wonder if this is a factor here. BusterD (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an algorithm picks up "died early this morning" as though it were a news item. Why someone would game the text for a Google search on this topic (if this is indeed what has happened), I don't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bal537's Edits

User Bal537 is a vandal and indulging in vandalism on the table "Ethnic groups, Social groups and tribes of the Punjab"

Ramdasia (Weavers, Julahas) are not Ravidasia (Chamars, Cobblers).

Bal537 has tried to present false information by making false edits in the tables.

He added a false reference to Light Infantry on Chamar section which has nothing to do with Chamars/COBBLERS/Ravidasias

I would request you to please safeguard information related to Ramdasia (Weavers, Julahas) from vandal Bal537. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinder121 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For your well-earned collection

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For diligence, courage, and fair-mindedness in the fight over the Chamar article. Favonian (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

0rr

Incorrect grammar notwithstanding, this [38] was inserted by a mostly inactive editor with an obvious partisan bent but no history of vandalism. Violations of WP:SYN can't really be called true bad faith edits, let alone "blatant vandalism." Similar to the last instance, this edit was performed by a misguided, inexperienced individual who would have known better had he had more WP experience. Whether Zymyrgy's claim was true or not (or appropriate or not, or relevant or not, etc.) doesn't really seem to come into play before it was reverted without discussion: [39]. SluggoOne (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

More than two weeks and over 100 edits went by between Zymyrgy's edit and Collect's edit, which this diff shows was not a revert. Moreover, Collect didn't call Zymyrgy's edit vandalism and by making that edit 100 edits later, was not edit warring. Reverts are the straightforward undoing of an edit, wontedly in the next few edits, which Collect did not do. I do understand why you brought this to me, please feel free to let me or another admin know if Collect makes a true revert to a political article, or edit wars. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You've got mail. Triplestop x3 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sent one back. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to go?

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

SPA. User keeps changing, eg, "English" to "British" and "Manchester, England" to "Manchester, UK". Several people have tried to engage him on his talk page but have so far been ignored.

Thanks for looking. Radiopathy •talk• 03:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bal537's Edits

User Bal537 has been posting lot of false information related to Ramdasia (weavers, Julahas).

This user uses following strategy:-

a) Creates a false page/or false reference of Ramdasia within Chamar Section. Take for example the section Chamar ramdasia was created just to indulge in vandalism.

b) This user tried to post FALSE information on Sikh Light Infantry which was reverted back by Admins HitroMilanese [7:52, 26 July 2009],and Smith012.

3) This user tried to manipulate Table "Ethnic groups, Social groups and tribes of the Punjab" and added Ramdasia within Chamar section.

4) Once he succeeds in posting FALSE information, he then uses it as a reference to indulge in vandalism in other sections related to Ramdasia (Weavers, Julahas) section.

5) This user has tried vandalism on several occasions and trying to use Wikipedia as a Game of monopoly.

This user Bal537 is a vandal who is hell-bent on posting his FALSE information in order to misguide others.

There has been no information related to Chamars on the Sikh Light Infantry, whereas this user added a reference to Sikh Light Infantry within Chamar section just to indulge in vandalism. This is the reason why I had removed reference of Sikh Light Infantry from the Chamar section which was added by Bal537 just to indulge in vandalism.

I would request you to please safeguard Ramdasia section [Weavers, Julahas]. —Preceding unsigned Ravinder121 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) comment added by Ravinder121 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of Bal537 and had already blocked him (again) for disruption. However, Bal537's edits are not vandalism, as I've already told you. I've left a warning about this on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request (still being followed...)

