![]() | 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. |
![]() |
The Sparky Barnstar
For your helpfulness, for your kindness, for answering questions that others would just ignore, for being there for users, dealing with the muck and mire that comes with being an admin and for doing what you can where you can to make Wikipedia a better place...I present to you the Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
Please don't use initialisms or acronyms without linking them. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you are butting heads with that IP about the Hitler movie. At issue is the removal of contents from a talk page. A talk page has much more leeway. Sometimes, people are inarticulate and have a partial idea that needs incubation. Removing comments is a very big act and liable to stir up anger. So do this with caution. On the other hand, the IP editor does display inappropriate anger and writes in a way that is hard to understand.
Best of luck.
Care to incubate with me some BLP1E ideas? Abby is a one event person. I think the BLP1E language can be improved so that there will be fewer fights about people like Abby, the sailor. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
current version of BLP1E/new version with bolded insert (final version not bolded)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event of low significance, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
What do you think? The current version suggests that one event people should not have articles, at least, that is the interpretation of quite a few people. So when a person is involved in a significant event, there is always conflict to having an article. I would like to see less conflict in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, would appreciate your input, on a related matter to above. Please see [1]. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware that the AN discussion about you was moved to ANI, where User:LessHeard vanU closed it as "The consensus of a majority is that there was no abuse, although a few editors believe that non optimum decisions were made. Mistakes happen, and abuse is systematic repeat of non optimum decisions despite advice. All these points have been made, and do not bear repeating." So, you can, as you already have, go onto better more pressing matters. Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have replied there to your comments and added some ideas on your arrow idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
After the recent incident about the Hitler film (doe eyed Lara...), I thought of a film to write an article for Wikipedia. It has won awards. One possible section is a plot summary. I read before that someone asked if the entire concept of plot summary is original research. The answer was that the original source is the film so it is not. This is if the plot summary is mainly a summary of events without a lot of commentary. Do you generally agree with this? Or is a plot summary something that should not be there at all?
Your guidance will help determine if I even write the article. Without a plot summary, the article may become "-- was a film. It was released in ---. It won the -- and -- award. The End" Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you're helping combat the vandalism at Apollo 13; thanks. I had understood and hoped the new reviewing trial would take care of that. Can this article be added to the queue? I can not figure out how to use this new privilege. Any pointers will be appreciated. -- Yopienso ( talk) 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you are online, you might want to give the lone admin trying to clear up AIV some help. It is heavily backlogged and getting worse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I was going over your communications and actions regarding me and/or my actions, looking for positive and useful edits that I could thank you for. I like to take the time to thank my fellow editors for taking an interest in my work! I wasn't able to come up with much, unfortunately, but I did come up with this:
You wrote to me "BLP applies to the whole project space and it's going to stay that way." However, you didn't add "Get used to it." Subtle power-assertion statements such as yours usually have "Get used to it" appended to them, but you didn't do that. That was nice of you, and thank you! Herostratus ( talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I mentioned your name on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the WP:Reviewing logo discussion has grown stale, should it just be left as is, or should I zap the discussion back to life? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, this discussion is not about the reviewers logo, but yet about the logo next to "Accepted" (shown here). Sorry for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be good if somebody else were to keep an eye on this AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't recall when/if I've ever seen contribs like this. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please would you check whether this talk page violates BLP. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Remember this user? Their block was upped to indef after personal attacks, edit warring, block evasion/abusive sockpuppetry. They made a promise to you, and everyone, that they would not do any of the above.
They have recently renamed to the username Sugar Bear, and have started edit warring, and socking again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I have layed out the past history there, and I can here, if you wish to read it.
Plainly, since they have gone back on their word, and they are doing the same things that originally got them blocked indef in the first place, could you return their indef block?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This fantasy. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment, can you take a look at this, which looks to me like a needless page move. As there is no other film with this title, confusion seems very unlikely. So, no disambiguation issue. But, I cannot seem to figure out how to revert the page move. What am I missing here? Can you be of assistance? Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my reversion of my own edit? I made a mistake and fixed it. Did you look at what you reverted before you did it? JSpung ( talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like this with proper referencing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor can't tweak what the source says to fit their own PoV. The source doesn't say "a castaway like Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro," it says Earhart herself "may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island." Please fix your edit to echo what the source says, not what you want it to say. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You wrote on the pending changes issue "little "PoV teams" of editors". This is a big problem. Even some administrators are involved on this. This is too bad. If there were a journalism teacher in the classroom, much of this nonsense could be avoided. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the answer to this is that good people, like us, have to edit so that the proportion of good to bad editors is higher. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Risker appears to be out and he got a request on his talkpage, would you mind taking a look-see? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, retirement tags have gone up so I did the deed. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd put back the edit, but MRG would come to my house and kill me. LOL. Malke 2010 00:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought you may be interested in this post by User:Desertfax [2] seemingly about you, since it seems like the same editor is in a dispute with you at Talk:Amelia Earhart.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I believe Sugar Bear is commiting yet another block evasion (this is the second time for this current block alone) and I would like for you to comment on the investigation and the possibility of Sugar Bear's block length being increased. Thanks. RG ( talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize we didn't have this talk long ago, but this user appears to be evading his block, again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I realize we already discussed the prospect of an indef block, so instead of that, could it be upped to maybe 3 months for block evasion?
In regards to duck like contributions, in case you need me to show you what I saw, let us compare these two:
It's obvious he thinks that our rules don't apply to him, since he has no care for them.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
There is a user "Yworo" who is trying to push his POV edits on the article about GNU.
His edits have been corrected by me an other users. But Yworo insists. In his latest attempt he tries to use a source that reflects the opinion of someone who shares his POV as justification for his edits. He is trying to add the word "incomplete" in the definition of the GNU operating system. That is highly disputable. Could you help keep this definition impartial and warn Yworo?
Thank you. -- Grandscribe ( talk) 07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am up in a recall RfA here. Because it is a recall RfA, the bureaucrats have declined to close it (this is discussed in detail in a couple of sections here. It turns out there is no set procedure for how a recall RfA is to be closed. Presumably any editor can close it. I'm not sure that's a good idea. And both at the the bureaucrats' noticeboard and on my talk page it has been stated by several editors that the only person qualified to close the RfA would be me, the subject. I guess this is so, but 1) as you can imagine, this could lead to claims to conflict of interest, and 2) I do not want to quaff this cup all alone.
Instead I would like to set up a trio of closers, including myself, with the majority ruling. There is no precedent for this but then this is a fairly unprecedented situation altogether. I would like the other two editors to be persons with good reputations for fairness who cannot be accused of being selected by me in my own self-interest. Would you please do me the favor of being one of these? I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to do this.
The RfA can be closed anytime after 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC). The closing process is discussed here and elsewhere. Some people have said that the usual 75%-ish standard should be relaxed for recall RfA's; I'm not sure I agree, but all this would be entirely up to you.
