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. |
Hey Gwen,
I set up a page for Another Sky Press in the USA ( http://www.anothersky.org/).
For your own reference, you can check out: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/?title=Another_Sky_Press
So, fair enough - I decided to see if we could sort out some importance and/or significance, and got this response from Kristopher Young, who heads-up Another Sky:
"I've been researching this some. The issue noted by the mod is 'notability'. Which, on the corresponding detail page seems to require 'reliable secondary sources'.
"Which translates, I think, to the article by the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/NSG0IP23KS1.DTL&hw=another+sky+press&sn=004&sc=775
"And perhaps a few others from Dogmatika, maybe even referencing Click book club on Chuck Palahniuk's site."
Do you think we could reconsider the page? Cherrs for considering! Shareradar ( talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, Can you help me with a very small thing, please. The Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier) page was created by Les Woodland and revised by me. It should be moved to Augustin Trébuchon but the move function will not work. I think that he is, and probably always will be, the only Augustin Trébuchon that is notable. Can you fix it and/or tell me if what I should have done. Thanks. Autodidactyl ( talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC). ps. This is still the best user talk page on Wiki, Reithian in its education and entertainment values, and a must for any watch-list.
Based on our prior interaction, I had serious reservations that you had the temperament to make it as an admin. It seems I owe you an apology. Keep up the good work. Ronnotel ( talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I'm involved in a sourcing disagreement going on at Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (see [3]). I am holding a photo-copy of the article in question in my hand. The question ( [4]) here of doubt is extremely similar in scope and circumstances to [5]. In both cases there is a physical document (the first case a printout, this case a photocopy) that is being, to my mind, unreasonably disputed. Perhaps this is a massive coincidence (in which case my sincere apologies), but my evaluation of the patterns are that these two editors are mimicking each other in way that seems unnecessary. Given that I really do edit wikipedia in what I had always thought was good faith (and I respect and believe you that my faith has been weak or outright failed at times), what should I do? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Though I did use my education once or twice in discussions, I was properly chastised for it, and have not proffered it as evidence in any article discussion since, meaning in over 4 months. The Essjay controversy is a burning reminder to anyone who would misrepresent themselves inappropriately, and while I have the educational background of which i speak (though mostly via comparison, and not specificity), I won't be using it as a tool in discussions. No one is the smartest person in the room whilst editing in Wikipedia, and certainly not me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[6] TigerShark ( talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's get an outside view [7]. TigerShark ( talk) 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I am curious as to your speedy deletion of this article, care to elaborate? -- Jarrex ( talk) 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
yes "It's non-encyclopedic, it's a copyright violation, it's an advertisement (maybe even spam) or an attack page or other form of vandalism." I fail to see which guidelines it meets.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not feel as though I was taunting. I did read the article I still do not feel that it does not meet any guidelines. As for the music guidelines "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Bobby Reeves of Adema has been cited, as well as fullthrottleradio.com. There is also a source from a Portuguese soldier who plays them on their radio. I really do not see how it does not meet guidelines.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
About me? I am in no way related to this article. I live in Pennsylvania, these guys are from Colorado. I don't even know who they are. I cited exactly what guidelines it met, it says one of the following not more than one of the following.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand the deletion. The source that is a website of the person the article is about. If permission is needed, I own the website and can give it. If the is not sufficient, I can delete the reference to the website.
Websrx ( talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Charles
I rewrote the everything.
Websrx ( talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'm now an involved editor in the argument on Talk:Murder of Matthew Shepard#Page move that used to be Matthew Shepard. There appears to be an effort to move LGBT related hate crime deaths to "Murders of" pages, for what reason I do not know but can only surmise. However, you have seen the edits and comments given by Lihaas ( talk · contribs) on the Lesbian article page, and he is responsible for suggesting the move at Shepard's page, as highlighted on the ANI thread.