How does one go about politely to get someone to stop following them around? Especially when they can't seem to help but making negative, personal, opinionated and inappropriate comments such [40]. He has just tagged an article I wrote [41]. Since sooner or later, he is going to say something personal and inappropriate about me (we have such a history), other editors could have and should have handled it, I believe. Nowadays, I certainly try and avoid him. I don't think I have ever looked at his/her edit history. Anyway, what can I do to prevent these continuing personal comments? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was on the edge of civility, rather snippy but not a glaring breach of policy, either. Rather than dwelling on that, I think you should try dealing with any content worries by editing the articles and posting to their talk pages whilst citing some reliable sources. Remember to be careful about straightforwardly citing assertions to independent sources and not drawing your own conclusions from sources. The easiest way to stop someone from following your edits on en.Wikipedia is to make it boring and a waste of time for them and the keenest way to do that, is to not talk about them at all but heedfully follow the sources themselves and write text with much care. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear and respect what you're saying, but this individual is selectively tagging articles that I contribute to. For example, I linked to a few things inThomas Schirrmacher and this editor comes along and insults all those who have worked on it before. There's no other editor in the article's history that felt any sections should be tagged as uncyclopedic. This attitude and approach is unchecked and not only are rules about following someone around in a negative way being scoffed at. This behavior seems to be symptomatic of editors who are revolted by: Wikipedia has a code of conduct and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. These actions are relentlously chipping away at these two of the five pillars. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried talking with User:Hrafn about this? If you think you're being wiki-stalked, I would need to see a list of diffs showing this has happened on, say, more than 2 or 3 articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here's another article that shows that talking is not really possible. He/she states that I am "chronically incapable of learning". --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it happens again. No earlier interest in the article until I make some edits: Revision history of Os Guinness. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it happens again. Revision history of William Kelly Harrison Jr.. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another example: Revision history of F. Alton Everest. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another example: Revision history of Love and Will. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another example: Revision history of Modern Theology. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks like you're being followed. And that in the main, he's building on your contributions. You're adding content, and he's putting it into the right format. From wikipedia's point of view, the outcome is good. We get lots of nice content, nicely formatted. But I can see from the comments, that the process of reaching that outcome isn't good for either of you. He doesn't enjoy following you. You don't enjoy being followed. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with Ben, but there is this and this, too. And how about this fine example of collaborative discussions... It would help if Hrafn could tone down a bit and suppress his urge to add snippy comments. It might help him getting his arguments heard and reach consensus with significantly fewer aggravation for all involved. I am on the verge of deciding to leave WP and people like Hrafn are the main reason for that. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Although this is not yet harassment, I've left a friendly warning for Hrafn about personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have responded there. I would point out to Crusio that it was Firefly322's hot-headed accusation of WP:POINT in reverting legitimate templates on Wim E. Crusio that resulted in my forceful response on article talk there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No argument that Firefly322 has a lot to learn. But flaming him doesn't help. And some of your comments towards Crusio seem unnecessarily robust. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Undoing bulk spammy links

Hi Gwen,

I have been trawling through a list of links to a blog/podcast type thingy to undo them. Is there a big button somewhere that will do this automagically or shall I carry on with the tedious approach? Either way is OK. Lame Name (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I rolled back the rest of them. Twinkle, I think, has a batch mode to do this kind of thing, but with rollback, one could revert all those spam edits within about a minute. I've given you rollback, see your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 07, 2009

Dear Gwen,

Thanks for Blocking Bal537 for his disruptive edits.Ravinder121 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I FYI

Greetings, GG. I notice you have on several occasions counselled Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs) regarding appropriate ways of interacting with other Wikipedians. FYI, I have opened an AN/I regarding his recent behaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be wading into that one other than to say Phoenix of9 should heed consensus and not comment on other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"his eyes open in a blank stare, dead"

Yeurgh! Let's discuss. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've likely said all I have to say about it (I don't think it's helpful to remove verifiable content without consensus). Aside from that, hopefully the article has settled down enough that editors can do something about the loitering undue weight from all those dodgy gossip sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I should have said, yes, yeurgh :) By the bye, I wrote that line, "his eyes open in a blank stare, dead," years ago and I think it's ok to throw in (verifiable) stuff like that when the death was controversial, it's helpful to readers and I can tell you, the stares of corpses are not always "blank." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the fast and kind closing of "my" AfD! --Crusio (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing

Reading through User talk:Gwen Gale/archive14#Closing, it appears to me that you are confusing two things:

"Screw it" clearly violates the second, but you seem to omit this in your closing. Besides, you omitted to answer a question by Septentrionalis. -- User:Docu at 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Following WP:RFC, An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. You broke no policies, but there was wide consensus that you should abide by the guidelines of WP:SIG. Either way, your RfC is over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey There

Do you know of any checkusers that are available to do an emergency checkuser? We have a little thread going on AN and it appears we will need a checkuser to flush out some other accounts the user refuses to admit to having. Keeps claiming that another user knows or "my friend did it". Getting fishy if you ask me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that thread. Here's a list of all check users on en.W. Look at their contribs and try asking someone who's edited in the last few minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

vanishing

will you delete my talkpage and block my account indefinitely (and sockpuppets if you want)? I want to vanish. Pzrmd (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

wait...

Pz did not "came back from RTV with new account". His old account was simply abandoned by him. It was not a RTV situation. Kingturtle (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, ok, so we know we're talking about the same account, I've sent you an email. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: We were indeed talking about the same account. Instead, it was one of his socks/meatpuppets which had asked for RTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a checkuser to keep info on this account (and the others) I have been out for a while and missed the latest hubbub. . .but I don't want this guy back without full disclosure to some admins to keep an eye on things (at the very least). R. Baley (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there'll be a checkuser on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean for any confusion on the resolved line on the "Pzrmd ban proposal" thread. I just copied what was on the block log. If you want to change the resolved line, feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Socks can waste lots of time and stir up muddles. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen. I understand Pzrmd has been accused of sockpuppetry and trouble but if I look at his contributions I see a larger number of actual positive constructive edits to the encyclopedia than anything disuptive. Is it really necessary to ban him indefinately? To me this looks harsh, as I believe he is a constructive editor who has a love of editing wikipedia. Given that we need as many interested in editing as possible I think he should be given a last chance under a different account maybe and clear his old accounts and let him edit. If at a later date he causes trouble then ban him. I think you have been particularly harsh on this editor, or is there something I have missed? To be knowledge he abandoned his old account and I doubt he would intentionally cause distress to the community. Seriously I think you should give him a chance, and if he does anything "naughty" again then ban him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. B, There was discussion about a community ban and a subject or area ban, but Pzrmd was never going to be banned indefinitely. However, he requested a RTV, and we are fulfilling that request. Kingturtle (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he asked here too, see the next thread up. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Charmar

