![]() | 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. |
I've seen a user template that the user is done with and they have tagged with CSD-U1. The problem is that, being a template, the CSD tag got placed on all the pages where the template is being used. I'm almost certain that was not the intended result and was wondering... how would you mark a template for deletion? (the template is here) Padillah ( talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
to keep the transcluded CSD tag from further transcluding along with the template.
Gwen Gale (
talk)
20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)The interpretation of WP:WEIGHT by Lawrencekhoo here is, uhm, strained. — SlamDiego ←T 10:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect still seems to keep following me to the AfD board. [1] The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, milady ... process question. I've never been summoned to ANI before, until now. Question: Understanding well it should rarely be done, but is it possible to appeal ANI (in medias res? or after conclusion?) Many thanks. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Mostly because you asked:
Whether or not you think this is happening, most other editors who've had anything to say about this think that's what's happening. Since the notion of consensus has much sway here, you can't skirt this.
Either way however, if you think you're helping that man or this project, you're not. From what I see, you're only stirring up kerfluffle and sundry harm. Your editing on the topic has reached the level of disruption, which is blockable. Worse, it looks to me as though you're on the very edge of getting site-banned and if you don't stop this behaviour now, you will be.
I'm willing to talk about this more with you, to try and help you, but truth be told, I'm also willing to grab the besom and block you myself if you don't heed both the ANI thread and this one. Please don't let this get stirred up any more, you're sloshing the mixing bowl way too much and the batter's about to hit the wall. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing that should have been done early (rather than enact this contention) was to take it to the appropriate forum (? hadn't been to either NPOVN or BLPN before) and have someone else determine which interpretation of NPOV was correct.
As for "Original Research"—yes, that was a problem, until I found the secondary source of the day in court when the probation report was described by the judge with press present and spread by AP. (And SlimVirgin informed me at WP:RSN that the documentary Wanted and Desired is RS secondary.)
I know what it all looks like from your shoes. But other than the OUTRAGEOUS enactment of contention between Tombaker321 and myself ... I haven't been owning anything. But I have demonstrated how desperately some will fight to remove an NPOV tag.
All the RC patrol I've done doesn't mean a thing, does it. One trip to ANI, a shouted bunch of misperceptions, with no chance to rebut them because the decision is already a lock.
By the way ... what exactly would you block me for? Defending myself. Attempting to stop the humiliating (and that's what they are) editing restriction?
Hmmmm ... I may hit save after all. Blocking can be appealed to arbcom. Yes, I know I'll lose, but I'd rather go out with a slim chance to clear the air, than none at all—that's what's happening in that topic at ANI. I can show you the difs.:) Cheers. And my most sincere thanks. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this ANI was done without a prior discussion on my talk, is there anyway to work out an agreement that does not involve the editing restrictions? Llwrch truly is acting unfairly in this matter, even if you agree with the general thrust. He shouldn't be making the ruling. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: (Excuse my procedural errors.) To be clear, Gwen Gale's actions are not at issue (you actly wisely). But, however much I had erred, the Roman Polanski ANI was abusive. Abusive ANI's are not in the interest of the community. Whether it should be addressed or not, I wish to be clear as to where it would be addressed (and yes, also let those who are not part of the matter know that I was am new to ANI and therefore quite properly stupid:) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that in this edit, the (strange, uninterpretable) upper "(smiling)" was accidentally added in the wrong place in preview— and not removed when complete comment was correctly placed. (I would remove it myself but reaching limit.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
How is Paulman Berg blatant advertising? Wikipedia is not for advertisements, it's for knowledge. I'm not an idiot, I know you can't get advertising from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BumpStopBump ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Save your Euros. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this is random, but I wanted to say thank you for being one of the good guys. I was a regular editor here for a little while, until the migraines (from watching people get away with crap as long as they made even token efforts to game the system) got to be disabling. You were one of the happy exceptions to that general rule, and I don't think I ever properly thanked you as you deserve. (Even though your willingness to deal with problems meant you occasionally had to chew on me as well.)
If they could clone you, WP would be much the better for it. I hope people realize that.
Don't worry about me, I'm no one important and don't do aught more than the occasional casual edit. Just wanted to say thank you for being strong enough to make WP a better place. (^_^)
76.22.25.102 ( talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As documented on the article talk page, your understanding of what was going on when you protected the article was a misunderstanding. Please unprotect. -- RLV 209.217.195.188 ( talk) 09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting Page Protection of the Polanski page. I hope this is a proper means to do that, if not I would be happy to receive the correct direction to do this. Reasoning: After the trip to the ANI page, the originator of the ANI question Benjiboi, begam making comprehensive changes to the article as if authorized to "go at it" based on the original ANI discussion. The first removed the topic at question the NPOV flag, and then reworded the section sexual significantly out of hand, without review or discussion. This was this editors second single handed rewrite of the section. Then Benjiboi reformatted the entire article single handed, without review. When replaced to the original version, the reverted and said there was no consensus for the reversion back to the original, thus clearly showing there was no consensus for the single handed changes. The editor also state the entry to be a Narrative now.
The topic at hand is not rapidly changing, and a time out seems appropriate, and needed. I do not believe there would be strong object to protection also.
Thank you, for consideration, and or redirection to proper venue. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, could you arrange for an archive search box to be added the Polanski talk page? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If you look here Talk:2009 Richmond High School gang rape at the top of the page, you will see this comment....This page has been removed from search engines' indexes. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer you more thoroughly yesterday, Off2riorob. The noindex template mostly doesn't even work these days, because by default, all talk and project space pages are not indexed by search engines, while all articles are indexed and the template can't override the latter default. There's an old robots.txt file for en.Wikipedia but it's my understanding that it has, one way or another, no effect these days, owing to default coding done on the developer level: At this time only developers can exclude an article from search engine indexing. Article talk pages are excluded by default, so truth be told, I don't know why Alison put the template there (she may not have been aware that these days, article talk pages aren't indexed anyway). For developers to exclude an article from external search, I'd think there would need to be a WP:OFFICE action, or overwhelming "community" worry shown through very broad consensus. The way to keep truly dodgy BLP content out of an article is through protection and blocks. I've thought about protecting Roman Polanski until the categories are sorted out, but have worried that this would be going beyond the pale, given his legal status. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is another example of Collect following me. Franklinbe obviously has no ability to contribute constructively to the project. Collect knows this because he disagreed with the RfC that Franklinbe set up [2] and disagreed with his proposed mediation. [3] Franklinbe has been blocked. [4] However when Franklinbe continued to edit under his IP and I complained at SPI, Collect objected, saying:
In this case it is obvious that Collect decided to oppose my recommendation without examining the facts. Had he clicked on the user page, the talk page, the contributions page or the blocklog [6] it would have been clear that the editor had been blocked. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That's what I get for believing something without carefully checking out stuff like dates (my botch). That IP edit was indeed made before the first block. It wasn't block evasion, Franklinbe seemingly forgot to sign in, made a post as an IP then went back and signed it whilst logged on. Collect, I guess you could've worded that much more clearly here. FD, do you understand that Collect was talking about posts which had been made before the first time Franklinbe was blocked? Perhaps both of you should be a bit more careful when posting on the same pages, so as to skirt misunderstandings as to what the other's on about? Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, Collect, that the IP did later evade Franklinbe's block ( on the 19th and 20th), which DF indeed cited at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklinbe, so today's block of the IP was fitting and I don't understand why you even bothered to bring up the mistaken IP edit Franklinbe had made before he was blocked, since it had aught to do with anything, unless you hadn't looked at the diffs cited by FD to see for yourself that there was block evasion on that IP, although it happened more than a week after the diff you cited. Hence, it looks to me like your post at SI was mistaken (the diff you cited having nothing to do with the block evasion which happened later, which you didn't acknowledge) and that you both should be more careful and perhaps abide by outlooks which bear a bit more good faith. What do y'all think of that? Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:
Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ( [7] [8]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:
This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ( [9] [10]), Sparks1979 ( [11] [12]) and Felipe Menegaz ( [13]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ( [14]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ( [15]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ( [16]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”( [17] [18] [19]) if not “racists” ( [20] [21]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ( [22]).
Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? -- Lecen ( talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
However, as I don't like the behavior GG requested diffs of, I shall do some of the work for you: This is a tricky one, he is definitely reverting an edit as vandalism, but whether that edit is good-faith or not could be up for debate. Other than this single edit, I cannot find any other possibilities, but I this may just be my opinion. Lastly, I only searched for 'labeling good faith edits as vandalism'. I didn't research any other area of the requested diffs.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, cross-posting. Oh well. See my response, if interested. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lecen, as Hoary has said elsewhere, some time ago, some of Opinoso's edits were indeed worrisome. You've shown me old diffs of that. As I've told you, I warned Opinoso about this kind of thing some time ago. It took a few strong warnings, but so far as I can see, he stopped reverting good faith edits as vandalism and has stopped making personal attacks. What's left is a content dispute with some very light, back and forth edit warring and ownership, which seems to be mostly over sources and how to echo them in the text. I think both y'all and Opinoso are likely a bit too keen on your own PoVs, the topic itself is way controversial and maybe the text should put this forth as such in a neutral way, sternly following the sources, which likely don't agree among themselves one way or another.
There is little or no call for the admin bit here for now, though I'd say it bears watching, mostly for edit warring, WP:OWN and WP:Disruption from all "sides."
I don't have time to mediate a heavy content dispute, moreover I loathe wading into kerfluffles over stuff like race and ethnicity. I think going on about it is disgusting, maybe because what little we do know about the topic is often blatantly spun into deeply flawed political/nationalistic/social spats which help nobody but rather, upset almost anyone within earshot and understandably so.
Y'all should keep in mind that most folks have rather strong notions about their "ethnic identities" and an en.Wikipedia article is unlikely to sway them no matter what it says, but it's even more unlikely to do so if readers find its outlook as slanted in any way. So, I think most of this is a big waste of time. There are likely sundry outlooks in the sources on this and I'd think, if anything, most of them should be echoed in the text in a very low-key, neutral way.
To this end, it may be time for everyone to look into dispute resolution. Believe it or not, there are some very handy tips there.
I do understand that some think sources are being mis-cited. The way to fix that is to put short, pithy quotes from a source straightforwardly into the text and otherwise cite every line if need be.