I do hope you will do me this great favor. Herostratus ( talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good, thank you. As one of three, if you please. I will post this at the appropriate place now. I realize that this could be controversial and stressful for both of you. Would it at all help if I made my closing "vote" first or last (that is, before or after you have "voted")? If you have no preference my general inclination is to go last. Do you have any other questions or concerns? Herostratus ( talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: I would like to post your name as a closer at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. May I? Please reply soonest, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I wonder why you have fully protected Anythingyouwant's talk page? I would like to leave him a message asking him to consider coming back, so that we can finish discussing the issue he raised at WT:Administrators. Would you mind unlocking his talk page, or posting a message there on my behalf? LK ( talk) 08:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please Userfy an article for me? Azerbaijan–Spain relations Thank you -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is correct, and acceptable:
I have added a form at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2s for each of the three closing editors. All you need to do is remove either the "was" or "was not", and sign. I think you should not add any comment there (you can on the talk page if you wish, I guess). All three editors should vote, even if the first two have voted the same way, making the third vote moot. The third editor voting should then add the templates described at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures -- either Subst:rfap/ Subst:rfab or Subst:rfaf/ Subst:rfab -- to the top and bottom of the page, and perform the other actions described there, e.g. editing either Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship or Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). Also Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations would need to be edited, and perhaps other places as well. If assistance is needed, I suggest asking User:Xeno as she has been helpful in the technical aspects of this process. Herostratus ( talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, allow me to thank you Gwen Gale for your time and contribution on this matter, I appreciate it. Herostratus ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this report from Fox News that might interest you. [3] It mentions quite a bit and confirms the bone measurements, etc., and TIGHAR's trip, etc. Malke 2010 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that he's still socking to avoid this block. Just look at these IPs: [4], [5]. I think that we should seriously consider blocking the account permanently. RG ( talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
excuse me but how it happened I don't quite know but I seem to have made a rollback edit to your talkpage without wanting to, I have tried to revert it but the server is not grabbing the edit form or something. sorry. I have replaced it by hand. Apologies again. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Your quick closure of my 2nd nommed afd at lolicon disallowed full examination of the issues involved, which, in my opinion and for what it's worth, would tend to reinforce an unfortunate perception about the project on several scores!-- FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden ( talk) 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify with me your reason for removing the (imo exceptionally tame compared to some material) image which is was used to illustrate the Lolicon article. I looked at it earlier, and considered there to be nothing wrong with it being there. I know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no defence, but it seems silly that we allow pictures of genitalia and sex acts on wikipedia, yet remove cartoon images of children which aren't even erotic, let alone sexual. Your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks. BarkingFish
Talk to me |
My contributions
17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic issues at Jimbo's talk page. Thank you. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
But I think you should check out this thread. Quite simply, the editor it is about, seems to have unrelenting PAs based on religion, or what they think the religion of the other person is. I myself don't think this is acceptable at all, especially since there have been 3 RfCs with no outcome as to a change in behavior.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering why the page on Jon "Flip" Muro was deleted? he is a legitimate music producer with a few notable credits to major artists which all have valid references. He has a fan base and the latest artist he has contributed major production to has received well over 100,000 hits on you tube total. If there was a problem with the way it was written or formatted please let me know I will change it in any way that is necessary. I would certainly like to at very least have access to the article to retain the work which was put in on it. It is in no way offensive or in bad taste. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter thanks in advance
nhw001123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhw001123 ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion on WP:Reviewing was archived a couple days ago as unresolved, so I guess we are stuck with the "CBS-esque" eye logo for the Pending Changes/Reviewers logo. Just thought I would let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, we have corresponded a few times before and I would like to ask your advice, please. A fellow contributor, Douglas M. Smith, has accused me of conflict of interest and challenged me regarding my real life identity. I responded to his accusations, and he has only recently replied. In reviewing his edit history to try to gain some measure of his background on Wikipedia, I note that he appears to have made a libellous edit (still currently live) to Sakiyama, Akatsuki's user page. The rest of his edits, however, appear to be good faith edits. Of course, there are any number of possibilities here (e.g., a compromised account), but the edit to the other contributor's user page is disturbing. I am not sure how best to proceed, given his apparent animosity towards me. I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this, or who to refer this situation to; thank you. Janggeom ( talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, there's a request on RfPP for full protection of GNU. As I see you recently protected and unprotected it, I thought I should let you judge how to handle it. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I think that it must be very evident for you now that user Yworo has one sole purpose: to include words or any kind of language that gives a negative image of the
GNU operating system. He is pushing for inclusion of words like "incomplete" or "not stable" in the first paragraph because that is a very important place in the article, it is, maybe, the only one read by many people who use wikipedia and who have not much time to read articles in full. They just want to have a quick idea about the desired topic. If you check past edits done by Yworo you will confirm that he has a very strong bias against the GNU OS or anything that is related to
Richard Stallman and the
FSF. We could spend months here discussing on the use of the words he is pushing for but we will never reach an agreement because he is using a very subjective language which intentionally aims to give a negative image of GNU and the concrete and tangible achievements of the FSF. The first paragraph of the GNU article should be as objective as possible. It should describe what GNU is: a computer operating system that works with different kernels the best know the
linux kernel which is known as GNU/Linux operating system by some and just "linux" by others. What might be considered "incomplete" or "unstable" is the
GNU Hurd but that is another different article and descriptions of the GNU Hurd should go in that article. Please try to offer a neutral and objective alternative to the biased version obsessively pushed by Yworo.--
Grandscribe (
talk)
09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If I have a question about something, I will post it here for you. [6]. And please also look over my talk page. Thanks. Malke 2010 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I'm sorry to bother you again with a non-article issue, but the fact is that I am troubled and I would value your counsel.
I was recently involved with a dispute with another user, which raged for while on his talk page and at Wikiquette Alerts, but nothing came of it. However, I guess that other users watch this user's talk page and kind of "gang up" on people who post there. I was really trying to have a person-to-person dialog between me and the other user, but that didn't work out. Oh well, fair enough, no problem.
However, one user, who goes by the name of Ning-ning, who I don't know and don't recall ever interacting with, posted this, which says:
Although I'm not happy with any of that post, I'm especially unhappy with this person hunting me down on other web sites so that he can smear me as a racist. Is this allowed? Is there anything that can be done about this?
(For what it's worth -- and I'm not sure how much effort I'm supposed to be expected to put in here defending my posts on other web sites, but whatever -- the article he refers to is the article "Negro" on Uncyclopedia, which when I stumbled across it was appallingly offensive, I quickly rewrote it to be basically unoffensive, and later another user (who I don't know and have no control over) came along and for reasons of his own redacted the article as a redirect to the "Birmingham N***ers" article. I can prove all this with diffs. I'm not convinced that I should have to.)
As a matter of fact I have always stood foursquare against racism, and my father in particular was a a community leader on this issue during the Civil Rights Era. So all this leaves me feeling rather unhappy.
Although I tried to diffuse the situation with a humorous reply (that's me!), it didn't really work, and I find that the whole thing continues to bother me and makes me sad. I've been here awhile and I'm beginning to feel like not editing the Wikipedia anymore if I have to be be called a racist in addition to everything else.
I gather that this person Ning-ning is a long-time productive editor so there is no question of really sanctioning him. I surmise, based on my experience with his wikifriends, that trying to engage him will only lead to me being further jeered at by him and other editors that I haven't met.
Is there no recourse for this? Is this where Wikipedia is going? Should I just bow my head and cross the street? Should I just quietly fade away? What would you do, and and what do you advise?
Thanking you for your time and consideration, Herostratus ( talk) 03:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Looks like Yworo and Cyclopeia (the main editors in dispute) are in agreement on talk; can you unprotect the page? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Having heard thousands of vuvuzela blasts in the last month or so, I guess pop-sports culture has at last reached its canny heights, as those lured to the globalized circuses can now say more loudly with their mouths what their other ends do and by much the same means. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gwen. Just a quick and possibly fairly novice question - my apologies if I am asking about something obvious. In the Polanski talk page, I have been told to remove the word "rape" by user Off2riorob as a BLP violation. Given that the word is repeatedly used in the article and of course the facts are widely disseminated, including his arrest and charge with statutory rape, this seems a stretch - do I have to remove it? I don't mind removing it if I have to, but I wondered where I stand with this one. Would appreciate your comment if you have a moment. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe my username invites it, but the Strengththroughjoy last insult [7] reminded me about another insult, here [8] (bottom of edit). It's probably nothing, but since Strengththroughjoy suddenly appeared just when I had filed an ANI on Pmanderson I thought it might be worth checking out, although I don't even know who can do it? Can you? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Collect about 50 diffs worth of canvassing 14 July 2010 between 12:29 and 13:02 Cereal Surreal Cereal Surreal ( talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
"I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor this guy is, before they even read my edits. So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively." Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Collect stopped by my page to ask me about this situation. I've decided to share my views, take them as you like.
Hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Can i get back the latest relase of this article? Also I have followe Wiki rules, copy paste similiar artiste so not sure why this has been delete? I alwo own Copyright for the image, which is used on myspace and wiki. How can i proof this? Ta petr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerw ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when you have a moment would you have a look at what is going on here. I have asked a couple of questions on the talkpage and received fair enough answers but looking at the created content I saw some possible content violations and unreliable citations. I realize it is not in the main space but there are still imo issues with creating such content there. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to keep my cool, but as I had previously said, if an issue has the potential of becoming uncivil, I will defer to someone uninvolved. In this case, I am deferring to you. Please see here. Thank you for your time, Gwen.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. This editor repeatedly keeps adding the ethnicity they believe to belong in the article Ciara see here: [10] I have repeatedly told the editor that ethnicity requires a citation from a reliable source but the editor refuses to follow policy. Thank you for your time. Mcelite ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to adding the videos mentioned here? I can't do it because the page is fully protected.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, my insisting on a reliable source for Margolis leaving the Sun has nothing to do with whether I like what it says or not and I strongly resent your interpreting my motivations. BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: Please explain the basis of the block that you placed on myself. Instead of engaging in a dialogue that was existing in an article's TALK page, as well as the topic you started on my talk page, you choose to not reply, and instead you blocked me for a week for "disruption". That block was appealed and removed. On the surface this appears to be a gross misuse of your admin role. Why would you not engage with me in the two discussions, or if unwilling, simply move on, or hand it off to an uninterested admin? -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Replying here, not sure if this will unarchive it or not...my response will follow if this technical aspect is overcome. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen There is a user that vandalises the article Nikos Galis using the names BullDog3, Ironexmaiden, Seahawk35, or his IP. He almost replaces the picture with other pictures taken from other sites. Can you do something about this? Thanks Sportin ( talk) 09:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For your input on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are the editor supporting inclusion of a source, I very kindly welcome you to justify your edit after the two reverts to place the material back into the article. BigK HeX ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We have an editor who is determined to impose Oxford spelling (-ize versus -ise) on several Britain-related articles. He has the mistaken notion that WP:COMMONALITY allows him to make these changes. His actions prompted a discussion at MoS. Notice his edit summaries, and look what was deleted from the discussion. Notice also his reaction - and mine - to being templated for what he was doing.
I plan on re-reverting The Beatles to the -ise form, which was the style which was chosen first, per WP:RETAIN. I've opened it up for discussion first.
A group of us reached consensus on an issue at The Beatles. User DocKino unilaterally decided that the consensus version had to change to his preferred version - without first discussing. I reverted back to the consensus version and he reverted it again, posing a strawman question on the talk page.
It's obvious that this person has some strong feelings about the way things should go here and is going about it in quite a few wrong ways.
Would you like to comment or offer some guidance as to how to proceed? Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your (and the others') thoughts. What about this bitey editor? Should he be allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia, reverting at will and hurling insults at anyone with whom he disagrees? Radiopathy •talk• 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your comments and your admin help.
The -ise/-ize debate at The Beatles specifically is not about which one is more correct, but rather about retaining the existing variety, per WP:RETAIN. This article primarily used the -ise form until DocKino started his eradication campaign. In the version before DocKino's first edit, there are six instances of -ise (not counting those within quotes, which can't be changed) and two of -ize. If you go back to the first available edit, "epitomised" jumps out from the very first sentence. DocKino claims that WP:COMMONALITY demands that we change to the -ize form in the interest of stylistic uniformity, but it says no such thing; its focus is on the commonality of words and phrases. Radiopathy •talk• 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that I have over 7,000 edits and six barnstars to my name, yes, I'm very familiar with our personal attacks policy. Two points need to be clarified for you:
I now have DocKino's close collaborator referring to my "ethnic cleansing" in relation to the WP:ENGVAR issue. Does this need WP:AN/I? Radiopathy •talk• 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone told me you that you are absolutely wonderful and I thought you should know :-) I read a couple of your posts and have to agree. Your only hint is that it was another admin, who is actually pretty wonderful herself ;-) I am just a lowly editor with much to learn and thrilled to find a respected resource. G'day to you ! Namaste! ... DocOfSoc ( talk) 09:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: I have asked several times now for a clear explanation to why you blocked me, which have been rudely ignored. Please respond to this specifically or state you will not.
What actions by myself (as you are able to document with DIFFs) were the basis for your blocking of me? Thank you. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, referring to the above, does this kind of behaviour qualify as WP:CPUSH and WP:TE? Because quite frankly, it is beginning to look like one, correct me if I'm wrong. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
;> Doc9871 ( talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
[13] -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you able to work any of your magic with this draft article, or is it just dead in the water? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for a new picture of NFL football player Kelley Washington, as the one there is horrible, and found this one. The problem I am running into is it is CC 2.0. Is that covered by Wikipedia or is that one of the CCs we don't allow? Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here. I know I'm correct that using an album's Amazon page, or any online store for that matter, as a ref for the track listing is wrong. Please opine. Thank you again. Radiopathy •talk• 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
On 16 September 2010, I added a brief paragraph mentioning that Peg Entwistle and her father had no marker on their burial site. I noted that it had been unmarked for 77 years and that a fund-raising campaign on facebook had been undertaken to provide a marker for Entwistle and her father.
Later, as you saw, others began tweaking the paragraph. Can you please tell me: 1. Was my original contribution acceptably written? 2. I was sent photographs of the marker and can verify its existence, however, the same photograph has also been posted to findagrave.com. As this site is used in the article as a reference with regard to Entwistle's burial, may it not also be used to verify the grave marker? Here is the link to view the image: [ [14]]
Also, in the event that you, or other administrators, find the mention of the marker irrelevant to the article, I would posture that it is worth at least a brief mention in light of the many people (to my understanding) from around the world who donated to the facebook campaign. Please know, too, that I am not affiliated with the campaign or the findagrave people, however, I am writing Peg Entwistle's biography, as Wiki editor Wildhartlivie can verify, and I believe noting the new marker holds some importance to the article.
Thanks! James Jameszerukjr ( talk) 21:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
And why, for the love of God, do all of you continue to refuse to address my issue regarding the concensus that was reached long ago; namely, that the ARTICLE WAS FUCKING FINE UNTIL YOU DECIDED YOU WE WERE NOT AS BRILLIANT AS YOU? GO FUCK YOURSELF...I'M DONE...GEE, WHAT A LIFE YOU HAVE! WIKIPEDIA...NO PAY, NO GLORY. AND THE BUTT OF JOKES FROM JAY LENO AND DAVID LETTERMAN.
OH, AND BY THE WAY....You should remove the photo of Peg from the article, for, as your puckerd asshole will see, it was contributed by me--from MY ORIGINAL research. You are a fucking a liar and a hypocrite, Gwen. You have no true alligenmce to Wikipedia....you belong to a hateful, politcal band of cultish fanatics within...me, I'm just a fucking Iraq War Vet who tried to help make Wikipedia honest....
You changed the history to reflect your "rightness" and calmly sit back and wait for the maniac to vent. Well, there ya go, Miss Cunt..you got what you wanted. GO FUCK YOURSELF. (Oh, know, gee, I guess I won't be able to edit for Wikipedia anymore after that tirade)
WHO FUCKING CARES. WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO ME? IF YOU HAD ONE FUCKING OUNCE OF INTEGRITY, YOU WOULD COMPARE THE VERY ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH MY CONTRIBUTIONS...Peg Entwistle's Wikipedia looked like a fucking GOD DAMNED article from WEEKLY WORLD NEWS. Jameszerukjr ( talk) 06:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I've given Jameszerukjr a short cool-down block. You may wish to remove all or part of his latest comment. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, the time I spend editing at Wikipedia has diminished. My responsibilities in the real world have increased. I'm now taking care of an elderly parent, so cannot spend much time here. I'm proud of my work at the Houston article and enjoyed getting it to FA status. However, the most enjoyable time I feel spent here was working with you at Shamrock Hotel. Just wanted you to know that. Take care, Postoak ( talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen Gale! I don't know if you'll see this soon-enough to avoid having to look in archives, but I thought I should let you know that I quoted you at ANI from the summary you wrote in closing this RfC/U for user Collect.
Collect is claiming that RfC/U was invalid or badly compromised by irregularities, and I'm wondering whether you could shed any light on that? I don't think it constitutes "canvassing" to ask you that or to inform you of the thread, but if you do then feel free to ignore. I've not contacted anyone else, btw, except the parties named and the admin who instituted the block against another user that Collect began the thread to obtain. Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, none of this behavior has stopped, and if anything, it has worsened. What is the next step? Viriditas ( talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) Sorry - your position on this was exactly the same as mine. To the letter! And the old emoticon dates back to 300 baud days (ask Xeno). Collect ( talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I really need some advice on a completely untenable situation. Over at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth there is a situation that I need direction. I am refraining from comment so that you can make your own decisions based on what you see in the talk-page. As one of the most even-handed, level-headed editors I know I appreciate your input. Padillah ( talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on your own talk, you just confirm what I go on and on saying, that continuing at "notching in" and "skiving" this topic, within normal limits, is within contributors' rights. So I am hoping you can talk this out with us. First, kindly consult WP:WQA#Additional factors and say what you will. Also, I want to know how I was warring, in that Padillah only undid two diffs, and I didn't undo at all. If you want to look at all diffs and find two words that Padillah undid and I put in again, and if you want to stand on that (is it warring to call "it's not his town" gratuitous if Wright says it's "his town"?), I think it's our most unfought war in WP annals. So I don't think topic history supports a finding of a "war".