How's that situation working out for you? Haha. I've unwatched all related pages but I see you still randomly warning here and there. Please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. Law_{type! snype?} 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

His block is up and he only now posted a slew of new links on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a point when one should just find another endeavor? This behavior is fanatical. I see an indef in the future. Of course, I see a lot of those. Lol. Law_{type! snype?} 06:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if there's a wider controversy which can be sourced, or if it's more or less the WP:OR trashing and flailing of one account on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Geez, Gwen, I see your name on the top of the ANI page's history queue. Why don't you comment up in my thread! (I'm obviously not canvassing here since I've absolutely no idea what you'd say! (That is, although I'm aware you tend to suffer fools none-too-gladly, I've absolutely no idea, really, ahead of the time who you might tend to think the fool ... ! ^{:^)} )

Link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Should Henry Louis Gates arrest incident be on article probation?
A related thread: "Dealing with sub#RR edit warring".) ↜Just M E here , now 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I don't think my input's needed in that thread, it's ok to put the Gates arrest topic under that probation though, since even if most of the sources on that messy tale are indeed flawed or worse, edit warring and gnashing of teeth won't help readers nearly so much as letting the sources stumble on their own. As for slow edit warring, anyone doing it should be warned (and blocked if they don't stop, quick), 3rr is only a bright line, not the rule. Is there a lone editor in a back and forth with a small flock holding another PoV? They're all edit warring, which isn't allowed, even if the flock thinks they're "a helpful content patrol." Is the lone editor breaking any other policies? Is that editor single purpose or experienced in many topics? Are the sources independent and verifiable? Readers aren't helped by political articles which snuff out published PoVs on a topic and moreover, editors should be wary about giving the narrative voice to published PoVs of any kind in a political article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well reasoned and composed. Geez! I wish you would publish it within the ANI thread so a larger audience of the community could benefit from your thoughts. ↜Just M E here , now 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do it, if you like, so long as anyone seeing it there knows I wrote it here :D Gwen Gale (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Gwen! ↜Just M E here , now 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request

In regards to this hullaboo User talk:Martintg#outing by any other name – I was wondering how specific is this proscription on outing. I'm assuming that if the fact that a user who mentions my nationality is engaging in outing then the same is true if they mention my city, my region within a country or say, a university I went to. But what about more generally – if somebody mentions a larger region than a country – for example publicly states that I'm from "Eastern Europe"? Is that too broad or specific enough to be considered outing? What about where users refer to you in third person or somewhat indirectly. For example instead of saying "You are from Poland and that's why you're always doing X" they say "The editor from Poland is doing X as usual"? How about instances where they bring up your nationality but just happen to be wrong ("attempted outing")?

I'm asking because there seems to be a lot of ambiguity here and apparently people are threatened with some serious blocks for more or less accidental mentions in cases where they're completely unaware that what they're doing violates policy. Thank you.radek (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is, comment on content and sources, not the editor.

So given, we don't say stuff like, "Oh, her edits on Afghanistan suck because, uhm, she's American and you know how propagandized most Americans are," we might more helpfully say, "CNN may be a dodgy source about what's up in Afghanistan, but hey, most 'mainstream' journalistic sources are sloppy and paid off to begin with and they're taken as reliable, so ok, cite it, but let's at least not put this codswallop in narrative voice."

I think letting slip any personal information about an editor not self-disclosed by that editor is outing (which is a kind of personal attack), but I'm more hard core than most and although the written policy is stern, it's not that stern. As for bright lines, I also think the only time it's ok to talk about an editor's location (not nationality) is when there are straightforward worries about wanton sockpuppetry or IP disruption. However others may think about this, I'd say one is unlikely to go wrong editing content within those bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my page regarding the edit to Chamar page

No, the edit was not done by me. The edit was done by someone with the IP address of 122.173.87.9 which comes back to Chandigarh, India. I am in New York, USA. Bal537 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)bal537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

your close of W.C.

I see (& know from previous discussions) that you consider that when someone is barely notable, we should give them courtesy deletions of their articles--and as you probably know I sharply disagree with that, but that's a disagreement you & I won't resolve here. But what I am not sure of from your close is whether you disagree that being ed in chief of a mjor journal meets WP:PROF, that the journal is major, or that this only make someone barely notable rather than notable, since WP:PROF is clear that one factor is sufficient. (I'm not planing to go to deletion review, just inquiring) DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is always worth thinking about. I closed that AfD following the strong consensus to delete, which echoed the long-standing support on en.Wikipedia for deleting BLPs by request when the topic is on the very edge of WP:BIO and its branches. The care needed under WP:BLP wontedly has the most sway when this comes up, here because there were likely no independent, verifiable published sources from which biographical text could be drawn (it's hard to carefully source and write text when no sources are to be had).