If personal attacks, untowards reverts or edit warring get stirred up again please let me or another admin know about it, but please stop showing me old diffs of behaviour which has already been warned off. Likewise, I'm willing to try and answer broad questions about policy and sourcing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You removed the title of sex offender in the Roman Polanski page. The term is apt and is in large part how he is known to many people. The fact was cited and is not in violation of any part of the IP BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 ( talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe you understand. Roman Polanski fits all the legal definitions of a sex offender in the USA. The most important being that he has been convicted of a sex crime. His convicted is well documented, was cited in the edit, and is also well cited in the rest of the page. The term is most apt and the change that you made should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 ( talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently under a six month 1RR restriction. I would like you to look at this and this and tell me if you would oversee the duration of the sanction in place of the admin who imposed it. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 02:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, is it out of line to report what I thought was a violation of a restriction? As to when you said, let others report it, only a given few know of this restriction is in place. Or should I just tell all those involved that there exists a restriction, so that they may report any violations?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in: Radiopathy, Daedalus969, if either of you address or reference each other here, on my talk page, or elsewhere anytime during the next 24 hours, I will be blocking the account for 1 day. Disengage and stop the bickering/baiting now. Abecedare ( talk) 05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
...on this draft essay ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The linguist in me knows all too well that acronym-drawn checklists for thought can become unhelpful, bounding boxes for thought. Truth is, I already looked for a synonym for prevention beginning with e and couldn't find one that fit to my liking, but one may be lurking somewhere :) Also, I have a very strong mindset against bureaucracy of any kind and likewise, for me, "SMART" smacks of that. I like your essay, but too quickly ran into bumps trying to help out with the editing :) That's ok though, I think you should keep at it so long as you're stirred up to do so. The only thing I don't like about it is linking "education" with sanctions. I don't think it's time yet to say, whether it should stay in your user space. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Here you go:
Auswiger ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if I can add the new winner of the pageant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Pakistan_World
Ayesha Gilani - Miss Pakistan World --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Gilani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Material not supported is again being added. This time by an IP. Collect ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect, you said the edit wasn't supported by the source, but it is (though perhaps clumsily worded). Then you said it's a BLP violation, but it's not. Now you're saying the source itself is wrong and meanwhile, seem to be talking about personal blogs that aren't even cited in the article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't cite en.Wikipedia articles. The edit doesn't even mention Thyssen holdings or Auschwitz. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen - hope you are well. Please would you take look when you have a second. This profile is being vandalised with defamatory, un-sourced material. I believe that the source of defamation may lie with in the BBC and is currently being investigated. I know that the Oversight Committee is being asked to remove these comments from the history. Please would you consider protecting the article so that it can only be edited by established editors? Thanks. Amicaveritas ( talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. This editor Surelyhuman has been doing edits removing Native American heritage and categories that have citations from reliable sources. He has done so with Langston Hughs, Vivica A. Fox, and Beyonce Knowles. I have a good day. Mcelite ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This time an IP added words to the ADL quote which are simply not present in the quote at all, making it look like it means something contrary to the actual quote. To wit "regardless of the basis in truth." Collect ( talk) 12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we've talked out the issue of Booker's credibility. Those who are inclined to read up on Booker or are already aware of his reputation will have made their minds up. Repeatedly saying that I don't cite any sources, when I've cited direct quotes from Booker himself and referred you to the article which contains the external sources, isn't helpful and is cluttering up the discussion. Can I suggest that you move on from this and stop repeating the same accusation? -- TS 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, can I ask you to give me rollback? On the cons, I'm not a high volume vandalism reverter, a few here a few there per week. On the pros, I don't think I've made any mistaken reverts (at least, there's no evidence of it ;-) or ended up in acrimonious disputes about changes. Occasionally I have to do some jumping around to undo a few consecutive (vandalism) edits in a row, and it would be convenient to simply rollback. Lissajous ( talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation (telegraph.co.uk) Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
I'm puzzled. You've previosuly been fairly sensible, and not interested in global warming. Now all of a sudden you're trying to foist the likes of Booker on us. Why the sudden interest on a topic about which you seem to know very little? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You added this to the hacky page: I've removed that section (sorry): it just duplicates the one above William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I stumbled upon this and grinned, spotting the strip of green, I'm thinking it may even wind up as my yule thingy this year. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the history of User:DezzaDoo. It's posted at AN'I as well but I thought I'd get more direct attention. Thanks, Padillah ( talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Katerenka got it, but thanks. Padillah ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that excessive page protection is harmful. In this case, I fear it is being used to artificially impute partisan motives. Perhaps another request to unprotect? I'd make it, but given the history I think it would just engender more accusations. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've been saying for some time now, en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be startled to know who runs some of them. There are a few reasons why this website has been losing tens of thousands of editors (and dozens of helpful admins). I'd say the wanton socking by established, nominally trusted editors isn't a core reason, but it's an outcome which canny shrivels trust and overwhelmingly wastes the time of volunteers who think that by editing through the consensus policies they can build truly helpful, keenly sourced encyclopedia articles. Some of the puppeteers are so skilled they may never be brought to light (and I'm not talking about "goodhand" alt accounts which are run harmlessly owing to sundry privacy or harassment worries). Sockpuppetry is mind scam. The fix is neither a hunt far and wide for all those who lurk, nor in some keen set of scripts which could more or less easily spit out likely sockies to a mailing list of checkusers and arbcom folks, nor a good faith, open plea for it to stop. I can only say, the likely outcomes are foreseen and fairly short term now, among them an understanding that en.Wikipedia could indeed go the way of Alta Vista and the USENET within a very few years. Some know spot on what I'm talking about. Happily though, in the long term, the worries aren't all that big, the outlook seems bright for open content, along with the foregone end of 19th century notions having to do with legislated IP and copyright, never mind the myth these have anything to do with helping those who create content bring it to free markets. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
82.131.210.163 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As you have had previous experience with this IP/person, could you have a look at their recent addition of purely speculative material to various talk pages? Wuh Wuz Dat 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user in June with a warning that any IPs that he returns with will also be blocked. It seems he has recently returned and is making edits to the same articles: still trying to promote "Patrick Buri" at Buri and adding BLP violations to Patrick Mimran. IPs are 89.194.139.8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 89.194.130.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Could you have a look, and block the IPs and/or protect the pages if you think it's necessary? Thanks. Deli nk ( talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, why did you restore the off-topic soapboxing in this edit? We have a notice at the top of the page asking people not to use the page as a forum and the talk page guidelines specifically empower us to remove material not relevant to improving the article ( WP:TPO). The talk page is long enough as it is without being cluttered up with off-topic rants. If you're not willing to keep the talk page tidy, please at least don't obstruct other people's efforts to do so. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you marked for deletion the article on Guifi.net. It is one of the largest and exemplary open community wireless networks in the world, and very active on the definition and promotion of the common wireless ideas. I thought it would be really relevant to add an article about it. It is growing rapidly and it has more that 10.000 nodes (a lot for a community wireless net, much more that the well known similar nets in English speaking countries) and perhaps around 10-100 times number of people related to it (no official statistics on it). These are the arguments for relevance and I believe an article in the English section should cover important aspects about the world, not only about things on the most industrialized and English-speaking countries. I only occasionally contribute to the Wikipedia so perhaps I may be wrong. Leandro.navarro ( talk) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see that I've ever had anything to do with that. If you think the topic meets WP:ORG, you might want to find some sources and cite some text. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete this podcast's page? It is inappropriate for you to delete information because you are unaware of its cultural significance in your country. Simply because you are unaware of another country's culture gives you no right to say it has no significance. It is not your place to delete the cultural references of another country so please restore this page immediately and refrain from further uninformed deletions of American culture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.24.203 ( talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I request semi-protection for “ Phi Kappa Psi”. There's an editor who has used multiple accounts ( Personperson1234567, CoolioDroolio, and ReversePorkies, now all indefinitely blocked) and more recently anonymously edited from 70.162.21.165 (blocked) and from 150.135.161.148 (not presently blocked) to removed references and an allegation of sexual assault.
— SlamDiego ←T 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You're on candid ANI Toddst1 ( talk) 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. The user Surelyhuman is persist in removing the categories on Beyonce Knowles article. See here: [36]. I've tried to talk over with the user but the person insists that the person shouldn't be applied to the categories out of his own opinion. Her heritage is sourced and yet the person refuses to accept the categories being in the article when there apply to people of full or partial heritage. Mcelite ( talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the warning was at all well considered for appropriateness before being given. The problem is not that I am removing sourced and verifiable categories from the Beyoncé Knowles article, but that user Mcelite and I have opposing views on what kind of categories belong on the article. I see that user Mcelite and yourself are well acquainted, but warnings should be given out after making sure it is appropriate to do so, instead of simply after being contacted. I will talk about the problem on the talk page as you suggested, but I'd appreciate it if the warning you gave me was recanted. Surelyhuman ( talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[37] accuses me of "secretly canvassing" -- as this is absolutely untrue, and part of a continuing harassment by an editor, I would like you to be aware of such accusations. Collect ( talk) 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my harsh actions towards Surelyhuman. It just really bothered me that the user completely over looks certain things in a manner that seems ignorant to me. I'm taking a day off to cool off. Thank you again. Mcelite ( talk) 07:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Metacomment on other matters (which have formal response on my talk): Proofreader77 is not Ottava Rima.
(No reply necessary to asides above. Assurance: All will be convivial.) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that you have an extensive editing history on wikipedia. That is very impressive. I'm looking for a mentor to help me acclimate to the encyclopedia as I would like to begin editing soon. Do you have any useful suggestions to help me get started? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erohwasinewg ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious to know how you think an article on the could provide more information than wiktionary:the. Could you elaborate, just a bit? -- Yair rand ( talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, since you are familiar with the user, can you take a look at his contributions to WP:AN over the last day or so at this thread (the initial proposal is fine, but his participation soon degenerated into tomfoolery, baiting and edit-warring; see the page's edit-history). See also the my messages to him requesting him to stop, and reminding him of his edit-restrictions, which he seems to have violated. If he continues, I plan to issue short blocks, but would appreciate a second opinion and set of eyes. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been made aware of this new source on Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it's hard to believe it has been two years since the article was promoted to GA. Hope you are doing well. Cheers! Postoak ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you speedy delete: Talk:Ball's Bluff Battlefield Regional Park and National Cemetery? I did some move-mucking and made the problem worse. I believe I have all the redirects correct now, but just need the newly created talkpage deleted. Thanks. Have a holly jolly. BusterD ( talk) 12:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Seasonal type greetings,
If you have a moment could you cast an eye over Kobi Arad? Sorry the talk page is a bit of a mess and the history reveals a bit of a stand off developing. It seems to hang on a very slender thread of notability (a single source in Hebrew). my last attempt at a clean up. Worth bothering with in a seasonal gesture of goodwill? Lame Name ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
please can you return the article kingston hospital radio to my sandbox. i do not understand what you mean by copy right violation, and I find the wikipedia guidelines on this confusing and complicated. i work for the charity involved so am not sure how why i don't seem to be able to use our content. all i need is for someone to say do this, don't do this in relation to my article. if necessary i will move it to a special page. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield paul ( talk • contribs)
I've had nothing to do with this article so far as I can tell. However, the article was deleted as a copyright violation: Copyright violations can't be restored to any spot on en.Wikipedia, so I can't put it back in your sandbox. Moreover, the deleted text doesn't seem to meet the notability standards and has no independent sourcing at all. Hence, even if it were wholly re-written and not a copyright violation, since the topic does not seem to be encyclopedic, it's likely any text would be either speedily deleted, or deleted after being taken to articles for deletion. Please keep in mind, you can follow the blue links in this answer, to learn more about the policies. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#Self-acknowledgment_of_3RR_of_Roman_Polanski I believe I will have to raise his edit warring etc, in a forum, but wanted you to be aware of this. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I should be grateful if you would grant me rollback rights. If you look at my contributions you will see my substantial history of responsible editing and I intend to increase my vandal fighting activities. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(* Quoting Shell Kinney's topic header once placed on my talk after having witnessed some lightness on Killerchihuahua's talk)
Given that it's Christmas, and that that ANI was a "car wreck" of misperceptions ... if you would like to have a chat with Llywrch (recently blessed with baby girl) and Hans Adler (note: Cuchullain also affirmed, but a bit of COI there: See User:Proofreader77/American warning) about withdrawing/nullifying/whatever what happened, that is fine with me.