There is no consensus to move these pages. I'm too emotionally involved to judge if moving them back to their original names, protecting them from editor moves until consensus can be reached is a good idea. I'm asking for your input, and ultimately, your moving them if you agree. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please move these articles back to Murder of... The guidelines for victims at WP:Notability (criminal acts) clearly states that victims are not notable in and of themselves. These articles were renamed to be about the crimes in convention with the policies established at Notability (criminal acts). There is no agenda here. This is the policy for all victims of all crimes regardless of race, age, sex, gender, sexual preference, or any other identifying factor. Further, discussions of moving are going on at other articles involving heterosexual victims as well. There is no attempt here to target LGBT people. I was simply going through cats related to crimes. You should also have read the move discussions on the articles as well. I asked first and discussed first before the move was made. Everyone seemed to be happy earlier. (P.S. I wasn't involved with the Matthew Shepherd article). Nrswanson ( talk) 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
and I resent "It's clearly a highly PoV try at dehumanization which is not at all supported by WP:Title. " - some of us became involved because of the mention at AN/I (where a number of people thought the move was fine) - are we also trying to dehumanise someone because we think the "murder of" title is correct? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:Notability (criminal acts) states: "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In these cases, none of these individuals were notable prior to their status as victims. As such, the articles can not and should not be biographies. They should be about the crime and the aftermath of such crimes which might have resulted in changes in legislation or other notable after effects. Since we don't do biographies of victims at wikipedia the article has to be entitled something else. That's policy. There is no attempt at "dehumanizing". Rather the intent is to remain encyclopedic and not become a place to memorialize. Nrswanson ( talk) 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am misreading it. Under it's current title I have grounds to nominate it for an AFD because murder victims are not notable. Not that I'm going to do that but I'm saying it to make a point. Nrswanson ( talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nrswanson, no, I don't think you're misreading it, I think there are sundry ways to read it and either way it's all too wonkish to get that far, which is why I struck out what I said. I wouldn't nominate it for AfD (as you knowingly hinted, WP:Point), although that aside, I agree with the spirit of what Moni3 posted, that it would be a wonderful way to see what happens (don't try this at home, or anywhere else, please, AfD is not the way). To say Matthew Shepherd isn't notable is highly mistaken, hence we have a flaw in either some editor's takes on WP:Notability (criminal acts), or in the policy itself (I agree spot on with everything you and the policy have to say about content by the way). I do think it's time to think about wonted biographies and crime victim biographies being different things, written under sometimes starkly different content policies as to notability and weight, smoothly and helpfully titled under their names (which takes us back to WP:Title). Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Y'all, I'm going to be gone for a few hours. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you are such a softie! – ukexpat ( talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the article I marked for speedy deletion. Is there anything I can do to help the process next time? Pwhitwor ( talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:-) Kinda confusing, really. Why would someone pretend to speak another language (and trusting MT to bluff it)? — Coren (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain in more detail why you declined the A7 speedy request for the above article. I know those edit summary boxes could sometimes do with being bigger. Thanks, -- JD554 ( talk) 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike persons deleting my work without at least giving me a chance to rework an article, make additions, etc., it shows a lack of etiquette on your part, which goes without saying. I hope you will think about this in the future. There are many of us trying to build Wikipedia by adding meaningful articles. It makes it difficult with people like yourself who do this kind of thoughtless editing! -- Robert ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)-- Robert ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. As so frequently happens, I seem not to have gotten WP's processes to work for me. I initiated this [8], but it does not seem to have been filed any place. What did I do wrong? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I like the Celtic cross image you have at the top of this page. I have been working on the Celtic knot article, and may add that image.
Gwen, you just deleted a page I created entitled Business Model Innovation. I had put a Hang On notice and explained the reason why there appeared to be a copyright issue. The page you sited as the source of the copyright violation is a webage from the company owned by the authors of various publications cited in my article. As such, some of the wording is indeed similar given the sources are the same individuals. I attempted to go back and cite the webpage in the article's list of references but the deletion had already occured. Can you please advise me on how I can resurrect the article and demonstrate the author's willingness to release the content? I saw the GNU listing that must appear on the external source page and can have that reflected on that site in a matter of minutes. Would that suffice? if so, can you then resupply me with the article content? It took me a while to get all the tags and citations loaded correctly. Thanks for the help! Krbolen ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw you initially declined my A7 speedy of Christopher James DeRaps, but I'm confused as to how you then turned around a few seconds later and speedied it as G11. Mistake or did you see something that I didn't? -- Millbrooky ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing {{db-a3}} tags from all of these articles on Irish Baptist churches because they are redirects, so they are not expected to have content and anyway that criterion is only for articles. The last few I've looked at have been deleted by you. Why? Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the redirects. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No offense but I found that comment a bit suspect. One, I only reverted twice not three times so I am within bounds. Two, User:Queerudite had not commented at the relevent discussion on the article's talk page and had not even read it prior to making the move so it was a bad decision on his/her part. Three, you are an interested party in this discussion and I notice you didn't place a similar warning on User:Queerudite's talk page which seems biased if you were merely concerned about an edit war. That aside, please read this on naming convention on articles about murder victims Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. Nrswanson ( talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'? And what did the Article say? Morefight ( talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight by the way, i am starting to the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'. Morefight ( talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight
PLEASE CONTACT ME IN MY USER NAME TALK PAGE ( talk) OR IN YOUR PAGE AS SOON AS POSSBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Per this it is stated you are likely to run for the upcoming elections, you only have a couple of days left to decide. I think you would make a great arbitrator but can understand why you or anyone for that matter would want to decline. I left a note on Antandrus' page and he stated no simply because becoming an ArbCom member is the last rail stop on the line to oblivion. Do you share the same "uncomfortable ride?" 211.30.109.24 ( talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I had put my name on the "likely to run" list because at the time, I was asked to think about running since there was a lack of experienced and knowledgeable candidates. Now though, I see at least eight (and maybe more) editors I'd be happy to see on arbcom. I don't think there's a lack of the willing and helpful anymore.