It's true, that factor in WP:PROF (moreover having to do with a fairly new publication as scholarly journals go) may or may not yield an encyclopedic topic. I do think the drive to publish in academic fields can skew many and sundry outcomes, which is hinted at in WP:PROF, though not put straightforwardly.

This said, I would have seen no harm in keeping the article as a stub, without biographical content, but also saw no harm in deleting the article, given the consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

wikirindling

Someone needs to define a Wikirindle – the very thought lifts my spirits :) +sj + 03:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:) Alas, wikirindle, wiki + rindle (which meant something rather wider in earlier Anglo-Saxon), is my own blended word, made up to say something in a fun way about the snap on my user page, whilst hinting at my outlook on writing English. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Imaginary friend and popular culture

If someone insists on removing the popular culture information as "worthless garbage," is there anything more to do than revert once, mention lack of consensus, then let them remove it? -- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing verifiable content as "worthless garbage" without discussion isn't a content dispute, it's on the edge of disruption. I've undone the edit and left a note for the editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my not highlighting in initial message (it's easy to overlook) NOTE: Talk:Imaginary friend#Examples in Popular Culture — The editor replied to the 2007 topic/comment (at top of page) with an unsigned comment (bot signed it), and replied to my response with a 2nd unsigned comment (misformatted so bot didn't sign it) ... and may therefore believe he has sufficiently interacted on the talk page and has enough agreement to act.

More that could be said about WP:Popular culture (and perspective of "trivia" etc), and WP:Civility ("worthless garbage" is an aspersion on what other editors have contributed and many readers find worthy of note) ... but will stop here for now.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm watching the page, please do what you think is encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers Gwen for sorting out the troll so quickly. That's at least 3 accounts he/she opened today specifically to target me. I'm sure there'll be more. Ho hum. --Web Hamster 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Not unforeseen. Have the other two been blocked? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hatcrazy

Hatcrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is the one who kept changing English to British, England to UK, etc. without discussion/against consensus. You warned him on 7 August; he's done it three times since: [42], [43], [44].
Radiopathy •talk• 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He's ba-a-a-a-ack ! Radiopathy •talk• 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for temporary undeletion

In November, you deleted the article Valter Longo, referencing A7. I am not contesting your decision for deletion, as I assume that the page in November did not justify its existence. However, I would like to make additions to Dr. Longo's page to reflect his academic notability. Please temporarily undelete this page so that I can make the appropriate additions. Thank you! --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 02:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've put the deleted content in your userspace, at User:Zach425/sandbox. After you've looked it over, if there is anything you want to keep (and if you still want to have a go at making the article encyclopedic), let me know and I'll restore the edit history. If you rewrite from scratch, there will be no need to restore the old history. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

email

I really don't understand what you are on about. I have sent you three emails. The first you obviously got because you responded to it. You are aware, of course, that my email address was in that mail. So why then did you ask on my talk page to activate my mail link – you already had the address since you had received the email! As you requested I sent you two more emails. I give up. There is clearly a communication problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.63.37 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never had any dealings with you before. You sent me an email through the email link here on my user page and asked me for help. I got your email and asked you to enable your email link. You said you didn't want to enable your email link because you're being stalked. I said you could still send me an email, through the link on my user page, telling me about what you wanted help with. You've sent me 4 emails so far, but have not told me what this is about, in any of them. You seem to be waiting for me to send you an email off-wiki, which would give you my email address. Hence, I think you're more keen on getting my email address than getting help from me. I don't use throwaway email addresses for this kind of thing, because there is no need to do so. I'll not even think about giving you a personal email address until I know what this is about. The email link on this page is there for a reason. You're welcome to use it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Penn High School

Thanks. I figured it may get ugly on that page. Glad to see you're still keeping an eye on it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Marked as resolved...

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean for me, exactly? Do I need to provide a defense of some sort? I'm not that used to ANI, sorry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It means you most likely have no worries at all about that ANI thread. Wholly aside from this, you may want to think about what you would say about the notability of some of the stubs you've begun: I don't think you've done anything "wrong" (meaning, outside the bounds of policy), but some editors may wonder if these stubs are worthwhile having. I'm neutral on that, which is to say, I see no harm in having stubs about smallish geographical features on en.Wikipedia, but wouldn't worry if they weren't there. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've considered the issue, and I do think they're worth having, honestly. Otherwise I wouldn't have created them. I tend to be very inclusionist in my thinking...and I tend to believe in the idea of inherent notability for some things, such as geographical features or plant species.