But as I indicated on my talk, whatever will happen at Arbcom (or perhaps AN, if Arbcom considers the matter too frivolous, ^;^) "will be convivial." (Note: I have been blessed by all that has happened — and my user page is much improved: 3.0 lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, please see your talk page. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the message you recently left to
USER:Breathing Dead. Please remember:
do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a
common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
Hi, Sorry to post a (mostly) negative message on your page, since you obviously do a lot of hard work at improving this encyclopedia. I hope you'll consider unblocking User:Breathing Dead--I was just looking over the block records and it seems to me that blocking this user was a mistake. I think that in the dispute between you and this user, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides, and that it's unfortunate that there was an indefinite block placed on this user since he made many positive contributions to the encylopaedia. I also think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they themselves participate in. I also posted a message on this topic at the admin noticeboard. Hope you had a merry Xmas! Cheers, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 01:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That was five months ago. I wasn't involved in a content dispute with that editor. Gwen Gale ( talk) 09:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
May this season be the last in which the insane visit you on this talk page! (Okay. probably just too much for which to hope. Sorry.) — SlamDiego ←T 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for acting rude. No slightest offense intended. Had constant edit conflicts. Thanks for your help. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen: I see that you have remove Proofreader77 restrictions because of his wiki-lawyering to you above. In your decision to remove all the restriction, you said that the restriction were not working, thus they were lifted.
The so-named "Holiday Offer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#.22Holiday_Offer.22.2A
Those restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333070825&oldid=333065997
The restrictions were not the measure, there was never a criteria of if the restriction do not work, that they will be removed. Quite the opposite. I think its fair to say that Proofreader77 has gamed these restriction, and his working around them and violating them too, should not warrant their removal. To the restrictions:
Proofreader77 in his offer to you, used hard to read formatting, which the restriction where suppose to remedy. When give feedback from a third party, dismissed the advice. Proofreader77 represented to you that all parties. This was not true, as I was certainly not notified, and I was very much included in that ANI. Proofreader's note to Cuchullian was not replied to. The note to Hans Adler, was not responded to when you lifted the restriction, then days after, Hans responded to Proofreader saying "This is not acceptable.
Problems were raised about Proofreader77 here:
There are certainly more available to cite.
Proofreader has placed sonnets of Jimbo Wales talk page, and other unintelligible lengthy contributions. Proofreader was blocked to a day, due to his disruption. However when you did that, you failed to consider his restrictions that were already to be in place.
Proofreader engages in disruptive rhetoric as his primary contributions to Wikipedia. The effect and time on others should be part of the consideration.
The ANI said "If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with your idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors."
Proofreader has not take the restrictions to heart, continues wikilawyer and even told you he was going to Arbitration.
I sense you have become too labored with this matter, which is why you removed the restrictions while contending his style of interaction was not changed.
I feel strongly that you should replace the restrictions (the problem remains), then hand off the problems of Proofreader77 by creating an ANI topic to allow disposition by others. The should not be dropped off, it needs to be handed off. Thank you -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_Roman_Polanski -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Please check email now, thanks. Malke 2010 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking Daedalus969. I don't know if you got my email, but I did reread those early posts and I can see his frustration in trying to get us to understand him. I don't believe he intended to be uncivil. I think he was trying so hard to be heard, we couldn't hear him. Malke 2010 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[48] :D Malke 2010 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
^ http://www.heraldik.se/artiklar/dubba.html ^ Karl Löfström [edit] Literature Karl Löfström; Sverges Riddarordnar ( Arvid Berghman; Nordiska Ördnar og dekorationer (Malmö 1949) Rudolf Cederström; Katalog (Stockholm 1948) Rudolf Cederström; Svenskt Silversmide 1520 - 1850 (Stockholm 1941) Michael Conforti en Guy Walton; Royal treasures of Sweden 1500 - 1700 (Washington 1988)
I think this was a reasonable unblock, I probably would have changed it to a fixed duration of at least a day, but I am me and you are you. Please note that I am always open to discuss any block or unblock should the need arise. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I see Nableezy has made the point I intended to. But for the record:-
Can the person who posted these things [49] be stopped from doing that again? Malke 2010 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, I want to add a new version of 'Kobi Arad' article which establishes notablity.
- Dec. 31st and earlier, the original question of notability, was due to the lack of secondary sources (please review conversation notes written by Lame Name). He said the crux of evidence, which was crucial for its notability before was the establishment of secondary sources.
Over the recent week I made a series of edits (and some are only in the new version) including citations, reference notes, content - and now every single argument in the article is now backed up by a secondary source.
The content of the new article qualifies it for notability, since it establishes that: 1. Kobi Arad is first (ever) to have earned Doctorate in Historic Third Stream (now Contemporary Improvisation) department. 2. Blue Note Bulletine's comments, which refer to Arad as a prominent musician are now verified 3. Kobi Arad has appeared with the Israeli philharmonic orchestra in a televied series 'The music of Ravel' 4.1 An Opera that Arad re-composed has been played in the notable venue of Tel Aviv Museum. 5. A plentiful of reviews and secondary sources confirm Arad's notability and outstanding musicianship (including Jazz Times CD Reviews and Jewish Advocate review). Reviews from such prominent journals as the Boston Herald, Boston Pheonix, Jewish Advocate, Jerusalem Post and Jazz Times have been placed in the article. - Hairhorn's comment, mentioning that proof of earned Doctorate Degree should help, has been fulfilled. - Jubilee's encouraged edits, that may establish notablity. In adherence to Jubilee's and Hairhorn's guidance - a considerable series of edits have been made (and some are only in the new version only) in the article. - Additional wealth of information, presenting the breadth of Arad's work has been placed in the 'Compositions' and 'Performances' sections of the new article.
Please view the new page and above mentioned comments, and enlighten me as to which other changes I may make in order to transform this article to a notable article, which would meet wikipedia's expectations.
Thank u
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoenberg129 ( talk • contribs)
Other background on this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, and thanks for your quick reply (u seem like a warm person),
I dont mind waiting with this article 3 months and see what's out there, but a few questions:
The Jewish Advocate page The Jewish Advocate by Susie Davidson [50] was not on the original version, and seems to address both info and small interview. Why is it not a secondary source ?!
Also the Boston Herald ( [51]), Boston Phoenix ( [52]) and Jazz Times community reviews ( [53] and [54]) provide some valuable information - why do u not consider these porminent sources as secondary sources?! (there's also a Jerusalem Post review for the Opera work of Arad ( [55]))
Again, I dont mind waiting tl there's nu stuff out - but at least want an explaination for the overrulling of the above-mentioned sources upstaies, as they are all 1. Independent 2. Major Newspaper published 3. discuss Arad's work
Thanks for your time Gwen,
Schoenberg129 ( talk) 07:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll do this one more time for you, although other editors have already told you this more than once:
None of these citations supports the topic as meeting WP:MUSIC. Have you read WP:MUSIC? Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? [62]. Malke 2010 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kudos as to taking the time to track down and cite the family passage which has been subject to a minor edit war, of late. Kierzek ( talk) 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Noticing lots of recent vandalism on this page. e.g., [63]. This guy isn't the only one, I think. This guy too, [64]. Malke 2010 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection on this page. :) Malke 2010 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This SSP conversation may be of interest to you. APK whisper in my ear 10:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
to your question to User:SkagitRiverQueen: The reasons why can be seen in the work page here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone believes you've lied SRQ. I do think you've gotten much more stirred up about things having to do with Whl, other than some mistakes she's made with rollback.
So far as I am aware, both of you have been very helpful in building and watching articles, so please know that when two editors start bickering like this, it can quickly begin to disrupt the project. This kind of disruption is highly boring to most volunteer editors and the outcome is almost never a happy one for the bickerers. If you can't get along with each other that's ok, but if so, stay away from each other and stop talking about each other, even if one feels slighted. If you feel upset or angry about something, that happens here, but wait until that feeling has blown over before posting. Almost nothing here is worth going through an RfC, likewise an RfAr, much less getting blocked over.
I see you both edit articles having to do with very high profile pop-culture, often closely linked with California. Such topics are traps for misunderstandings, clashing outlooks and deeply dodgy sourcing. Look at it this way, en.Wikipedia (like most other general references) is by far weakest in the humanities. When it comes to popular humanities, things can get much worse, never mind abounding BLP worries, we do what we can. Lastly, I'll put it this way, why anyone who knows the first thing about Charlie Manson, with all the ongoing swirls having to do with that topic in California, would edit war over the article, is rather beyond me. So, from now on, blow off the bygone, please peacefully talk about sources and how to echo those sources in article texts, knowing it won't always be cake, or don't talk at all. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Do you feel able to clamp down on Shuki's repeated behaviour? Or do you feel too involved? (See my latest post to the talk page which edit clashed with yours.)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Having worked a little on this page today, it was fresh in my memory when I chanced to see this one. The former is of course released under the GFDL etc etc. Should I feel flattered, do you think? Actually it made me feel salty, but I couldn't think of a WP-approved "reason". -- Hoary ( talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen :) I've suggested a new proposal here. Would appreciate your views there. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: You have an ongoing relationship with Proofreader77 in your capacity as Admin.