You say I know what I'm doing. Actually, I thought it was assuming good faith to say to a contributor that an action is hard to follow in good faith. All my words following that point amount to nothing but trying to outrun a tar baby. But if my good faith toward Padillah is not sufficing you, consult that link again, and say what you will.
Finally, if Padillah actually supports your paradigm, as I do, all disputation that you might lock us for would vanish. As I always say, if all contributors work toward improving things, lipogrammaticity is fully moot. This is normal topic cycling, not counting a WQA complaint (I don't start such) and a dug-in position that I am told I could not call "gratuitous". If your half-month-long lock stands, discussion will chill and start up with bad blood all around. If you can kindly undo your lock now, such additions as I was trying making during your lock (now at its talk) might possibly fix points in which this topic is flat-out wrong (as in its misquotation of Word Ways, put in by anti-lipogrammaticists). I work slowly. Thanks for your thoughts. JJB 17:38, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Should I undo this? It fails WP:PROD and is factually wrong. JJB 17:43, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here because increasingly off-topic on WMC's talk.
I think that even with the current wording, that interpretation is a stretch. From the context, it's clear that the admonition against discussion of a living person elsewhere in the project applies to an article subject under discussion and not an editor (or some other named person outside the Wikipedia world) — not a named person in their editor capacity — especially in the context of dispute resolution or policy enforcement. Unjustified assertions against editors (named or pseudonymous) are covered by NPA, not BLP.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that, as far as policy is concerned, "Dr. Connely" and "WMC" are distinct and disjoint and the latter doesn't get to be treated differently because the former exists when discussing WMC the editor. Does that make any sense? — Coren (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, Did you just leave a message on my talk page? [20]. I don't see it, just this bit. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a new one.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
.. And another because I messed up slightly.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, what is the proper way to deal with this? I doubt that this is helpful to collaborative editing, but am not sure if there is any action that can or should be taken. Soxwon ( talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this source, did you read the discussion on the talk page? I don't think anyone was denying the source because they disagreed with it, but because it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's web-hosted by the Mises institute, but there's no indication that it's published by the Mises institute, and there's no way to track down the mysterious "Institute for Business Cycle Research" to determine if it is a reliable source. This wasn't a POV matter, but purely a WP:RS one. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please use the talk page discussion on those exact sources before reverting. There are serious questions about the documents in question being reliable sources which have not been answered by the editor adding them. It's not the site that's in question, it's the author and the group that's publishing the documents. Hosting is by Mises, but the publisher is IBCR. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a follow-up question if you don't mind: Is this talkpage section appropriate? I've made an objection there and changed the title twice (orig. " PrBeacon tracking those who oppose him"), but I expect someone else may revert the title -- I know my first change wasn't the most neutral, but it's more accurate. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gadsby: Champion of Youth. Thank you. Padillah ( talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could comment on the Oct 20 posting here by Eldacan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fondue#Raclette.3F
Many thanks
Darrell
I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 05:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Gwen, there has been a lot of feverish activity on the above talk page. From the archive talk, you seem to have been involved in this one for some time. Your opinion on the line of thought being followed (see dark blue lead section) would be most appreciated (relates to a revised Lead section). Farawayman ( talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted this, [21] and it suggests to me that the IP's ability to edit his talk page should be removed for awhile. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
en.WP is awash in plagiarized content. I very often look things up on Wikipedia (say at least 100 times a month) with no thought as to editing or doing an admin task. If I dig into the sources, which I tend to do, given I see an encyclopedia only as a way to begin looking into something, I find text swiped word for word from sources both cited and uncited at least a third of the time, maybe more. It has been this way since I first stumbled onto Wikipedia years ago. If I were to fix all the plagiarism I find, I'd be spending most of my waking life editing en.WP. So, I only skive plagiarism when I've come to build an article. More often than not, I wind up rewriting and resourcing more or less everything. It's that bad here.
The notion that sourced content cannot be written without straying into OR is mistaken. However, doing so is a skill and takes time, either one of which may be lacking in some volunteer editors. As I've said before, en.WP's draw for many is not so much the encyclopedia building, but a kind of text-driven, interactive adventure and social networking game like a sprawling MUD, with an outlet for sharing what some call "knowledge" with thousands, even millions of others. There are so many and sundry things one can do, it can be addictive and fun and moreover, it's free.
The site is also awash in sockpuppets. Some editors would be startled to know who is behind some of them.
Without COI, Wikipedia would grind to a halt within hours. Mixed with all the systemic bias and sockpuppetry, most high traffic articles wind up carrying all kinds of flaws as to content and weight, as do most news articles, many published books and even peer reviewed academic journals of all stripes. One does what one can, on en.WP and off.
Arbcom membership is a thankless task. It should never handle any but the most daunting snares and these are far and few between. Arbcom members are elected not for their arbitration skills, but one way or another, for not having peeved many other editors. By far and away, most IP editors are helpful, most user accounts stir up more help than harm, most editors who can't get along at first either learn or leave rather than being tossed out by block and as a percentage, the number of sitebanned users is vanishingly small.
None of this is much of a scandal, it's something to think about when wondering what to do with one's volunteer time. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen; I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your statement that I would like Sarek desysopped. Not only is it untrue (I would simply rather that they either stayed away from me administratively, or better still, used their buttons in line with policy) but I have never stated such a desire anywhere on- or off-wiki, so you can have had no reason to make such a claim.
Especially given your concern that I read too deeply into one of your comments, therefore, please could you consider striking it? Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag, I perceive a consistent pattern in your editing, of fixating on an issue and posting on it over and over, out of all proportion to its importance. Your perseverating on ANI today, before the person you were criticizing even had a chance to comment, is one such example; I fear this is another. Please reconsider this aspect of your on-wiki behavior. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You probably won't believe this but when an anon changed the text in the article Amelia (film), I did a check on word usage and found that "myriad" is now predominately used as a noun, while its use as an adjective has been classified as "archaic". Nonetheless, I am not wedded to the word and trying it out in different ways, I just found its use as a noun more "pleasing to the ear" (how about that for a sucky reason!)... FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Warning, the wlink in this post ain't work friendly. I'm startled to say, Dildo#Etymology matches up with what I've read on this. I sent you an email, argh, I'm such a geek as to media files which is to say, I can't foresee worries there. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to invite you to review my post on the kosovo articles here. you have been in discussion with me on this issue in the past and I would appreciate some comments. User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages thanks James Michael DuPont ( talk) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this and let me know if any of if should be referred to an SPI. Thanks The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 05:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hooray! Yworo ( talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I believe the entity currently known as GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was fairly recently editing as 5007a ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Check the contribs. What baffles me is why he changed user names, as he doesn't appear to have gotten blocked as 5007a. But it pretty clearly seems to be the same individual. Do we have any banned users with an obsession about fluoridation? Yworo ( talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the sodium protection. You'll notice that nearly all chemical element articles, and most basic science articles need this. Consider isotope and atomic theory, which have both had a recent history that consists almost entirely of IP vandalism and reversion. Could we not have SOME kind of vague guideline for sprotection of articles, when > 90% or > 95% of the edit-history, or something, is just IP vandalisms and reversions? S B H arris 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Heya Gwen, long time no talk!