Thanks for your kindness – and for being so quick; this was all finished between the time I woke up and the time I got to my desk. (Which, considering I live in the capital of the free world, is probably a record for efficiency in this town... :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I see no harm, nor do I think of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser as an auto-bot, since one must save (and is asked to look at) each edit as they're made. Be "ready" to answer good faith questions, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I've emailed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Care to reconsider? Talk:Beate Eriksen#Semi protection?--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done :) It's easy to put back if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been put back. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, you might be interested in a discussion here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Already dealt with earlier (see 2 threads up). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is my edits considered disruptive editing? Chamar Page

The edits I made were to the introduction section. The text I added were the official demographic figures according to the Census of India and having provided sources for each change. I did not enter anything regarding Ramdasia section which is still waiting consensus. Can you explain to me which part of my edits was considered disruptive? Why is entering state by state demographic information considered disruptive? Who determines if consensus has been reached, especially if no-one else responds? Bal537 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

Raw PDF links in the text, only you're not adding text, but statistics. You've already been blocked twice for disruption to these topics, you'll need to wait for further input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

Hi, I noticed on Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda that the page has been removed. The entry on the log is follows:

23:27, 7 July 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda).

I tried to go through archived discussions as well as Deletionpedia etc. but couldn't find any discussion or reason etc. for the deletion of the article mentioned above. If you can help me with finding any reason related to the deletion I would be interested in improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.238.100 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing external reference on Jarvis Island

As Jarvis Island is administered as a wildlife refuge by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, it seems that the official FWS web page about the island belongs in WP and should not have been deleted as 'meaningless propaganda'. Of the three other external links, one is to a general reference and two are to web sites put up by hobbiests. Yes, these have more information than the FWS web site, but certainly a link to the official web site of the agency administering the island belongs in our encyclopedia. Maybe there is some better link on the FWS web site, and if so, then the encyclopedia should include that, but in the mean time, I think the external link should be restored. If I'm missing some other piece of information or some WP policy, please let me know. Thanks! YBG (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I agree Wikipedia:External links supports having it, whatever the lacks. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks & Cheers. YBG (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonah vs Book of Jonah

Someone is asking (on both talk pages) about the existence of two articles which mostly cover the same content. (In fact the Jonah article covers the book of Jonah better than the Book of Jonah article which mostly ignores chapter 4, as many preachers do:)

I could reply that the story is briefly covered in the Qur'an, and so Jonah exists outside the Bible version (sort of :) ... but that's not a very satisfying answer to a good question regarding what is duplication of content (or at least two articles in which the content could be almost identical with no clear rationale for what would go where, except, e.g., Qur'an text).

Comment/suggestion (what to tell them)? But feel free to ignore this if its not the kind of thing you feel like spending time thinking about. Proofreader77 (talk)

These are not the same topics. Jonah is a bio on en.Wikipedia, about a religious prophet. Book of Jonah is about a book, more or less "another bio," written about 2500 years ago from a biblical, Judeo/Christian outlook and translated many times. Any worries are with how these topics are handled in the en.WP articles' texts. Some overlap is bound to happen and is ok, but the pith of Jonah should be sourced commentary on the life of Jonah and its wider pull upon culture and faith, whilst the pith of Book of Jonah should be sourced commentary on the biblical/Hebrew tale itself (and its history) as a work of literature. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your (as expected:) clear dichotomization. (Perhaps the question-instigating aspect of this particular case may be there seems to be mostly one source for the biographical details of Jonah: the Book of Jonah—which of course yields more than the usual amount of overlap.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Is it OK to cquote you (including your signature) on the talk pages? Proofreader77 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you straightforwardly say I wrote it here. Also, I've fixed a wee wording mistake :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Bless you. (And pardon my being lazy ... so much easier than pretending I'm as smart as you:) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bulbophyllum abbreviatum

For your information, the article Bulbophyllum abbreviatum has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum abbreviatum. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy kept and helpfully so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the fascist Obama's death panel

The fascist Obama's death panel. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing

Please excuse for not commenting on this earlier. In your conclusion, you seem to omit that the discussion was primarly about WP:SIG and not WP:CIVIL. If the later was of importance, you should really include in your conclusion one about "Screw it" (which wasn't made by me). If you omit "Screw it", one could really think you have some other agenda. Your suggestion here about signing isn't really covered by WP:SIG which somewhat makes one doubt about the entire closing. -- User:Docu at 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu

As I said in the close, "Abiding by WP:SIG has mostly to do with civility and ease of use." Hence, the RfC was about WP:SIG, which is in itself about civility. You're an admin. Although your signature now abides barely within the guideline, it's still a bit lacking for an editor and way lacking for an admin. Please give your signature a clickable and easy-to-spot link to your talk page (which is to say, not a hidden black one to your contribs). The easiest way to do this would be, empty your custom sig bucket and sign with 4 tildes. I'm aware of no technical or other reason why you cannot do this.

In English, screw it is edgy but not always uncivil. However, it's mostly a verbal idiom, so it can look odd and stronger than meant (and be misunderstood) in writing. It does not mean fuck you, it has more or less the same meaning as, but being a "euphemism" is much lighter in tone than, fuck it, which is to say, a heartfelt I'm done here, I don't care anymore, it's over, forget it.