Your previous remarks to Proofreader77:
Because of the above, it is my request that you recuse yourself since your objectivity on these matters is compromised, or at best has the appearance of being too personally involved. If you as an "editor" want to address the characterization on Proofreader77s user pages...that is obviously something you should do, if you want. I would appreciate an affirmative response to what your future involvements will be. rgds -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember having a high opinion of you from forever, but I cannot at the moment recall where we have interacted. It might have been under my old username, Eldereft, or it might have been only at the several noticeboards. You have commented a couple times lately on the danger of introducing a systematic bias through selective enforcement. This is, honestly, something I worry about a fair bit. From my editing of alternative medicine articles, it is fairly obvious that I consider most of them mostly bunk, but nonetheless several editors with other perspectives have commented that I still promote fairness of coverage. Sorry to toot my own horn here, but I want you to understand where I am coming from and that I have experience thinking about writing controversial articles, particularly those with a clear "minority" side.
Upon being entrusted with the mop'n'bucket, I realized that removing equal numbers of disruptive participants from both "sides" would disproportionately skew our coverage - 9:5 is a very different editing environment than 6:2 or, worse, 4:0. Groupthink is dangerous to any enterprise, particularly one that aims for the comprehensive and neutral coverage we do. Considering knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia as a force multiplier, the situation is even worse - a few committed experienced editors can easily engineer sanctions for their less experienced fellow volunteers through selectively pointing out the bright lines only when it is almost too late and generally themselves remaining just within the norms while still being agents of frustration more than collaboration. I try to respond with warn and counsel particularly in cases where a new editor might not have an experienced advocate but indicates that they are here to promote comprehensive coverage rather than simply trying to hijack Wikipedia's voice to the world or indulge in general trolling.
Once a minoritarian editor passes the hurdle to themselves become an experienced contributor, though, neutrality of enforcement demands that they be held to the standards of the community. Consistently arguing that coverage should move in a particular direction is not a problem unless they start wholesale rewriting articles against consensus. Continually tweaking and insulting their fellow volunteers and showing a marked preference for engaging on a disputatious rather than collaborative level, as is my conclusion from GoRight ( talk · contribs)'s edits over the last several weeks, however, is more disruptive to the project than is the loss of their voice to discussions.
I am wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if I might hear your thoughts on more productive solutions to this instance in particular or to the problem in general. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you remember my most recent block. I was unblocked on the promise that if a situation had the potential of turning sour, I would ask for outside assistance. Well, I have. Just thought you would like to know.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding my possibly uncivil post, as I'm about to note on the page at hand, I'm just going to go and refactor it now rather than await approval.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As such, I have done so here. I hope it is better than it was.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
He's getting tiresome at my talk page. Jehochman Brrr 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this article. I think the high school kids must have this as an assignment. Lots of silly stuff going on there. Malke 2010 03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen your recent discussion with Tarage ( talk · contribs). Is there something like an edit summary template, something that simply says "Reverting the edit. This talk page is not a forum. Its purpose is to discuss on how to improve the article."? The edit summaries that effectively continue the forum-style discussion by inserting both a (strong) personal viewpoint, sometimes combined with a personal attack, do not contribute to improve the editing process in the area. I think that we should have a guideline on those edit summary, with the aim of having them as neutral as possible. It would be helpful both to avoid feeding trolls and to avoid discouraging potential constructive contributors to the encyclopedia. Cs32en Talk to me 09:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An indefinite block has consensus until it is overturned for cause. The discussion on GoRight hasn't turned up cause to overturn the block, and there seems to be agreement by all admins, and indeed by GoRight, that he has to take the concerns expressed seriously. Sadly this verdict has been obscured by the tendency to turn such discussions into an up/down vote, which encourages the very polarization that makes GoRight's manner of engagement so a problematic. I have no doubt that 2over0, Jehochman, and GoRight together will keep working towards a sanction or other framework under which GoRight can contribute successfully to Wikipedia, but getting him to the point of accepting this does seem to have required administrator intervention. -- TS 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
and take a look at this exchange? This guy's been on me since I first showed up(he thinks I'm a sockpuppet -I'm not). He got me article banned for a month on a 1RR technicality (I really did try and self-revert) which User:2over0 and I amicably worked out. After my return to the talk page, he's all over me again with threats and intimidation. He reported me to 2over0 trying to get my probation revoked. I, for the life of me can not figure out what his problem is with me. If you'll check the diffs I left on 2over0's TP, there is nothing controversial much less worthy of sanction. HC thinks I've opened a closed issue but a quick glance at the talk page should show you that there is not anything close to consensus on his issue. I've read some of your stuff and I trust your judgment. Do you see a problem with my edits? Do you think HC's behavior is in bounds? Given that I just got off of an article ban initiated by the user in question, I can't use the RfE procedure without being accused of retaliation. I have no desire to go that route anyway. I just want to edit in peace and be dealt with in [WP:AGF]. Advice? JPatterson ( talk) 04:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether you'll regard NPoV/Noticeboard#PoV problem at “Austrian School” as interesting or simply as annoying. (In the latter case, please let me know for future reference.) — SlamDiego ←T 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
As you know, I was involved in Collect's unfortunate RFC.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been extremely pleased with Collect's contributions and behavior since he returned.
Please consider this in your interactions with Collect in the future. Ikip 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Professional Assassin's name is offensive. So is User:Youth in Asia who is not blocked. JB50000 ( talk) 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
After an experience with the Chan Tai San article, many associated with the "tibetan martial arts" agreed in the interests of the articles on the subject it was best to not turn every article into a long list of "me, yes me, I am part of it" or just old blatant self promotion. Now, after several edits and re-edits and polite requests, we have a fellow apparently from Mexico who can't seem to help himself. Might we get a moderator or moderator action on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, can you look at these diffs and suggest how best to proceed? I believe the user in question is being disruptive. He is not using the talk page like the rest of us, and his rationale for reverting does not make clear sense, especially when he says he didn't see anything on the talk page. I made deletions to the section in question and added several, well sourced items. With just one revert this user wiped them out stating that a reference to the' free market' offended him. This is why I say, it makes no sense. Another editor, using the talk page, saw the revert and reverted it back to where I had it. The diffs include the user in question's other reverts as well. [69] [70] [71]. Thanks, Malke 2010 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
How did you get your user page sectioned off with the barnstars all in rows. I'd like to get the photos on my user page arranged in sections so I can write comments, but I can't figure it out. Malke 2010 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
<br clear="all" />
, but before the category stuff at the very bottom. You can plug in whatever images and text you like. Cheers,
Gwen Gale (
talk)
22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Hello,
Today Jimmuldrow posted this on the Sarah Palin talk page: [72]
I did not understand what the issue was especially since he has already posted his change: [73]
So far no editors have objected.
Previously, the matter seemed resolved but he brought it up again: 00:58, 29 January 2010
Another editor Fcreid replied
I responded:
Later, I thought it might be better to revisit it too, because Jimmuldrow seemed so intent and it appeared to really bother him. It seemed like his view should be taken into account and the matter would best be resolved with what he proposed so I asked him this:
he responded:
I responded:
he responded, but I didn’t think he was actually responding to me, I thought he was still carrying on with his thought, which is fine:
So I said: [79]
He didn’t respond again, so I posted on his talk page:
The post he put on the Talk page today, I responded to:
This seems to be an unusual way to go about things, and reads more like a personal attack than an explanation for his edit on Sarah Palin's position. I have not objected to his new edit political positions edit, and I don't see right now where anybody else has either. Please advise, thank you. Malke 2010 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't watch Sarah Palin. If Jimmuldrow carries on with any back and forth about this in the article itself, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know. One diff will be enough. Likewise, if Jimmuldrow comments on the talk page about another editor, rather than about sources and content, let me know. Again, one diff should be enough. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, Special:Contributions/32.142.238.113 is the same person, and so is Special:Contributions/32.142.150.77 and Special:Contributions/32.137.74.146. And that's just the IP-addresses I have seen him use since yesterday... -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You said [82]:
"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."
And deja vu:
Collect got blocked again: [83] and usual Wiki lawyering. See: User_talk:Collect#January_2010 Phoenix of9 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it seems he had already broken his restrictions: /index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&oldid=304050219#0rr. Interesting... Phoenix of9 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per [84]. Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, similarly, I've closed this for forum shopping and warned him to knock it off. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You were never neutral. That's what I thought you meant, Phoenix, when you titled this thread with the rather badgering "Time to back up your words": You don't think I'm neutral. This is why I asked, then waited for your answer.
Phoenix, do you think Collect's single flight of carelessness in straying from the standing 1rr restriction at Mass killings under Communist regimes means he has been editing "tendentiously or disruptively again" as in the meaning of how I put it when closing his RfC 8 months ago? Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, wonderful, so stop trying to link Phoenix_of9 with old harassing emails, for starters. Meanwhile, I didn't ask you to post details this time either, I asked you for the date you told me about them. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I clearly now see why you deleted this page. I rewrote the article sticking with the letter of the land; I hope it may supplant the deleted one which is what comes up in a google search: jonathan sheldon movie producer. I would like to have it corrected and all the information is accurate. Please let me know and thank you. -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. Is there a way to remove the deleted page of "Jonathan Sheldon", or have it replaced with the new proper page of "Jonathan Sheldon" on Wiki? The deleted page comes up in searches and gives a misimpression. Thanks again. -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem; the deleted archived "Jonathan Sheldon" is what comes up when you google search, and it gives the impression that the listing is bogus. Does the archived deleted one stay up forever even though it's been rewritten and corrected? Thanks - -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a need for consistency here. The children are named in the current version of the article and elsewhere on the talk page. There has been an ongoing WP:BLPNAME debate about this, but the names are easily available on the Internet, including the Daily Telegraph source given.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk section you closed has been reopened [89] which I suspect is detrimental. I do not see the point in it. Collect ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
On the edit war/reverting 3RR thing. If an editor has made 5 reverts in 24 hours over two pages that are on the same subject and in fact are just a split of one article, and if that editor also visited other talk pages to solicit support, is that edit warring. Also, he didn't use the talk page. Just reverted. Malke 2010 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I tried to engage our friend Daedalus969, since he's very thorough with SP investigations, but I got no response.
Start here, follow through to the last revision and note the edit summaries. This account was either hacked, or the IP is just very friendly with himself.
The IP in question has also been improperly contributing to discussions (note the interjections between others' comments, and the sarcastic tone), appears to be edit warring, and is leaving less than civil edit summaries.
Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
...and leaving lengthy, sarcastic replies to attempts at getting him to be more civil. Radiopathy •talk• 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
I've seen a user template that the user is done with and they have tagged with CSD-U1. The problem is that, being a template, the CSD tag got placed on all the pages where the template is being used. I'm almost certain that was not the intended result and was wondering... how would you mark a template for deletion? (the template is here) Padillah ( talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
to keep the transcluded CSD tag from further transcluding along with the template.
Gwen Gale (
talk)
20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)The interpretation of WP:WEIGHT by Lawrencekhoo here is, uhm, strained. — SlamDiego ←T 10:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect still seems to keep following me to the AfD board. [1] The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, milady ... process question. I've never been summoned to ANI before, until now. Question: Understanding well it should rarely be done, but is it possible to appeal ANI (in medias res? or after conclusion?) Many thanks. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Mostly because you asked:
Whether or not you think this is happening, most other editors who've had anything to say about this think that's what's happening. Since the notion of consensus has much sway here, you can't skirt this.
Either way however, if you think you're helping that man or this project, you're not. From what I see, you're only stirring up kerfluffle and sundry harm. Your editing on the topic has reached the level of disruption, which is blockable. Worse, it looks to me as though you're on the very edge of getting site-banned and if you don't stop this behaviour now, you will be.
I'm willing to talk about this more with you, to try and help you, but truth be told, I'm also willing to grab the besom and block you myself if you don't heed both the ANI thread and this one. Please don't let this get stirred up any more, you're sloshing the mixing bowl way too much and the batter's about to hit the wall. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing that should have been done early (rather than enact this contention) was to take it to the appropriate forum (? hadn't been to either NPOVN or BLPN before) and have someone else determine which interpretation of NPOV was correct.
As for "Original Research"—yes, that was a problem, until I found the secondary source of the day in court when the probation report was described by the judge with press present and spread by AP. (And SlimVirgin informed me at WP:RSN that the documentary Wanted and Desired is RS secondary.)
I know what it all looks like from your shoes. But other than the OUTRAGEOUS enactment of contention between Tombaker321 and myself ... I haven't been owning anything. But I have demonstrated how desperately some will fight to remove an NPOV tag.
All the RC patrol I've done doesn't mean a thing, does it. One trip to ANI, a shouted bunch of misperceptions, with no chance to rebut them because the decision is already a lock.
By the way ... what exactly would you block me for? Defending myself. Attempting to stop the humiliating (and that's what they are) editing restriction?
Hmmmm ... I may hit save after all. Blocking can be appealed to arbcom. Yes, I know I'll lose, but I'd rather go out with a slim chance to clear the air, than none at all—that's what's happening in that topic at ANI. I can show you the difs.:) Cheers. And my most sincere thanks. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this ANI was done without a prior discussion on my talk, is there anyway to work out an agreement that does not involve the editing restrictions? Llwrch truly is acting unfairly in this matter, even if you agree with the general thrust. He shouldn't be making the ruling. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: (Excuse my procedural errors.) To be clear, Gwen Gale's actions are not at issue (you actly wisely). But, however much I had erred, the Roman Polanski ANI was abusive. Abusive ANI's are not in the interest of the community. Whether it should be addressed or not, I wish to be clear as to where it would be addressed (and yes, also let those who are not part of the matter know that I was am new to ANI and therefore quite properly stupid:) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that in this edit, the (strange, uninterpretable) upper "(smiling)" was accidentally added in the wrong place in preview— and not removed when complete comment was correctly placed. (I would remove it myself but reaching limit.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
How is Paulman Berg blatant advertising? Wikipedia is not for advertisements, it's for knowledge. I'm not an idiot, I know you can't get advertising from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BumpStopBump ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Save your Euros. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this is random, but I wanted to say thank you for being one of the good guys. I was a regular editor here for a little while, until the migraines (from watching people get away with crap as long as they made even token efforts to game the system) got to be disabling. You were one of the happy exceptions to that general rule, and I don't think I ever properly thanked you as you deserve. (Even though your willingness to deal with problems meant you occasionally had to chew on me as well.)
If they could clone you, WP would be much the better for it. I hope people realize that.
Don't worry about me, I'm no one important and don't do aught more than the occasional casual edit. Just wanted to say thank you for being strong enough to make WP a better place. (^_^)
76.22.25.102 ( talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As documented on the article talk page, your understanding of what was going on when you protected the article was a misunderstanding. Please unprotect. -- RLV 209.217.195.188 ( talk) 09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting Page Protection of the Polanski page. I hope this is a proper means to do that, if not I would be happy to receive the correct direction to do this. Reasoning: After the trip to the ANI page, the originator of the ANI question Benjiboi, begam making comprehensive changes to the article as if authorized to "go at it" based on the original ANI discussion. The first removed the topic at question the NPOV flag, and then reworded the section sexual significantly out of hand, without review or discussion. This was this editors second single handed rewrite of the section. Then Benjiboi reformatted the entire article single handed, without review. When replaced to the original version, the reverted and said there was no consensus for the reversion back to the original, thus clearly showing there was no consensus for the single handed changes. The editor also state the entry to be a Narrative now.
The topic at hand is not rapidly changing, and a time out seems appropriate, and needed. I do not believe there would be strong object to protection also.
Thank you, for consideration, and or redirection to proper venue. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, could you arrange for an archive search box to be added the Polanski talk page? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If you look here Talk:2009 Richmond High School gang rape at the top of the page, you will see this comment....This page has been removed from search engines' indexes. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer you more thoroughly yesterday, Off2riorob. The noindex template mostly doesn't even work these days, because by default, all talk and project space pages are not indexed by search engines, while all articles are indexed and the template can't override the latter default. There's an old robots.txt file for en.Wikipedia but it's my understanding that it has, one way or another, no effect these days, owing to default coding done on the developer level: At this time only developers can exclude an article from search engine indexing. Article talk pages are excluded by default, so truth be told, I don't know why Alison put the template there (she may not have been aware that these days, article talk pages aren't indexed anyway). For developers to exclude an article from external search, I'd think there would need to be a WP:OFFICE action, or overwhelming "community" worry shown through very broad consensus. The way to keep truly dodgy BLP content out of an article is through protection and blocks. I've thought about protecting Roman Polanski until the categories are sorted out, but have worried that this would be going beyond the pale, given his legal status. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is another example of Collect following me. Franklinbe obviously has no ability to contribute constructively to the project. Collect knows this because he disagreed with the RfC that Franklinbe set up [2] and disagreed with his proposed mediation. [3] Franklinbe has been blocked. [4] However when Franklinbe continued to edit under his IP and I complained at SPI, Collect objected, saying:
In this case it is obvious that Collect decided to oppose my recommendation without examining the facts. Had he clicked on the user page, the talk page, the contributions page or the blocklog [6] it would have been clear that the editor had been blocked. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That's what I get for believing something without carefully checking out stuff like dates (my botch). That IP edit was indeed made before the first block. It wasn't block evasion, Franklinbe seemingly forgot to sign in, made a post as an IP then went back and signed it whilst logged on. Collect, I guess you could've worded that much more clearly here. FD, do you understand that Collect was talking about posts which had been made before the first time Franklinbe was blocked? Perhaps both of you should be a bit more careful when posting on the same pages, so as to skirt misunderstandings as to what the other's on about? Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, Collect, that the IP did later evade Franklinbe's block ( on the 19th and 20th), which DF indeed cited at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklinbe, so today's block of the IP was fitting and I don't understand why you even bothered to bring up the mistaken IP edit Franklinbe had made before he was blocked, since it had aught to do with anything, unless you hadn't looked at the diffs cited by FD to see for yourself that there was block evasion on that IP, although it happened more than a week after the diff you cited. Hence, it looks to me like your post at SI was mistaken (the diff you cited having nothing to do with the block evasion which happened later, which you didn't acknowledge) and that you both should be more careful and perhaps abide by outlooks which bear a bit more good faith. What do y'all think of that? Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:
Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ( [7] [8]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:
This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ( [9] [10]), Sparks1979 ( [11] [12]) and Felipe Menegaz ( [13]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ( [14]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ( [15]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ( [16]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”( [17] [18] [19]) if not “racists” ( [20] [21]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ( [22]).
Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? -- Lecen ( talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
However, as I don't like the behavior GG requested diffs of, I shall do some of the work for you: This is a tricky one, he is definitely reverting an edit as vandalism, but whether that edit is good-faith or not could be up for debate. Other than this single edit, I cannot find any other possibilities, but I this may just be my opinion. Lastly, I only searched for 'labeling good faith edits as vandalism'. I didn't research any other area of the requested diffs.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, cross-posting. Oh well. See my response, if interested. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lecen, as Hoary has said elsewhere, some time ago, some of Opinoso's edits were indeed worrisome. You've shown me old diffs of that. As I've told you, I warned Opinoso about this kind of thing some time ago. It took a few strong warnings, but so far as I can see, he stopped reverting good faith edits as vandalism and has stopped making personal attacks. What's left is a content dispute with some very light, back and forth edit warring and ownership, which seems to be mostly over sources and how to echo them in the text. I think both y'all and Opinoso are likely a bit too keen on your own PoVs, the topic itself is way controversial and maybe the text should put this forth as such in a neutral way, sternly following the sources, which likely don't agree among themselves one way or another.
There is little or no call for the admin bit here for now, though I'd say it bears watching, mostly for edit warring, WP:OWN and WP:Disruption from all "sides."
I don't have time to mediate a heavy content dispute, moreover I loathe wading into kerfluffles over stuff like race and ethnicity. I think going on about it is disgusting, maybe because what little we do know about the topic is often blatantly spun into deeply flawed political/nationalistic/social spats which help nobody but rather, upset almost anyone within earshot and understandably so.
Y'all should keep in mind that most folks have rather strong notions about their "ethnic identities" and an en.Wikipedia article is unlikely to sway them no matter what it says, but it's even more unlikely to do so if readers find its outlook as slanted in any way. So, I think most of this is a big waste of time. There are likely sundry outlooks in the sources on this and I'd think, if anything, most of them should be echoed in the text in a very low-key, neutral way.
To this end, it may be time for everyone to look into dispute resolution. Believe it or not, there are some very handy tips there.
I do understand that some think sources are being mis-cited. The way to fix that is to put short, pithy quotes from a source straightforwardly into the text and otherwise cite every line if need be.