I think that was probably among the first articles I made here, before being chased off to Wikibooks. I'm not sure it's much of a standalone article, but cool to see you're perhaps still watching my page after all this time :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you take a look at the behavior of Bus stop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Jan Schakowsky? He is insisting that using "Judaism" in a religion field in an infobox is "original research" if the sources say "Jewish". Both Jayjg and I have explained that the religion field takes a noun and that "Jewish" is an overloaded term which is ambiguous as to whether it refers to religion or ethnicity and thus using "Jewish" in the field is both unclear and incorrect grammar. He is going on and on at great length about why only he is right. Yworo ( talk) 18:01, 22 November 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. |
![]() |
The Sparky Barnstar
For your helpfulness, for your kindness, for answering questions that others would just ignore, for being there for users, dealing with the muck and mire that comes with being an admin and for doing what you can where you can to make Wikipedia a better place...I present to you the Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
Please don't use initialisms or acronyms without linking them. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you are butting heads with that IP about the Hitler movie. At issue is the removal of contents from a talk page. A talk page has much more leeway. Sometimes, people are inarticulate and have a partial idea that needs incubation. Removing comments is a very big act and liable to stir up anger. So do this with caution. On the other hand, the IP editor does display inappropriate anger and writes in a way that is hard to understand.
Best of luck.
Care to incubate with me some BLP1E ideas? Abby is a one event person. I think the BLP1E language can be improved so that there will be fewer fights about people like Abby, the sailor. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
current version of BLP1E/new version with bolded insert (final version not bolded)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event of low significance, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
What do you think? The current version suggests that one event people should not have articles, at least, that is the interpretation of quite a few people. So when a person is involved in a significant event, there is always conflict to having an article. I would like to see less conflict in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, would appreciate your input, on a related matter to above. Please see [1]. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware that the AN discussion about you was moved to ANI, where User:LessHeard vanU closed it as "The consensus of a majority is that there was no abuse, although a few editors believe that non optimum decisions were made. Mistakes happen, and abuse is systematic repeat of non optimum decisions despite advice. All these points have been made, and do not bear repeating." So, you can, as you already have, go onto better more pressing matters. Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have replied there to your comments and added some ideas on your arrow idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
After the recent incident about the Hitler film (doe eyed Lara...), I thought of a film to write an article for Wikipedia. It has won awards. One possible section is a plot summary. I read before that someone asked if the entire concept of plot summary is original research. The answer was that the original source is the film so it is not. This is if the plot summary is mainly a summary of events without a lot of commentary. Do you generally agree with this? Or is a plot summary something that should not be there at all?
Your guidance will help determine if I even write the article. Without a plot summary, the article may become "-- was a film. It was released in ---. It won the -- and -- award. The End" Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you're helping combat the vandalism at Apollo 13; thanks. I had understood and hoped the new reviewing trial would take care of that. Can this article be added to the queue? I can not figure out how to use this new privilege. Any pointers will be appreciated. -- Yopienso ( talk) 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you are online, you might want to give the lone admin trying to clear up AIV some help. It is heavily backlogged and getting worse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I was going over your communications and actions regarding me and/or my actions, looking for positive and useful edits that I could thank you for. I like to take the time to thank my fellow editors for taking an interest in my work! I wasn't able to come up with much, unfortunately, but I did come up with this:
You wrote to me "BLP applies to the whole project space and it's going to stay that way." However, you didn't add "Get used to it." Subtle power-assertion statements such as yours usually have "Get used to it" appended to them, but you didn't do that. That was nice of you, and thank you! Herostratus ( talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I mentioned your name on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the WP:Reviewing logo discussion has grown stale, should it just be left as is, or should I zap the discussion back to life? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, this discussion is not about the reviewers logo, but yet about the logo next to "Accepted" (shown here). Sorry for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be good if somebody else were to keep an eye on this AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't recall when/if I've ever seen contribs like this. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please would you check whether this talk page violates BLP. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Remember this user? Their block was upped to indef after personal attacks, edit warring, block evasion/abusive sockpuppetry. They made a promise to you, and everyone, that they would not do any of the above.
They have recently renamed to the username Sugar Bear, and have started edit warring, and socking again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I have layed out the past history there, and I can here, if you wish to read it.
Plainly, since they have gone back on their word, and they are doing the same things that originally got them blocked indef in the first place, could you return their indef block?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This fantasy. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment, can you take a look at this, which looks to me like a needless page move. As there is no other film with this title, confusion seems very unlikely. So, no disambiguation issue. But, I cannot seem to figure out how to revert the page move. What am I missing here? Can you be of assistance? Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my reversion of my own edit? I made a mistake and fixed it. Did you look at what you reverted before you did it? JSpung ( talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like this with proper referencing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor can't tweak what the source says to fit their own PoV. The source doesn't say "a castaway like Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro," it says Earhart herself "may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island." Please fix your edit to echo what the source says, not what you want it to say. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You wrote on the pending changes issue "little "PoV teams" of editors". This is a big problem. Even some administrators are involved on this. This is too bad. If there were a journalism teacher in the classroom, much of this nonsense could be avoided. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the answer to this is that good people, like us, have to edit so that the proportion of good to bad editors is higher. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Risker appears to be out and he got a request on his talkpage, would you mind taking a look-see? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, retirement tags have gone up so I did the deed. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd put back the edit, but MRG would come to my house and kill me. LOL. Malke 2010 00:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought you may be interested in this post by User:Desertfax [2] seemingly about you, since it seems like the same editor is in a dispute with you at Talk:Amelia Earhart.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I believe Sugar Bear is commiting yet another block evasion (this is the second time for this current block alone) and I would like for you to comment on the investigation and the possibility of Sugar Bear's block length being increased. Thanks. RG ( talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize we didn't have this talk long ago, but this user appears to be evading his block, again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. I realize we already discussed the prospect of an indef block, so instead of that, could it be upped to maybe 3 months for block evasion?
In regards to duck like contributions, in case you need me to show you what I saw, let us compare these two:
It's obvious he thinks that our rules don't apply to him, since he has no care for them.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
There is a user "Yworo" who is trying to push his POV edits on the article about GNU.
His edits have been corrected by me an other users. But Yworo insists. In his latest attempt he tries to use a source that reflects the opinion of someone who shares his POV as justification for his edits. He is trying to add the word "incomplete" in the definition of the GNU operating system. That is highly disputable. Could you help keep this definition impartial and warn Yworo?
Thank you. -- Grandscribe ( talk) 07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am up in a recall RfA here. Because it is a recall RfA, the bureaucrats have declined to close it (this is discussed in detail in a couple of sections here. It turns out there is no set procedure for how a recall RfA is to be closed. Presumably any editor can close it. I'm not sure that's a good idea. And both at the the bureaucrats' noticeboard and on my talk page it has been stated by several editors that the only person qualified to close the RfA would be me, the subject. I guess this is so, but 1) as you can imagine, this could lead to claims to conflict of interest, and 2) I do not want to quaff this cup all alone.
Instead I would like to set up a trio of closers, including myself, with the majority ruling. There is no precedent for this but then this is a fairly unprecedented situation altogether. I would like the other two editors to be persons with good reputations for fairness who cannot be accused of being selected by me in my own self-interest. Would you please do me the favor of being one of these? I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to do this.
The RfA can be closed anytime after 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC). The closing process is discussed here and elsewhere. Some people have said that the usual 75%-ish standard should be relaxed for recall RfA's; I'm not sure I agree, but all this would be entirely up to you.