As an aside, hoping to lend more understanding about this, I grew up speaking French and English. The French idiom here is not 1:1 with the English, the French being much filthier and untowards in pith. So for myself, about the furthest I let myself go with this kind of thing in French is a startled merde. One can go further in English without sounding hateful or cluelessly hard, however, I've found that most folks who did not hear this kind of English/Anglo-Saxon idiom in the back and forth of everyday life whilst in their tweens or early teens will more often than not get it wrong, since it has so many shades of meaning and fit. Hence, I wontedly cringe when I hear a "non-native" speaker of English utter the word fuck in any way (they mostly get it from Hollywood), likewise when I hear Americans or Brits try talking slangy trash in French (Aussie girls are the worst, oy!). I'd only say screw it or fuck it to a trusted someone who canny grew up speaking English with UK or American friends and only then in a throe, whereby in such narrow straits it would indeed be taken as civil, sometimes even friendly. Speaking only for myself, to be safe, I wouldn't write it in an email or an open post, because even the accent, the turn of the vowel and inflection, all have lots of sway as to meaning (and as I said, there are many and sundry meanings).

Grow up with this stuff and it's all easy as pye, like breathing, but trying to learn or teach it later is more or less hopeless. The easiest way to make oneself seem like an utter bumpkin is trying to hurl oaths or talk trash in a language one didn't grow up speaking.

If, after all this, you still have worries, please take it to WP:WQA. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

huh?

Are you saying it's ok to be inaccurate in Wikipedia????? It's not like the accurate statement is too long. Gaydenver (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Most political articles on en.Wikipedia are hopelessly flawed, mostly because the sources taken as reliable are flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it necessary to reblock for doodling on his talkpage? The numbers didn't really strike me as problematic, and he might not have realized how big that image would be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Four admins (I as one of them, you were another) came within an edit conflict of unblocking him and then didn't because of his ongoing talk page nattering. I see nothing but disruption there. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayeba and "Entertainment Online"

Hello! I reviewed the unblock request of User:Jayeba and I unblocked him. I don't see any evidence of spamming -- the editor was posting a legitimate link to an interview that the actress Maureen McCormick did in 2007 with "Entertainment Online," which is a major U.S. television news program that covers the entertainment industry. Please allow this editor to add the link to the article -- he is not vandalizing Wikipedia. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken and either way, should have spoken with me first. See Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block reviews, WP:SPAM and WP:EL along with the user's contrib history, which had to do only with spamming external links and WP:BLP straying text into that single article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am mistaken -- it is "Entertainment Tonight Online" and not "Entertainment Online." I also reviewed the editor's history and I watched the link -- which I immediately recognized (I remembered seeing that interview on TV when it aired in 2007). This was clearly an "unambiguous error," as spelled out in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block reviews, which is why there was no pre-notification. And there is no spam, as there is no evidence that the editor is associated with the web site in question or trying to promote it (certainly not with a two-year-old interview of a one-time TV star). And as someone who got into an editing war by constantly reverting Jayeba, you should have alerted a neutral admin. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We wholly disagree. I warned the editor. Saying I was edit warring by removing linkspam placed by an SPA which was also wantonly straying from WP:BLP is not only deeply mistaken, but edges on personal attack. Lastly, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block reviews says nothing about "pre-notification" of unblocks. Please stop making up policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken with the above, see also the en.Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

refactoring

Please stop refactoring Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, your edits make the threads highly misleading, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I stongly disagree. It was my fault that a secondary topic (about law enforcement laxity) was introduced into the thread about the maps. I wished to rectify my own error by placing my badly-formatted text and the replies it had generated under a proper topic heading. No wwords were changed, nor was any context changed -- the topic was simply split, as it should have been in the first place. This is not "refactoring." It is called cleanup for clarity of discussion, and it is certainly permissible. I find your charge that what i did made the threads "highly misleading" to be rude, and certainly not an assumption of good faith. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, your refactoring changed the sequence of posts. Simply add to or strike out from your own posts as you wish. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the date order of the posts became incorrect, but if that was the issue, it was easy enough to correct.

Note that you allow your own self to edit talk pages, for in the section immediately above you note that you have "have tweaked the section title, which he misunderstood, owing to your own sloppiness." You did that so that the record would be clear.

You were not accused of "refactoring" nor did you call what you did "refactoring."

Please be as polite and gracious to me as you are to yourself. It will serve you a lot better in this multi-user environment than pushing people around. You're an admin, doing a job. I'm an editor, doing a job. Your admin role requires neutrality, something you are obviously lacking, since what i did was "tweaking" (much like your "tweaking" on the aforementioned page, for the sake of clarity) and it was nether "refactoring" (look up the meaning of the word) nor was it "misleading."

Your rudeness makes Wikipedia volunteer work onerous and unpleasant.

Good day. catherine yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your refactoring changed the sequence and flow of posts and was hence misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Actions like these help to stave off drama. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think...