If personal attacks, untowards reverts or edit warring get stirred up again please let me or another admin know about it, but please stop showing me old diffs of behaviour which has already been warned off. Likewise, I'm willing to try and answer broad questions about policy and sourcing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You removed the title of sex offender in the Roman Polanski page. The term is apt and is in large part how he is known to many people. The fact was cited and is not in violation of any part of the IP BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 ( talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe you understand. Roman Polanski fits all the legal definitions of a sex offender in the USA. The most important being that he has been convicted of a sex crime. His convicted is well documented, was cited in the edit, and is also well cited in the rest of the page. The term is most apt and the change that you made should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 ( talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently under a six month 1RR restriction. I would like you to look at this and this and tell me if you would oversee the duration of the sanction in place of the admin who imposed it. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 02:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, is it out of line to report what I thought was a violation of a restriction? As to when you said, let others report it, only a given few know of this restriction is in place. Or should I just tell all those involved that there exists a restriction, so that they may report any violations?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in: Radiopathy, Daedalus969, if either of you address or reference each other here, on my talk page, or elsewhere anytime during the next 24 hours, I will be blocking the account for 1 day. Disengage and stop the bickering/baiting now. Abecedare ( talk) 05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
...on this draft essay ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The linguist in me knows all too well that acronym-drawn checklists for thought can become unhelpful, bounding boxes for thought. Truth is, I already looked for a synonym for prevention beginning with e and couldn't find one that fit to my liking, but one may be lurking somewhere :) Also, I have a very strong mindset against bureaucracy of any kind and likewise, for me, "SMART" smacks of that. I like your essay, but too quickly ran into bumps trying to help out with the editing :) That's ok though, I think you should keep at it so long as you're stirred up to do so. The only thing I don't like about it is linking "education" with sanctions. I don't think it's time yet to say, whether it should stay in your user space. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Here you go:
Auswiger ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if I can add the new winner of the pageant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Pakistan_World
Ayesha Gilani - Miss Pakistan World --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Gilani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Material not supported is again being added. This time by an IP. Collect ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect, you said the edit wasn't supported by the source, but it is (though perhaps clumsily worded). Then you said it's a BLP violation, but it's not. Now you're saying the source itself is wrong and meanwhile, seem to be talking about personal blogs that aren't even cited in the article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't cite en.Wikipedia articles. The edit doesn't even mention Thyssen holdings or Auschwitz. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen - hope you are well. Please would you take look when you have a second. This profile is being vandalised with defamatory, un-sourced material. I believe that the source of defamation may lie with in the BBC and is currently being investigated. I know that the Oversight Committee is being asked to remove these comments from the history. Please would you consider protecting the article so that it can only be edited by established editors? Thanks. Amicaveritas ( talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. This editor Surelyhuman has been doing edits removing Native American heritage and categories that have citations from reliable sources. He has done so with Langston Hughs, Vivica A. Fox, and Beyonce Knowles. I have a good day. Mcelite ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This time an IP added words to the ADL quote which are simply not present in the quote at all, making it look like it means something contrary to the actual quote. To wit "regardless of the basis in truth." Collect ( talk) 12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we've talked out the issue of Booker's credibility. Those who are inclined to read up on Booker or are already aware of his reputation will have made their minds up. Repeatedly saying that I don't cite any sources, when I've cited direct quotes from Booker himself and referred you to the article which contains the external sources, isn't helpful and is cluttering up the discussion. Can I suggest that you move on from this and stop repeating the same accusation? -- TS 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, can I ask you to give me rollback? On the cons, I'm not a high volume vandalism reverter, a few here a few there per week. On the pros, I don't think I've made any mistaken reverts (at least, there's no evidence of it ;-) or ended up in acrimonious disputes about changes. Occasionally I have to do some jumping around to undo a few consecutive (vandalism) edits in a row, and it would be convenient to simply rollback. Lissajous ( talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation (telegraph.co.uk) Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
I'm puzzled. You've previosuly been fairly sensible, and not interested in global warming. Now all of a sudden you're trying to foist the likes of Booker on us. Why the sudden interest on a topic about which you seem to know very little? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You added this to the hacky page: I've removed that section (sorry): it just duplicates the one above William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I stumbled upon this and grinned, spotting the strip of green, I'm thinking it may even wind up as my yule thingy this year. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the history of User:DezzaDoo. It's posted at AN'I as well but I thought I'd get more direct attention. Thanks, Padillah ( talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Katerenka got it, but thanks. Padillah ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that excessive page protection is harmful. In this case, I fear it is being used to artificially impute partisan motives. Perhaps another request to unprotect? I'd make it, but given the history I think it would just engender more accusations. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've been saying for some time now, en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be startled to know who runs some of them. There are a few reasons why this website has been losing tens of thousands of editors (and dozens of helpful admins). I'd say the wanton socking by established, nominally trusted editors isn't a core reason, but it's an outcome which canny shrivels trust and overwhelmingly wastes the time of volunteers who think that by editing through the consensus policies they can build truly helpful, keenly sourced encyclopedia articles. Some of the puppeteers are so skilled they may never be brought to light (and I'm not talking about "goodhand" alt accounts which are run harmlessly owing to sundry privacy or harassment worries). Sockpuppetry is mind scam. The fix is neither a hunt far and wide for all those who lurk, nor in some keen set of scripts which could more or less easily spit out likely sockies to a mailing list of checkusers and arbcom folks, nor a good faith, open plea for it to stop. I can only say, the likely outcomes are foreseen and fairly short term now, among them an understanding that en.Wikipedia could indeed go the way of Alta Vista and the USENET within a very few years. Some know spot on what I'm talking about. Happily though, in the long term, the worries aren't all that big, the outlook seems bright for open content, along with the foregone end of 19th century notions having to do with legislated IP and copyright, never mind the myth these have anything to do with helping those who create content bring it to free markets. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
82.131.210.163 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As you have had previous experience with this IP/person, could you have a look at their recent addition of purely speculative material to various talk pages? Wuh Wuz Dat 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user in June with a warning that any IPs that he returns with will also be blocked. It seems he has recently returned and is making edits to the same articles: still trying to promote "Patrick Buri" at Buri and adding BLP violations to Patrick Mimran. IPs are 89.194.139.8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 89.194.130.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Could you have a look, and block the IPs and/or protect the pages if you think it's necessary? Thanks. Deli nk ( talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, why did you restore the off-topic soapboxing in this edit? We have a notice at the top of the page asking people not to use the page as a forum and the talk page guidelines specifically empower us to remove material not relevant to improving the article ( WP:TPO). The talk page is long enough as it is without being cluttered up with off-topic rants. If you're not willing to keep the talk page tidy, please at least don't obstruct other people's efforts to do so. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you marked for deletion the article on Guifi.net. It is one of the largest and exemplary open community wireless networks in the world, and very active on the definition and promotion of the common wireless ideas. I thought it would be really relevant to add an article about it. It is growing rapidly and it has more that 10.000 nodes (a lot for a community wireless net, much more that the well known similar nets in English speaking countries) and perhaps around 10-100 times number of people related to it (no official statistics on it). These are the arguments for relevance and I believe an article in the English section should cover important aspects about the world, not only about things on the most industrialized and English-speaking countries. I only occasionally contribute to the Wikipedia so perhaps I may be wrong. Leandro.navarro ( talk) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see that I've ever had anything to do with that. If you think the topic meets WP:ORG, you might want to find some sources and cite some text. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete this podcast's page? It is inappropriate for you to delete information because you are unaware of its cultural significance in your country. Simply because you are unaware of another country's culture gives you no right to say it has no significance. It is not your place to delete the cultural references of another country so please restore this page immediately and refrain from further uninformed deletions of American culture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.24.203 ( talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I request semi-protection for “ Phi Kappa Psi”. There's an editor who has used multiple accounts ( Personperson1234567, CoolioDroolio, and ReversePorkies, now all indefinitely blocked) and more recently anonymously edited from 70.162.21.165 (blocked) and from 150.135.161.148 (not presently blocked) to removed references and an allegation of sexual assault.
— SlamDiego ←T 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You're on candid ANI Toddst1 ( talk) 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. The user Surelyhuman is persist in removing the categories on Beyonce Knowles article. See here: [36]. I've tried to talk over with the user but the person insists that the person shouldn't be applied to the categories out of his own opinion. Her heritage is sourced and yet the person refuses to accept the categories being in the article when there apply to people of full or partial heritage. Mcelite ( talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the warning was at all well considered for appropriateness before being given. The problem is not that I am removing sourced and verifiable categories from the Beyoncé Knowles article, but that user Mcelite and I have opposing views on what kind of categories belong on the article. I see that user Mcelite and yourself are well acquainted, but warnings should be given out after making sure it is appropriate to do so, instead of simply after being contacted. I will talk about the problem on the talk page as you suggested, but I'd appreciate it if the warning you gave me was recanted. Surelyhuman ( talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[37] accuses me of "secretly canvassing" -- as this is absolutely untrue, and part of a continuing harassment by an editor, I would like you to be aware of such accusations. Collect ( talk) 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my harsh actions towards Surelyhuman. It just really bothered me that the user completely over looks certain things in a manner that seems ignorant to me. I'm taking a day off to cool off. Thank you again. Mcelite ( talk) 07:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Metacomment on other matters (which have formal response on my talk): Proofreader77 is not Ottava Rima.
(No reply necessary to asides above. Assurance: All will be convivial.) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that you have an extensive editing history on wikipedia. That is very impressive. I'm looking for a mentor to help me acclimate to the encyclopedia as I would like to begin editing soon. Do you have any useful suggestions to help me get started? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erohwasinewg ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious to know how you think an article on the could provide more information than wiktionary:the. Could you elaborate, just a bit? -- Yair rand ( talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, since you are familiar with the user, can you take a look at his contributions to WP:AN over the last day or so at this thread (the initial proposal is fine, but his participation soon degenerated into tomfoolery, baiting and edit-warring; see the page's edit-history). See also the my messages to him requesting him to stop, and reminding him of his edit-restrictions, which he seems to have violated. If he continues, I plan to issue short blocks, but would appreciate a second opinion and set of eyes. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been made aware of this new source on Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it's hard to believe it has been two years since the article was promoted to GA. Hope you are doing well. Cheers! Postoak ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you speedy delete: Talk:Ball's Bluff Battlefield Regional Park and National Cemetery? I did some move-mucking and made the problem worse. I believe I have all the redirects correct now, but just need the newly created talkpage deleted. Thanks. Have a holly jolly. BusterD ( talk) 12:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Seasonal type greetings,
If you have a moment could you cast an eye over Kobi Arad? Sorry the talk page is a bit of a mess and the history reveals a bit of a stand off developing. It seems to hang on a very slender thread of notability (a single source in Hebrew). my last attempt at a clean up. Worth bothering with in a seasonal gesture of goodwill? Lame Name ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
please can you return the article kingston hospital radio to my sandbox. i do not understand what you mean by copy right violation, and I find the wikipedia guidelines on this confusing and complicated. i work for the charity involved so am not sure how why i don't seem to be able to use our content. all i need is for someone to say do this, don't do this in relation to my article. if necessary i will move it to a special page. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield paul ( talk • contribs)
I've had nothing to do with this article so far as I can tell. However, the article was deleted as a copyright violation: Copyright violations can't be restored to any spot on en.Wikipedia, so I can't put it back in your sandbox. Moreover, the deleted text doesn't seem to meet the notability standards and has no independent sourcing at all. Hence, even if it were wholly re-written and not a copyright violation, since the topic does not seem to be encyclopedic, it's likely any text would be either speedily deleted, or deleted after being taken to articles for deletion. Please keep in mind, you can follow the blue links in this answer, to learn more about the policies. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#Self-acknowledgment_of_3RR_of_Roman_Polanski I believe I will have to raise his edit warring etc, in a forum, but wanted you to be aware of this. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I should be grateful if you would grant me rollback rights. If you look at my contributions you will see my substantial history of responsible editing and I intend to increase my vandal fighting activities. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(* Quoting Shell Kinney's topic header once placed on my talk after having witnessed some lightness on Killerchihuahua's talk)
Given that it's Christmas, and that that ANI was a "car wreck" of misperceptions ... if you would like to have a chat with Llywrch (recently blessed with baby girl) and Hans Adler (note: Cuchullain also affirmed, but a bit of COI there: See User:Proofreader77/American warning) about withdrawing/nullifying/whatever what happened, that is fine with me.