I do hope you will do me this great favor. Herostratus ( talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good, thank you. As one of three, if you please. I will post this at the appropriate place now. I realize that this could be controversial and stressful for both of you. Would it at all help if I made my closing "vote" first or last (that is, before or after you have "voted")? If you have no preference my general inclination is to go last. Do you have any other questions or concerns? Herostratus ( talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: I would like to post your name as a closer at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. May I? Please reply soonest, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I wonder why you have fully protected Anythingyouwant's talk page? I would like to leave him a message asking him to consider coming back, so that we can finish discussing the issue he raised at WT:Administrators. Would you mind unlocking his talk page, or posting a message there on my behalf? LK ( talk) 08:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please Userfy an article for me? Azerbaijan–Spain relations Thank you -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is correct, and acceptable:
I have added a form at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2s for each of the three closing editors. All you need to do is remove either the "was" or "was not", and sign. I think you should not add any comment there (you can on the talk page if you wish, I guess). All three editors should vote, even if the first two have voted the same way, making the third vote moot. The third editor voting should then add the templates described at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures -- either Subst:rfap/ Subst:rfab or Subst:rfaf/ Subst:rfab -- to the top and bottom of the page, and perform the other actions described there, e.g. editing either Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship or Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). Also Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations would need to be edited, and perhaps other places as well. If assistance is needed, I suggest asking User:Xeno as she has been helpful in the technical aspects of this process. Herostratus ( talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, allow me to thank you Gwen Gale for your time and contribution on this matter, I appreciate it. Herostratus ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this report from Fox News that might interest you. [3] It mentions quite a bit and confirms the bone measurements, etc., and TIGHAR's trip, etc. Malke 2010 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that he's still socking to avoid this block. Just look at these IPs: [4], [5]. I think that we should seriously consider blocking the account permanently. RG ( talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
excuse me but how it happened I don't quite know but I seem to have made a rollback edit to your talkpage without wanting to, I have tried to revert it but the server is not grabbing the edit form or something. sorry. I have replaced it by hand. Apologies again. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Your quick closure of my 2nd nommed afd at lolicon disallowed full examination of the issues involved, which, in my opinion and for what it's worth, would tend to reinforce an unfortunate perception about the project on several scores!-- FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden ( talk) 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify with me your reason for removing the (imo exceptionally tame compared to some material) image which is was used to illustrate the Lolicon article. I looked at it earlier, and considered there to be nothing wrong with it being there. I know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no defence, but it seems silly that we allow pictures of genitalia and sex acts on wikipedia, yet remove cartoon images of children which aren't even erotic, let alone sexual. Your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks. BarkingFish
Talk to me |
My contributions
17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic issues at Jimbo's talk page. Thank you. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
But I think you should check out this thread. Quite simply, the editor it is about, seems to have unrelenting PAs based on religion, or what they think the religion of the other person is. I myself don't think this is acceptable at all, especially since there have been 3 RfCs with no outcome as to a change in behavior.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering why the page on Jon "Flip" Muro was deleted? he is a legitimate music producer with a few notable credits to major artists which all have valid references. He has a fan base and the latest artist he has contributed major production to has received well over 100,000 hits on you tube total. If there was a problem with the way it was written or formatted please let me know I will change it in any way that is necessary. I would certainly like to at very least have access to the article to retain the work which was put in on it. It is in no way offensive or in bad taste. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter thanks in advance
nhw001123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhw001123 ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion on WP:Reviewing was archived a couple days ago as unresolved, so I guess we are stuck with the "CBS-esque" eye logo for the Pending Changes/Reviewers logo. Just thought I would let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, we have corresponded a few times before and I would like to ask your advice, please. A fellow contributor, Douglas M. Smith, has accused me of conflict of interest and challenged me regarding my real life identity. I responded to his accusations, and he has only recently replied. In reviewing his edit history to try to gain some measure of his background on Wikipedia, I note that he appears to have made a libellous edit (still currently live) to Sakiyama, Akatsuki's user page. The rest of his edits, however, appear to be good faith edits. Of course, there are any number of possibilities here (e.g., a compromised account), but the edit to the other contributor's user page is disturbing. I am not sure how best to proceed, given his apparent animosity towards me. I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this, or who to refer this situation to; thank you. Janggeom ( talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, there's a request on RfPP for full protection of GNU. As I see you recently protected and unprotected it, I thought I should let you judge how to handle it. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen. I think that it must be very evident for you now that user Yworo has one sole purpose: to include words or any kind of language that gives a negative image of the
GNU operating system. He is pushing for inclusion of words like "incomplete" or "not stable" in the first paragraph because that is a very important place in the article, it is, maybe, the only one read by many people who use wikipedia and who have not much time to read articles in full. They just want to have a quick idea about the desired topic. If you check past edits done by Yworo you will confirm that he has a very strong bias against the GNU OS or anything that is related to
Richard Stallman and the
FSF. We could spend months here discussing on the use of the words he is pushing for but we will never reach an agreement because he is using a very subjective language which intentionally aims to give a negative image of GNU and the concrete and tangible achievements of the FSF. The first paragraph of the GNU article should be as objective as possible. It should describe what GNU is: a computer operating system that works with different kernels the best know the
linux kernel which is known as GNU/Linux operating system by some and just "linux" by others. What might be considered "incomplete" or "unstable" is the
GNU Hurd but that is another different article and descriptions of the GNU Hurd should go in that article. Please try to offer a neutral and objective alternative to the biased version obsessively pushed by Yworo.--
Grandscribe (
talk)
09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If I have a question about something, I will post it here for you. [6]. And please also look over my talk page. Thanks. Malke 2010 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. I'm sorry to bother you again with a non-article issue, but the fact is that I am troubled and I would value your counsel.
I was recently involved with a dispute with another user, which raged for while on his talk page and at Wikiquette Alerts, but nothing came of it. However, I guess that other users watch this user's talk page and kind of "gang up" on people who post there. I was really trying to have a person-to-person dialog between me and the other user, but that didn't work out. Oh well, fair enough, no problem.
However, one user, who goes by the name of Ning-ning, who I don't know and don't recall ever interacting with, posted this, which says:
Although I'm not happy with any of that post, I'm especially unhappy with this person hunting me down on other web sites so that he can smear me as a racist. Is this allowed? Is there anything that can be done about this?
(For what it's worth -- and I'm not sure how much effort I'm supposed to be expected to put in here defending my posts on other web sites, but whatever -- the article he refers to is the article "Negro" on Uncyclopedia, which when I stumbled across it was appallingly offensive, I quickly rewrote it to be basically unoffensive, and later another user (who I don't know and have no control over) came along and for reasons of his own redacted the article as a redirect to the "Birmingham N***ers" article. I can prove all this with diffs. I'm not convinced that I should have to.)
As a matter of fact I have always stood foursquare against racism, and my father in particular was a a community leader on this issue during the Civil Rights Era. So all this leaves me feeling rather unhappy.
Although I tried to diffuse the situation with a humorous reply (that's me!), it didn't really work, and I find that the whole thing continues to bother me and makes me sad. I've been here awhile and I'm beginning to feel like not editing the Wikipedia anymore if I have to be be called a racist in addition to everything else.
I gather that this person Ning-ning is a long-time productive editor so there is no question of really sanctioning him. I surmise, based on my experience with his wikifriends, that trying to engage him will only lead to me being further jeered at by him and other editors that I haven't met.
Is there no recourse for this? Is this where Wikipedia is going? Should I just bow my head and cross the street? Should I just quietly fade away? What would you do, and and what do you advise?
Thanking you for your time and consideration, Herostratus ( talk) 03:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Looks like Yworo and Cyclopeia (the main editors in dispute) are in agreement on talk; can you unprotect the page? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Having heard thousands of vuvuzela blasts in the last month or so, I guess pop-sports culture has at last reached its canny heights, as those lured to the globalized circuses can now say more loudly with their mouths what their other ends do and by much the same means. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gwen. Just a quick and possibly fairly novice question - my apologies if I am asking about something obvious. In the Polanski talk page, I have been told to remove the word "rape" by user Off2riorob as a BLP violation. Given that the word is repeatedly used in the article and of course the facts are widely disseminated, including his arrest and charge with statutory rape, this seems a stretch - do I have to remove it? I don't mind removing it if I have to, but I wondered where I stand with this one. Would appreciate your comment if you have a moment. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe my username invites it, but the Strengththroughjoy last insult [7] reminded me about another insult, here [8] (bottom of edit). It's probably nothing, but since Strengththroughjoy suddenly appeared just when I had filed an ANI on Pmanderson I thought it might be worth checking out, although I don't even know who can do it? Can you? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Collect about 50 diffs worth of canvassing 14 July 2010 between 12:29 and 13:02 Cereal Surreal Cereal Surreal ( talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
"I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor this guy is, before they even read my edits. So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively." Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Collect stopped by my page to ask me about this situation. I've decided to share my views, take them as you like.
Hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Can i get back the latest relase of this article? Also I have followe Wiki rules, copy paste similiar artiste so not sure why this has been delete? I alwo own Copyright for the image, which is used on myspace and wiki. How can i proof this? Ta petr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerw ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when you have a moment would you have a look at what is going on here. I have asked a couple of questions on the talkpage and received fair enough answers but looking at the created content I saw some possible content violations and unreliable citations. I realize it is not in the main space but there are still imo issues with creating such content there. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to keep my cool, but as I had previously said, if an issue has the potential of becoming uncivil, I will defer to someone uninvolved. In this case, I am deferring to you. Please see here. Thank you for your time, Gwen.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. This editor repeatedly keeps adding the ethnicity they believe to belong in the article Ciara see here: [10] I have repeatedly told the editor that ethnicity requires a citation from a reliable source but the editor refuses to follow policy. Thank you for your time. Mcelite ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to adding the videos mentioned here? I can't do it because the page is fully protected.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, my insisting on a reliable source for Margolis leaving the Sun has nothing to do with whether I like what it says or not and I strongly resent your interpreting my motivations. BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: Please explain the basis of the block that you placed on myself. Instead of engaging in a dialogue that was existing in an article's TALK page, as well as the topic you started on my talk page, you choose to not reply, and instead you blocked me for a week for "disruption". That block was appealed and removed. On the surface this appears to be a gross misuse of your admin role. Why would you not engage with me in the two discussions, or if unwilling, simply move on, or hand it off to an uninterested admin? -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Replying here, not sure if this will unarchive it or not...my response will follow if this technical aspect is overcome. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen There is a user that vandalises the article Nikos Galis using the names BullDog3, Ironexmaiden, Seahawk35, or his IP. He almost replaces the picture with other pictures taken from other sites. Can you do something about this? Thanks Sportin ( talk) 09:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For your input on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are the editor supporting inclusion of a source, I very kindly welcome you to justify your edit after the two reverts to place the material back into the article. BigK HeX ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We have an editor who is determined to impose Oxford spelling (-ize versus -ise) on several Britain-related articles. He has the mistaken notion that WP:COMMONALITY allows him to make these changes. His actions prompted a discussion at MoS. Notice his edit summaries, and look what was deleted from the discussion. Notice also his reaction - and mine - to being templated for what he was doing.
I plan on re-reverting The Beatles to the -ise form, which was the style which was chosen first, per WP:RETAIN. I've opened it up for discussion first.
A group of us reached consensus on an issue at The Beatles. User DocKino unilaterally decided that the consensus version had to change to his preferred version - without first discussing. I reverted back to the consensus version and he reverted it again, posing a strawman question on the talk page.
It's obvious that this person has some strong feelings about the way things should go here and is going about it in quite a few wrong ways.
Would you like to comment or offer some guidance as to how to proceed? Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your (and the others') thoughts. What about this bitey editor? Should he be allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia, reverting at will and hurling insults at anyone with whom he disagrees? Radiopathy •talk• 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your comments and your admin help.
The -ise/-ize debate at The Beatles specifically is not about which one is more correct, but rather about retaining the existing variety, per WP:RETAIN. This article primarily used the -ise form until DocKino started his eradication campaign. In the version before DocKino's first edit, there are six instances of -ise (not counting those within quotes, which can't be changed) and two of -ize. If you go back to the first available edit, "epitomised" jumps out from the very first sentence. DocKino claims that WP:COMMONALITY demands that we change to the -ize form in the interest of stylistic uniformity, but it says no such thing; its focus is on the commonality of words and phrases. Radiopathy •talk• 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that I have over 7,000 edits and six barnstars to my name, yes, I'm very familiar with our personal attacks policy. Two points need to be clarified for you:
I now have DocKino's close collaborator referring to my "ethnic cleansing" in relation to the WP:ENGVAR issue. Does this need WP:AN/I? Radiopathy •talk• 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone told me you that you are absolutely wonderful and I thought you should know :-) I read a couple of your posts and have to agree. Your only hint is that it was another admin, who is actually pretty wonderful herself ;-) I am just a lowly editor with much to learn and thrilled to find a respected resource. G'day to you ! Namaste! ... DocOfSoc ( talk) 09:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: I have asked several times now for a clear explanation to why you blocked me, which have been rudely ignored. Please respond to this specifically or state you will not.
What actions by myself (as you are able to document with DIFFs) were the basis for your blocking of me? Thank you. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, referring to the above, does this kind of behaviour qualify as WP:CPUSH and WP:TE? Because quite frankly, it is beginning to look like one, correct me if I'm wrong. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
;> Doc9871 ( talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
[13] -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you able to work any of your magic with this draft article, or is it just dead in the water? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for a new picture of NFL football player Kelley Washington, as the one there is horrible, and found this one. The problem I am running into is it is CC 2.0. Is that covered by Wikipedia or is that one of the CCs we don't allow? Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here. I know I'm correct that using an album's Amazon page, or any online store for that matter, as a ref for the track listing is wrong. Please opine. Thank you again. Radiopathy •talk• 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
On 16 September 2010, I added a brief paragraph mentioning that Peg Entwistle and her father had no marker on their burial site. I noted that it had been unmarked for 77 years and that a fund-raising campaign on facebook had been undertaken to provide a marker for Entwistle and her father.
Later, as you saw, others began tweaking the paragraph. Can you please tell me: 1. Was my original contribution acceptably written? 2. I was sent photographs of the marker and can verify its existence, however, the same photograph has also been posted to findagrave.com. As this site is used in the article as a reference with regard to Entwistle's burial, may it not also be used to verify the grave marker? Here is the link to view the image: [ [14]]
Also, in the event that you, or other administrators, find the mention of the marker irrelevant to the article, I would posture that it is worth at least a brief mention in light of the many people (to my understanding) from around the world who donated to the facebook campaign. Please know, too, that I am not affiliated with the campaign or the findagrave people, however, I am writing Peg Entwistle's biography, as Wiki editor Wildhartlivie can verify, and I believe noting the new marker holds some importance to the article.
Thanks! James Jameszerukjr ( talk) 21:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
And why, for the love of God, do all of you continue to refuse to address my issue regarding the concensus that was reached long ago; namely, that the ARTICLE WAS FUCKING FINE UNTIL YOU DECIDED YOU WE WERE NOT AS BRILLIANT AS YOU? GO FUCK YOURSELF...I'M DONE...GEE, WHAT A LIFE YOU HAVE! WIKIPEDIA...NO PAY, NO GLORY. AND THE BUTT OF JOKES FROM JAY LENO AND DAVID LETTERMAN.
OH, AND BY THE WAY....You should remove the photo of Peg from the article, for, as your puckerd asshole will see, it was contributed by me--from MY ORIGINAL research. You are a fucking a liar and a hypocrite, Gwen. You have no true alligenmce to Wikipedia....you belong to a hateful, politcal band of cultish fanatics within...me, I'm just a fucking Iraq War Vet who tried to help make Wikipedia honest....
You changed the history to reflect your "rightness" and calmly sit back and wait for the maniac to vent. Well, there ya go, Miss Cunt..you got what you wanted. GO FUCK YOURSELF. (Oh, know, gee, I guess I won't be able to edit for Wikipedia anymore after that tirade)
WHO FUCKING CARES. WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO ME? IF YOU HAD ONE FUCKING OUNCE OF INTEGRITY, YOU WOULD COMPARE THE VERY ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH MY CONTRIBUTIONS...Peg Entwistle's Wikipedia looked like a fucking GOD DAMNED article from WEEKLY WORLD NEWS. Jameszerukjr ( talk) 06:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I've given Jameszerukjr a short cool-down block. You may wish to remove all or part of his latest comment. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, the time I spend editing at Wikipedia has diminished. My responsibilities in the real world have increased. I'm now taking care of an elderly parent, so cannot spend much time here. I'm proud of my work at the Houston article and enjoyed getting it to FA status. However, the most enjoyable time I feel spent here was working with you at Shamrock Hotel. Just wanted you to know that. Take care, Postoak ( talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen Gale! I don't know if you'll see this soon-enough to avoid having to look in archives, but I thought I should let you know that I quoted you at ANI from the summary you wrote in closing this RfC/U for user Collect.
Collect is claiming that RfC/U was invalid or badly compromised by irregularities, and I'm wondering whether you could shed any light on that? I don't think it constitutes "canvassing" to ask you that or to inform you of the thread, but if you do then feel free to ignore. I've not contacted anyone else, btw, except the parties named and the admin who instituted the block against another user that Collect began the thread to obtain. Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, none of this behavior has stopped, and if anything, it has worsened. What is the next step? Viriditas ( talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) Sorry - your position on this was exactly the same as mine. To the letter! And the old emoticon dates back to 300 baud days (ask Xeno). Collect ( talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I really need some advice on a completely untenable situation. Over at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth there is a situation that I need direction. I am refraining from comment so that you can make your own decisions based on what you see in the talk-page. As one of the most even-handed, level-headed editors I know I appreciate your input. Padillah ( talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on your own talk, you just confirm what I go on and on saying, that continuing at "notching in" and "skiving" this topic, within normal limits, is within contributors' rights. So I am hoping you can talk this out with us. First, kindly consult WP:WQA#Additional factors and say what you will. Also, I want to know how I was warring, in that Padillah only undid two diffs, and I didn't undo at all. If you want to look at all diffs and find two words that Padillah undid and I put in again, and if you want to stand on that (is it warring to call "it's not his town" gratuitous if Wright says it's "his town"?), I think it's our most unfought war in WP annals. So I don't think topic history supports a finding of a "war".