...it's time to protect Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard? Frank | talk 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, thanks for bringing it up, done. By the bye, please feel free to thoroughly clean up the article as you see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have tried, but they have been swept away like sand in the ocean surf. I'll let it sit for a few days. I've learned that it's easier that way. Frank | talk 18:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, I must say. Let's let other experienced editors weigh in, then come back to it later. Meanwhile, as I said on the talk page, if this carries on even with auto-confirmed editors, I'll fully protect it from editing and let everyone sort it out on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

wrt BLP and infoboxes

I'd never revert you in a million years, but I'm curious about the WP:BLP guidelines being cited for removal of infoboxes. A sidebar is just a means of conveying information, isn't it? Can't they be edited to remove any conceivable vio of BLP? ↜Just M E here , now 18:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The info boxes spun up into sweeping PoVs which were not wholly supported by the sources. Moreover, infoboxes tend to narrow PoV in unforeseen and perhaps harmful ways. Wait for the sources to grow on this topic before thinking about infoboxes. Please stick to way heedfully sourced text for now and either way, infoboxes (and their assertions) should only be added by straightforward consensus on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are indeed a way to highlight basic factual information from the text. If what was is being highlighted through their use tended toward the POV, I'll readd the box solely for Jaycee, minus any item conceivable to be thought as "interpretive." Fair? ↜Just M E here , now 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the birth date, kidnapping date and found date, I can't think of anything which could come close to verifiable neutrality under WP:BLP in an "authoritative narrative" infobox. Please wait. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit, with its rationale of BLP, is nonsensical and indeed itself violates WP:Preserve. ("Mother" is POV? birthplace? home town? nationality? Reeeally?) A lot of WPdian's have a wholesale aversion to infoboxes, Gwen; and IMO it would've been more honest with yourself to simply say so. ↜Just M E here , now 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacking me will get you nowhere. Rather, gather consensus on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, JMHN, not the editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of refocusing on the issues at hand, you seem to insist on addressing me. Maybe I'm wrong here, I dunno. Anyway, trying to address your arguements, not person: Your contention that infoboxes mysteriously attract POV editors seems akin to a personal affront; the only way open for me to make any sense at all with concern to it is within the context of the fact that it was I myself who had been the only editor who'd worked on the infoboxes before your wholesale deletion -- in vio of WP:Preserve, WP:AGF, and a raft of other pages. In response, I (1) offer to compromise (2) agree to not counter-revert. Your response? "No infoboxes!" with, again, no precise rationale. If there is anything I completely missed in this just-given memorialization, Ms. Gale, please do inform me; thanks! ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "infoboxes mysteriously attract POV editors" or anything near that, nor did I say "no infoboxes." As I did say, please gather consensus on the talk page for what you want. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you wanted 'em as slots for pictures. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A research puzzle

When did Ted Kennedy first take office as a senator? Before you say November 7, 1962, as this seemingly official source does, see this NY Times article from late November 1962, and others. I have no real opinion on the matter, but I think it can be settled with references...I just can't find enough to be sure. I would think that if Smith resigned his office in 1962, which would have been required for Kennedy to take office before January 1963, there would be a news item about it...but I haven't been able to find one. It seems Smith left for Laos as a Senator on a mission for JFK (his Harvard roommate), and sometime in December he was referred to as "former Senator" while still on that trip. But he was still referred to as a Senator on November 25. Certainly that could have been an error in the NYT, but still...where is the bit about him resigning? I would think that would be somewhere. Frank | talk 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Journalists make wanton mistakes (and worse) all the time. However, former US senators are often called "senator." Hence muddles. WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We can do better. :-) Frank | talk 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Way, but it can take time :D Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamar Discussion Page

In the Chamar discussion page; the other user has once again launched a personal attack on me AND he has also deleted some of the text that I have provided.

Can you please revert the text and notify Ravinder121 once again the respond to the article and not launch personal attacks. Bal537 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

I've blocked User:Ravinder121 24 hours for making personal attacks and have tweaked the section title, which he misunderstood, owing to your own sloppiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Like the poster below has stated: be polite and neutral and don't accuse other of being "sloppy". I do not consider what I wrote to be "sloppy". The other user has responded in the talk page for weeks without "misunderstanding" the text that was there for weeks. If he doesn't take the time to read carefully, I cannot be held responsible.

Also, I still do not understand why consider state by state population demographics that are sourced (official government census website) to be disruptive editing? What kind of consensus is needed for this information. Do you want other people to write that they agree with the census information or do you think that population demographic information for a social group is not important? 70.111.68.15 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

Your edits have indeed been sloppy, which is one of the reasons you haven't gotten very far with what you want to do. Another reason is, you've been soapboxing (as we call it here on en.Wikipedia). As for all those PDF files on state demographics, drawing conclusions from them could wind up being your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok,I will the demographic information in the same format as I have seen on numerous other wiki pages and you let me know if it ok or not.

As for "soapboxing" it is not me but the other user that has been soapboxing. For the past year, the other has been reverting my edits, has been accusing "false propanda" and "vandalism" just because he wants to persue his own agenda. All this person has been doing for the last year is reverting my edits and going to all different moderatorss talk pages and trying to get me blocked for vandalism.

On the discussion page, I have showed countless sources that show Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars. The other user has not been able to post a single source or does not even make any attempt to engage in any kind of discussion. But I know you don't care about this. I have a facebook group "Chamars" with over 400 members and we have decided to create a website to correct all the misinformation on wikipedia. 70.111.68.15 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

As you likely know, I've blocked the other user again for personal attacks and page blanking. Keep in mind, I haven't been watching this all that long yet and it took time to warn everyone and wait to see what would happen.