But as I indicated on my talk, whatever will happen at Arbcom (or perhaps AN, if Arbcom considers the matter too frivolous, ^;^) "will be convivial." (Note: I have been blessed by all that has happened — and my user page is much improved: 3.0 lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, please see your talk page. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the message you recently left to
USER:Breathing Dead. Please remember:
do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a
common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
Hi, Sorry to post a (mostly) negative message on your page, since you obviously do a lot of hard work at improving this encyclopedia. I hope you'll consider unblocking User:Breathing Dead--I was just looking over the block records and it seems to me that blocking this user was a mistake. I think that in the dispute between you and this user, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides, and that it's unfortunate that there was an indefinite block placed on this user since he made many positive contributions to the encylopaedia. I also think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they themselves participate in. I also posted a message on this topic at the admin noticeboard. Hope you had a merry Xmas! Cheers, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 01:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That was five months ago. I wasn't involved in a content dispute with that editor. Gwen Gale ( talk) 09:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
May this season be the last in which the insane visit you on this talk page! (Okay. probably just too much for which to hope. Sorry.) — SlamDiego ←T 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for acting rude. No slightest offense intended. Had constant edit conflicts. Thanks for your help. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen: I see that you have remove Proofreader77 restrictions because of his wiki-lawyering to you above. In your decision to remove all the restriction, you said that the restriction were not working, thus they were lifted.
The so-named "Holiday Offer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#.22Holiday_Offer.22.2A
Those restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333070825&oldid=333065997
The restrictions were not the measure, there was never a criteria of if the restriction do not work, that they will be removed. Quite the opposite. I think its fair to say that Proofreader77 has gamed these restriction, and his working around them and violating them too, should not warrant their removal. To the restrictions:
Proofreader77 in his offer to you, used hard to read formatting, which the restriction where suppose to remedy. When give feedback from a third party, dismissed the advice. Proofreader77 represented to you that all parties. This was not true, as I was certainly not notified, and I was very much included in that ANI. Proofreader's note to Cuchullian was not replied to. The note to Hans Adler, was not responded to when you lifted the restriction, then days after, Hans responded to Proofreader saying "This is not acceptable.
Problems were raised about Proofreader77 here:
There are certainly more available to cite.
Proofreader has placed sonnets of Jimbo Wales talk page, and other unintelligible lengthy contributions. Proofreader was blocked to a day, due to his disruption. However when you did that, you failed to consider his restrictions that were already to be in place.
Proofreader engages in disruptive rhetoric as his primary contributions to Wikipedia. The effect and time on others should be part of the consideration.
The ANI said "If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with your idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors."
Proofreader has not take the restrictions to heart, continues wikilawyer and even told you he was going to Arbitration.
I sense you have become too labored with this matter, which is why you removed the restrictions while contending his style of interaction was not changed.
I feel strongly that you should replace the restrictions (the problem remains), then hand off the problems of Proofreader77 by creating an ANI topic to allow disposition by others. The should not be dropped off, it needs to be handed off. Thank you -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_Roman_Polanski -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Please check email now, thanks. Malke 2010 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking Daedalus969. I don't know if you got my email, but I did reread those early posts and I can see his frustration in trying to get us to understand him. I don't believe he intended to be uncivil. I think he was trying so hard to be heard, we couldn't hear him. Malke 2010 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[48] :D Malke 2010 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
^ http://www.heraldik.se/artiklar/dubba.html ^ Karl Löfström [edit] Literature Karl Löfström; Sverges Riddarordnar ( Arvid Berghman; Nordiska Ördnar og dekorationer (Malmö 1949) Rudolf Cederström; Katalog (Stockholm 1948) Rudolf Cederström; Svenskt Silversmide 1520 - 1850 (Stockholm 1941) Michael Conforti en Guy Walton; Royal treasures of Sweden 1500 - 1700 (Washington 1988)
I think this was a reasonable unblock, I probably would have changed it to a fixed duration of at least a day, but I am me and you are you. Please note that I am always open to discuss any block or unblock should the need arise. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I see Nableezy has made the point I intended to. But for the record:-
Can the person who posted these things [49] be stopped from doing that again? Malke 2010 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, I want to add a new version of 'Kobi Arad' article which establishes notablity.
- Dec. 31st and earlier, the original question of notability, was due to the lack of secondary sources (please review conversation notes written by Lame Name). He said the crux of evidence, which was crucial for its notability before was the establishment of secondary sources.
Over the recent week I made a series of edits (and some are only in the new version) including citations, reference notes, content - and now every single argument in the article is now backed up by a secondary source.
The content of the new article qualifies it for notability, since it establishes that: 1. Kobi Arad is first (ever) to have earned Doctorate in Historic Third Stream (now Contemporary Improvisation) department. 2. Blue Note Bulletine's comments, which refer to Arad as a prominent musician are now verified 3. Kobi Arad has appeared with the Israeli philharmonic orchestra in a televied series 'The music of Ravel' 4.1 An Opera that Arad re-composed has been played in the notable venue of Tel Aviv Museum. 5. A plentiful of reviews and secondary sources confirm Arad's notability and outstanding musicianship (including Jazz Times CD Reviews and Jewish Advocate review). Reviews from such prominent journals as the Boston Herald, Boston Pheonix, Jewish Advocate, Jerusalem Post and Jazz Times have been placed in the article. - Hairhorn's comment, mentioning that proof of earned Doctorate Degree should help, has been fulfilled. - Jubilee's encouraged edits, that may establish notablity. In adherence to Jubilee's and Hairhorn's guidance - a considerable series of edits have been made (and some are only in the new version only) in the article. - Additional wealth of information, presenting the breadth of Arad's work has been placed in the 'Compositions' and 'Performances' sections of the new article.
Please view the new page and above mentioned comments, and enlighten me as to which other changes I may make in order to transform this article to a notable article, which would meet wikipedia's expectations.
Thank u
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoenberg129 ( talk • contribs)
Other background on this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, and thanks for your quick reply (u seem like a warm person),
I dont mind waiting with this article 3 months and see what's out there, but a few questions:
The Jewish Advocate page The Jewish Advocate by Susie Davidson [50] was not on the original version, and seems to address both info and small interview. Why is it not a secondary source ?!
Also the Boston Herald ( [51]), Boston Phoenix ( [52]) and Jazz Times community reviews ( [53] and [54]) provide some valuable information - why do u not consider these porminent sources as secondary sources?! (there's also a Jerusalem Post review for the Opera work of Arad ( [55]))
Again, I dont mind waiting tl there's nu stuff out - but at least want an explaination for the overrulling of the above-mentioned sources upstaies, as they are all 1. Independent 2. Major Newspaper published 3. discuss Arad's work
Thanks for your time Gwen,
Schoenberg129 ( talk) 07:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll do this one more time for you, although other editors have already told you this more than once:
None of these citations supports the topic as meeting WP:MUSIC. Have you read WP:MUSIC? Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? [62]. Malke 2010 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kudos as to taking the time to track down and cite the family passage which has been subject to a minor edit war, of late. Kierzek ( talk) 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Noticing lots of recent vandalism on this page. e.g., [63]. This guy isn't the only one, I think. This guy too, [64]. Malke 2010 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection on this page. :) Malke 2010 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This SSP conversation may be of interest to you. APK whisper in my ear 10:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
to your question to User:SkagitRiverQueen: The reasons why can be seen in the work page here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone believes you've lied SRQ. I do think you've gotten much more stirred up about things having to do with Whl, other than some mistakes she's made with rollback.
So far as I am aware, both of you have been very helpful in building and watching articles, so please know that when two editors start bickering like this, it can quickly begin to disrupt the project. This kind of disruption is highly boring to most volunteer editors and the outcome is almost never a happy one for the bickerers. If you can't get along with each other that's ok, but if so, stay away from each other and stop talking about each other, even if one feels slighted. If you feel upset or angry about something, that happens here, but wait until that feeling has blown over before posting. Almost nothing here is worth going through an RfC, likewise an RfAr, much less getting blocked over.
I see you both edit articles having to do with very high profile pop-culture, often closely linked with California. Such topics are traps for misunderstandings, clashing outlooks and deeply dodgy sourcing. Look at it this way, en.Wikipedia (like most other general references) is by far weakest in the humanities. When it comes to popular humanities, things can get much worse, never mind abounding BLP worries, we do what we can. Lastly, I'll put it this way, why anyone who knows the first thing about Charlie Manson, with all the ongoing swirls having to do with that topic in California, would edit war over the article, is rather beyond me. So, from now on, blow off the bygone, please peacefully talk about sources and how to echo those sources in article texts, knowing it won't always be cake, or don't talk at all. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Do you feel able to clamp down on Shuki's repeated behaviour? Or do you feel too involved? (See my latest post to the talk page which edit clashed with yours.)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Having worked a little on this page today, it was fresh in my memory when I chanced to see this one. The former is of course released under the GFDL etc etc. Should I feel flattered, do you think? Actually it made me feel salty, but I couldn't think of a WP-approved "reason". -- Hoary ( talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen :) I've suggested a new proposal here. Would appreciate your views there. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: You have an ongoing relationship with Proofreader77 in your capacity as Admin.