You say I know what I'm doing. Actually, I thought it was assuming good faith to say to a contributor that an action is hard to follow in good faith. All my words following that point amount to nothing but trying to outrun a tar baby. But if my good faith toward Padillah is not sufficing you, consult that link again, and say what you will.
Finally, if Padillah actually supports your paradigm, as I do, all disputation that you might lock us for would vanish. As I always say, if all contributors work toward improving things, lipogrammaticity is fully moot. This is normal topic cycling, not counting a WQA complaint (I don't start such) and a dug-in position that I am told I could not call "gratuitous". If your half-month-long lock stands, discussion will chill and start up with bad blood all around. If you can kindly undo your lock now, such additions as I was trying making during your lock (now at its talk) might possibly fix points in which this topic is flat-out wrong (as in its misquotation of Word Ways, put in by anti-lipogrammaticists). I work slowly. Thanks for your thoughts. JJB 17:38, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Should I undo this? It fails WP:PROD and is factually wrong. JJB 17:43, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here because increasingly off-topic on WMC's talk.
I think that even with the current wording, that interpretation is a stretch. From the context, it's clear that the admonition against discussion of a living person elsewhere in the project applies to an article subject under discussion and not an editor (or some other named person outside the Wikipedia world) — not a named person in their editor capacity — especially in the context of dispute resolution or policy enforcement. Unjustified assertions against editors (named or pseudonymous) are covered by NPA, not BLP.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that, as far as policy is concerned, "Dr. Connely" and "WMC" are distinct and disjoint and the latter doesn't get to be treated differently because the former exists when discussing WMC the editor. Does that make any sense? — Coren (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, Did you just leave a message on my talk page? [20]. I don't see it, just this bit. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a new one.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
.. And another because I messed up slightly.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, what is the proper way to deal with this? I doubt that this is helpful to collaborative editing, but am not sure if there is any action that can or should be taken. Soxwon ( talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this source, did you read the discussion on the talk page? I don't think anyone was denying the source because they disagreed with it, but because it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's web-hosted by the Mises institute, but there's no indication that it's published by the Mises institute, and there's no way to track down the mysterious "Institute for Business Cycle Research" to determine if it is a reliable source. This wasn't a POV matter, but purely a WP:RS one. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please use the talk page discussion on those exact sources before reverting. There are serious questions about the documents in question being reliable sources which have not been answered by the editor adding them. It's not the site that's in question, it's the author and the group that's publishing the documents. Hosting is by Mises, but the publisher is IBCR. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a follow-up question if you don't mind: Is this talkpage section appropriate? I've made an objection there and changed the title twice (orig. " PrBeacon tracking those who oppose him"), but I expect someone else may revert the title -- I know my first change wasn't the most neutral, but it's more accurate. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gadsby: Champion of Youth. Thank you. Padillah ( talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could comment on the Oct 20 posting here by Eldacan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fondue#Raclette.3F
Many thanks
Darrell
I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 05:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Gwen, there has been a lot of feverish activity on the above talk page. From the archive talk, you seem to have been involved in this one for some time. Your opinion on the line of thought being followed (see dark blue lead section) would be most appreciated (relates to a revised Lead section). Farawayman ( talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted this, [21] and it suggests to me that the IP's ability to edit his talk page should be removed for awhile. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
en.WP is awash in plagiarized content. I very often look things up on Wikipedia (say at least 100 times a month) with no thought as to editing or doing an admin task. If I dig into the sources, which I tend to do, given I see an encyclopedia only as a way to begin looking into something, I find text swiped word for word from sources both cited and uncited at least a third of the time, maybe more. It has been this way since I first stumbled onto Wikipedia years ago. If I were to fix all the plagiarism I find, I'd be spending most of my waking life editing en.WP. So, I only skive plagiarism when I've come to build an article. More often than not, I wind up rewriting and resourcing more or less everything. It's that bad here.
The notion that sourced content cannot be written without straying into OR is mistaken. However, doing so is a skill and takes time, either one of which may be lacking in some volunteer editors. As I've said before, en.WP's draw for many is not so much the encyclopedia building, but a kind of text-driven, interactive adventure and social networking game like a sprawling MUD, with an outlet for sharing what some call "knowledge" with thousands, even millions of others. There are so many and sundry things one can do, it can be addictive and fun and moreover, it's free.
The site is also awash in sockpuppets. Some editors would be startled to know who is behind some of them.
Without COI, Wikipedia would grind to a halt within hours. Mixed with all the systemic bias and sockpuppetry, most high traffic articles wind up carrying all kinds of flaws as to content and weight, as do most news articles, many published books and even peer reviewed academic journals of all stripes. One does what one can, on en.WP and off.
Arbcom membership is a thankless task. It should never handle any but the most daunting snares and these are far and few between. Arbcom members are elected not for their arbitration skills, but one way or another, for not having peeved many other editors. By far and away, most IP editors are helpful, most user accounts stir up more help than harm, most editors who can't get along at first either learn or leave rather than being tossed out by block and as a percentage, the number of sitebanned users is vanishingly small.
None of this is much of a scandal, it's something to think about when wondering what to do with one's volunteer time. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen; I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your statement that I would like Sarek desysopped. Not only is it untrue (I would simply rather that they either stayed away from me administratively, or better still, used their buttons in line with policy) but I have never stated such a desire anywhere on- or off-wiki, so you can have had no reason to make such a claim.
Especially given your concern that I read too deeply into one of your comments, therefore, please could you consider striking it? Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag, I perceive a consistent pattern in your editing, of fixating on an issue and posting on it over and over, out of all proportion to its importance. Your perseverating on ANI today, before the person you were criticizing even had a chance to comment, is one such example; I fear this is another. Please reconsider this aspect of your on-wiki behavior. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You probably won't believe this but when an anon changed the text in the article Amelia (film), I did a check on word usage and found that "myriad" is now predominately used as a noun, while its use as an adjective has been classified as "archaic". Nonetheless, I am not wedded to the word and trying it out in different ways, I just found its use as a noun more "pleasing to the ear" (how about that for a sucky reason!)... FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Warning, the wlink in this post ain't work friendly. I'm startled to say, Dildo#Etymology matches up with what I've read on this. I sent you an email, argh, I'm such a geek as to media files which is to say, I can't foresee worries there. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to invite you to review my post on the kosovo articles here. you have been in discussion with me on this issue in the past and I would appreciate some comments. User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages thanks James Michael DuPont ( talk) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this and let me know if any of if should be referred to an SPI. Thanks The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 05:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hooray! Yworo ( talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I believe the entity currently known as GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was fairly recently editing as 5007a ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Check the contribs. What baffles me is why he changed user names, as he doesn't appear to have gotten blocked as 5007a. But it pretty clearly seems to be the same individual. Do we have any banned users with an obsession about fluoridation? Yworo ( talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the sodium protection. You'll notice that nearly all chemical element articles, and most basic science articles need this. Consider isotope and atomic theory, which have both had a recent history that consists almost entirely of IP vandalism and reversion. Could we not have SOME kind of vague guideline for sprotection of articles, when > 90% or > 95% of the edit-history, or something, is just IP vandalisms and reversions? S B H arris 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Heya Gwen, long time no talk!
I think that was probably among the first articles I made here, before being chased off to Wikibooks. I'm not sure it's much of a standalone article, but cool to see you're perhaps still watching my page after all this time :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you take a look at the behavior of Bus stop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Jan Schakowsky? He is insisting that using "Judaism" in a religion field in an infobox is "original research" if the sources say "Jewish". Both Jayjg and I have explained that the religion field takes a noun and that "Jewish" is an overloaded term which is ambiguous as to whether it refers to religion or ethnicity and thus using "Jewish" in the field is both unclear and incorrect grammar. He is going on and on at great length about why only he is right. Yworo ( talk) 18:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)