Yes, you can look at other articles to see how sources are handled and then do likewise, I'll be happy to look at what you come up with. Please try to keep your talk page posts fairly neat and short, even if it means dealing with things one step at a time.

Also, please remember to log in as User:Bal537 and always sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), it's very important that you always do these two things. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 29#Blood of Angels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 28#Blood of Angels. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Without citations to reliable sources carrying critical commentary on either the album or the album cover, the image cannot be carried on en.Wikipedia under fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your DRV links to neither a file nor an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was merged as I said. The sources are now all included in the merged article at Michelle Belanger and some of the sources also supporting can be found on the Nox Arcana article. All of the sources are relieable and have already gone through scrutiny. The image file was deleted by you, so obviously there's no link to that. I followed DRV instructions. Please look at the history of Blood of Angels (without the redirect). I'm unsure how to get to the history after the merge and redirect was done. Perhaps the history can be found if the redirect from Blood of Angels to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels is removed. Also, you need to consider the policy at WP:Music#Albums which clearly supports having an album article. The requirement to be met is not of sources but of notability of the band, for which there are a good number of reliable sources (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Post, Fangoria, Sideline, TV shows, and some international publications). Fair use is covered if the original album page Blood of Angels is undeleted. Also, the old article probably doesn't have all the newer cites that the merged one does, but I can easily copy cites from the merges into the undeleted article. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, three links which may help you.

Now, my take:

Many editors are likely to think the album Blood of Angels doesn't quite meet the en.Wikipedia notability threshold put forth at Wikipedia:Music#Albums, singles and songs, because the topic is indeed on the edge of that threshold. There has been a wee bit of independent coverage, but that coverage may not be taken as significant by experienced editors. Hence the article was redirected to a section of the article Michelle Belanger, which is a notable BLP topic.

The kerfluffle now is mostly over the image. en.Wikipedia has a very stern policy on non-free images. The pith is, non-free images are a big drag on a free content site like this. So long as it stays non-free, the only way that image can be uploaded to en.Wikipedia is through Wikipedia:Fair use#Images as cover art, but only if in the context of critical commentary of that item.

The catch is, so far, there seems to be no cited critical commentary which is verifiable and independently sourced, only publicity and verifiable authorship, which isn't at all the same thing. Moreover, if there were, it is highly likely the album would still have its own stand alone article. So on en.Wikipedia, the editorial outcome is, it's unlikely that a non-free image of a cover will wind up in an article which is not about the work itself.

If the image were free (say, GNU or CC), it could be put at Michelle Belanger with no worries at all, since that topic is notable and there would be no fair use worries to deal with.

So long as the image is non-free, carrying it on en.Wikipedia could easily be a copyright violation, for the reasons I've written above. Sourced publicity and verifiable authorship aren't enough.

I hope this helps you understand what has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining but no, I really don't understand. The history of the original Afd for the article was populated by sockpuppets. Also, the new sources added to the article after merge are totally reliable. Washington Post, Plain Dealer, Fangoria, Dragon con — the panel at Dragoncon was titled Blood of Angels" and delt with the myth of watcher angels. It was based on the album's theme. The kerfluffle (nice word) is that this band is being singled out for deletion while there's tons of albums by similar bands which are permitted articles though they have no coverage in the press and have absolutely zero content except track list on their pages. I find sources and agree to a merge, then the same editor goes and finds another reason for Afd. I feel like every article I have worked on is being stalked. I just feel this issue was handled very unfairly. I hope you intend to nominate every album on wiki without content for deletion. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The image isn't free, so it's a big worry unless it can be put in an article about a straightforwardly notable album. Full stop, 30-30. Meanwhile, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned that before: '"Other Stuff Exists" to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never chat=rted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect). Ebonyskye (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, a wee slice of users, often through sockpuppets and for many and sundry reasons, can and do roam about looking for weaknesses to attack. There are very likely thousands of album and other articles about artistic works on en.Wikipedia that would either never make it through an AfD, or couldn't withstand a cleverly crafted and timed one. Some can and do stay on the site for years, with those readers who see them not thinking twice about it. Topics on the edge of WP:N are often not dealt with fairly and I know it stings to think that sockpuppets, which are mostly not allowed but in truth are everywhere (and many would be startled to learn who runs some of them), had something to do with it. Nobody has said anything because it's all a big, docking can of beans. On the bright side, I do think that topic could gather some independent critical commentary and since Michelle Belanger indeed meets WP:BIO, the article could easily come back if that happens. Meanwhile, please keep in mind, it mostly came down to the image, which was daunting only because it wasn't free. Had it been GNU or CC, it would be in Michelle Belanger where, by the bye, readers are at least redirected and get a basic, sourced read up on the album. I'd say in a few years, the packaging and at least lower res audio files for most commercially produced music will very likely be given away under free licences and moreover, films will likely follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think Blood of Angels could be restored for a new AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)