Your previous remarks to Proofreader77:
Because of the above, it is my request that you recuse yourself since your objectivity on these matters is compromised, or at best has the appearance of being too personally involved. If you as an "editor" want to address the characterization on Proofreader77s user pages...that is obviously something you should do, if you want. I would appreciate an affirmative response to what your future involvements will be. rgds -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember having a high opinion of you from forever, but I cannot at the moment recall where we have interacted. It might have been under my old username, Eldereft, or it might have been only at the several noticeboards. You have commented a couple times lately on the danger of introducing a systematic bias through selective enforcement. This is, honestly, something I worry about a fair bit. From my editing of alternative medicine articles, it is fairly obvious that I consider most of them mostly bunk, but nonetheless several editors with other perspectives have commented that I still promote fairness of coverage. Sorry to toot my own horn here, but I want you to understand where I am coming from and that I have experience thinking about writing controversial articles, particularly those with a clear "minority" side.
Upon being entrusted with the mop'n'bucket, I realized that removing equal numbers of disruptive participants from both "sides" would disproportionately skew our coverage - 9:5 is a very different editing environment than 6:2 or, worse, 4:0. Groupthink is dangerous to any enterprise, particularly one that aims for the comprehensive and neutral coverage we do. Considering knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia as a force multiplier, the situation is even worse - a few committed experienced editors can easily engineer sanctions for their less experienced fellow volunteers through selectively pointing out the bright lines only when it is almost too late and generally themselves remaining just within the norms while still being agents of frustration more than collaboration. I try to respond with warn and counsel particularly in cases where a new editor might not have an experienced advocate but indicates that they are here to promote comprehensive coverage rather than simply trying to hijack Wikipedia's voice to the world or indulge in general trolling.
Once a minoritarian editor passes the hurdle to themselves become an experienced contributor, though, neutrality of enforcement demands that they be held to the standards of the community. Consistently arguing that coverage should move in a particular direction is not a problem unless they start wholesale rewriting articles against consensus. Continually tweaking and insulting their fellow volunteers and showing a marked preference for engaging on a disputatious rather than collaborative level, as is my conclusion from GoRight ( talk · contribs)'s edits over the last several weeks, however, is more disruptive to the project than is the loss of their voice to discussions.
I am wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if I might hear your thoughts on more productive solutions to this instance in particular or to the problem in general. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you remember my most recent block. I was unblocked on the promise that if a situation had the potential of turning sour, I would ask for outside assistance. Well, I have. Just thought you would like to know.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding my possibly uncivil post, as I'm about to note on the page at hand, I'm just going to go and refactor it now rather than await approval.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As such, I have done so here. I hope it is better than it was.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
He's getting tiresome at my talk page. Jehochman Brrr 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this article. I think the high school kids must have this as an assignment. Lots of silly stuff going on there. Malke 2010 03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen your recent discussion with Tarage ( talk · contribs). Is there something like an edit summary template, something that simply says "Reverting the edit. This talk page is not a forum. Its purpose is to discuss on how to improve the article."? The edit summaries that effectively continue the forum-style discussion by inserting both a (strong) personal viewpoint, sometimes combined with a personal attack, do not contribute to improve the editing process in the area. I think that we should have a guideline on those edit summary, with the aim of having them as neutral as possible. It would be helpful both to avoid feeding trolls and to avoid discouraging potential constructive contributors to the encyclopedia. Cs32en Talk to me 09:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An indefinite block has consensus until it is overturned for cause. The discussion on GoRight hasn't turned up cause to overturn the block, and there seems to be agreement by all admins, and indeed by GoRight, that he has to take the concerns expressed seriously. Sadly this verdict has been obscured by the tendency to turn such discussions into an up/down vote, which encourages the very polarization that makes GoRight's manner of engagement so a problematic. I have no doubt that 2over0, Jehochman, and GoRight together will keep working towards a sanction or other framework under which GoRight can contribute successfully to Wikipedia, but getting him to the point of accepting this does seem to have required administrator intervention. -- TS 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
and take a look at this exchange? This guy's been on me since I first showed up(he thinks I'm a sockpuppet -I'm not). He got me article banned for a month on a 1RR technicality (I really did try and self-revert) which User:2over0 and I amicably worked out. After my return to the talk page, he's all over me again with threats and intimidation. He reported me to 2over0 trying to get my probation revoked. I, for the life of me can not figure out what his problem is with me. If you'll check the diffs I left on 2over0's TP, there is nothing controversial much less worthy of sanction. HC thinks I've opened a closed issue but a quick glance at the talk page should show you that there is not anything close to consensus on his issue. I've read some of your stuff and I trust your judgment. Do you see a problem with my edits? Do you think HC's behavior is in bounds? Given that I just got off of an article ban initiated by the user in question, I can't use the RfE procedure without being accused of retaliation. I have no desire to go that route anyway. I just want to edit in peace and be dealt with in [WP:AGF]. Advice? JPatterson ( talk) 04:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether you'll regard NPoV/Noticeboard#PoV problem at “Austrian School” as interesting or simply as annoying. (In the latter case, please let me know for future reference.) — SlamDiego ←T 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
As you know, I was involved in Collect's unfortunate RFC.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been extremely pleased with Collect's contributions and behavior since he returned.
Please consider this in your interactions with Collect in the future. Ikip 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Professional Assassin's name is offensive. So is User:Youth in Asia who is not blocked. JB50000 ( talk) 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
After an experience with the Chan Tai San article, many associated with the "tibetan martial arts" agreed in the interests of the articles on the subject it was best to not turn every article into a long list of "me, yes me, I am part of it" or just old blatant self promotion. Now, after several edits and re-edits and polite requests, we have a fellow apparently from Mexico who can't seem to help himself. Might we get a moderator or moderator action on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, can you look at these diffs and suggest how best to proceed? I believe the user in question is being disruptive. He is not using the talk page like the rest of us, and his rationale for reverting does not make clear sense, especially when he says he didn't see anything on the talk page. I made deletions to the section in question and added several, well sourced items. With just one revert this user wiped them out stating that a reference to the' free market' offended him. This is why I say, it makes no sense. Another editor, using the talk page, saw the revert and reverted it back to where I had it. The diffs include the user in question's other reverts as well. [69] [70] [71]. Thanks, Malke 2010 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
How did you get your user page sectioned off with the barnstars all in rows. I'd like to get the photos on my user page arranged in sections so I can write comments, but I can't figure it out. Malke 2010 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
<br clear="all" />
, but before the category stuff at the very bottom. You can plug in whatever images and text you like. Cheers,
Gwen Gale (
talk)
22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Hello,
Today Jimmuldrow posted this on the Sarah Palin talk page: [72]
I did not understand what the issue was especially since he has already posted his change: [73]
So far no editors have objected.
Previously, the matter seemed resolved but he brought it up again: 00:58, 29 January 2010
Another editor Fcreid replied
I responded:
Later, I thought it might be better to revisit it too, because Jimmuldrow seemed so intent and it appeared to really bother him. It seemed like his view should be taken into account and the matter would best be resolved with what he proposed so I asked him this:
he responded:
I responded:
he responded, but I didn’t think he was actually responding to me, I thought he was still carrying on with his thought, which is fine:
So I said: [79]
He didn’t respond again, so I posted on his talk page:
The post he put on the Talk page today, I responded to:
This seems to be an unusual way to go about things, and reads more like a personal attack than an explanation for his edit on Sarah Palin's position. I have not objected to his new edit political positions edit, and I don't see right now where anybody else has either. Please advise, thank you. Malke 2010 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't watch Sarah Palin. If Jimmuldrow carries on with any back and forth about this in the article itself, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know. One diff will be enough. Likewise, if Jimmuldrow comments on the talk page about another editor, rather than about sources and content, let me know. Again, one diff should be enough. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, Special:Contributions/32.142.238.113 is the same person, and so is Special:Contributions/32.142.150.77 and Special:Contributions/32.137.74.146. And that's just the IP-addresses I have seen him use since yesterday... -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You said [82]:
"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."
And deja vu:
Collect got blocked again: [83] and usual Wiki lawyering. See: User_talk:Collect#January_2010 Phoenix of9 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it seems he had already broken his restrictions: /index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&oldid=304050219#0rr. Interesting... Phoenix of9 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per [84]. Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, similarly, I've closed this for forum shopping and warned him to knock it off. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You were never neutral. That's what I thought you meant, Phoenix, when you titled this thread with the rather badgering "Time to back up your words": You don't think I'm neutral. This is why I asked, then waited for your answer.
Phoenix, do you think Collect's single flight of carelessness in straying from the standing 1rr restriction at Mass killings under Communist regimes means he has been editing "tendentiously or disruptively again" as in the meaning of how I put it when closing his RfC 8 months ago? Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, wonderful, so stop trying to link Phoenix_of9 with old harassing emails, for starters. Meanwhile, I didn't ask you to post details this time either, I asked you for the date you told me about them. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I clearly now see why you deleted this page. I rewrote the article sticking with the letter of the land; I hope it may supplant the deleted one which is what comes up in a google search: jonathan sheldon movie producer. I would like to have it corrected and all the information is accurate. Please let me know and thank you. -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. Is there a way to remove the deleted page of "Jonathan Sheldon", or have it replaced with the new proper page of "Jonathan Sheldon" on Wiki? The deleted page comes up in searches and gives a misimpression. Thanks again. -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem; the deleted archived "Jonathan Sheldon" is what comes up when you google search, and it gives the impression that the listing is bogus. Does the archived deleted one stay up forever even though it's been rewritten and corrected? Thanks - -- Jonno888888 ( talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a need for consistency here. The children are named in the current version of the article and elsewhere on the talk page. There has been an ongoing WP:BLPNAME debate about this, but the names are easily available on the Internet, including the Daily Telegraph source given.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk section you closed has been reopened [89] which I suspect is detrimental. I do not see the point in it. Collect ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
On the edit war/reverting 3RR thing. If an editor has made 5 reverts in 24 hours over two pages that are on the same subject and in fact are just a split of one article, and if that editor also visited other talk pages to solicit support, is that edit warring. Also, he didn't use the talk page. Just reverted. Malke 2010 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I tried to engage our friend Daedalus969, since he's very thorough with SP investigations, but I got no response.
Start here, follow through to the last revision and note the edit summaries. This account was either hacked, or the IP is just very friendly with himself.
The IP in question has also been improperly contributing to discussions (note the interjections between others' comments, and the sarcastic tone), appears to be edit warring, and is leaving less than civil edit summaries.
Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
...and leaving lengthy, sarcastic replies to attempts at getting him to be more civil. Radiopathy •talk• 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)