As it happens, Antandrus often says stuff that canny goes for me too and I think he's more or less done it again. I made my first edit to Wikipedia almost five years ago and have been editing steadily for four. I like dealing with words, writing them, reading them, growing articles and helping out with some of the tidying tasks needed to build this thing and yes, it's fun! When I was little, wherever in the wide world my mum took me, if we walked into a room with books in it I was likely to yank one off the wall and start reading. Hey, I even sailed through my wild teens on a lake of books. My grandfather read encyclopedias for fun and I got that habit, too. Wikipedia has spun up the world's most widely-read encyclopedia because its policies, when followed by a pool of volunteers money could not buy, are fit for most folks. Ok, Wikipedia's political and economics articles tend to be a mess and deeply PoV, flawed and so unhelpful, but even that's but an echo of the wider, dodgy sources to be had on these topics: It's not so much a weakness of Wikipedia. I could go on about some other things that happen in the shadows here but again, these are only echoes of the world we live in. Meanwhile, as with most things people do, a few can't get along at all and instead of staying away from this private website, they stir up worries which can chavel Wikipedia for most everyone else. Arbcom is the last step in dealing with that. They see the worst of Wikipedia, without end and often must handle things which can have no happy outcome. Their work is thankless and the feedback they get is wontedly scathing. No wonder few arbcom members ever go back to editing.
Although I think we'll carry on needing arbcom until the community comes up with something which more closely fits the needs of what Wikipedia has become, I believe most worries can be (and are) handled through the sundry administrator boards by say, several dozen active and helpful admins, each with their own knack and talents, which we have, although barely sometimes. Many editors have emailed, asking me to run for arbcom, which has stirred me to think hard about it, for weeks. If I thought the project truly needed me on arbcom, I'd gnash my teeth (heh, I mean it y'all, I'd gnash 'em) and do it. All told though, I think for now, I can do more for Wikipedia by carrying on with what I'm already doing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree that this was copy right infringement. I had changed a few things before adding it. When I was tagged I changed the wording further and added a more uptodate source for the Obesity mortality. Wondering if you could review.
Thanks-- Doc James ( talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with him removing the block notice, and am not sure why you were so keen to continuously restore it - nothing in policy that I'm aware of prevents a user removing the block notice. If it had been declined unblock requests, that would have been fair game - maybe this is what you were thinking of? In any case, I've removed that restriction, leaving the block in place Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I note the following reverts by him (I had no edits involved in this) [9] 20:25 21 Nov user summary "(Undid WP:Tagteam This material was added by consensus in talk. It will not be removed unless there is a consensus to do so in talk.) "
[10] 19:13 21 Nov "(Undid Undoing vandalism. Persist in this and I will seek to have you blocked.) "
[11] 18:52 21 Nov "(Undid THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN.) "
Which looks at first blush to be 3RR in 90 minutes, with rather ill-tempered comments (IIRC calling people "TAGTEAM" is unwise?)
Many thanks for looking at this! Collect ( talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Weihnachtsgrrl yule.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that botty bot, you were too swift, I think it's all tidy now. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin. I've also filed an ANI. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[12]. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
We have had a discussion (Paul and I) in this regard, which you did not attend. As per wikipedia's consensus, if you want to change information take it to talk, and gain consensus. Lest those edits (w/o consensus, and certainly w/o discussion) be construed as vandalism. Lihaas ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ COI}} tag from this article - the sole contributor, Talskiddy, has been making useful contributions since the beginning of 2005, and while he/she has Cornish connections I think its very unlikely that they would have waited this long to promote their own company. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Rklawton. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD ( talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hence, I think a warning to User:Grayghost01 is called for. All that original research should be skived from the article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've warned the user this evening because he's decided, after ACW talk page discussion just last week, to insert modern army rank abbreviations against pedia and MilHist project MOS. I consider this an only warning, since user experienced this measurement of consensus last week. If he continues to insert these modern abbreviations in ACW era articles, he needs to be blocked. BusterD ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment: out of idle curiosity after reading the WP:AN/I item regarding User:Angels Live, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk-page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean ( talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw you deleted the article about Panic at the Disco's forthcoming live album, called Live in Chicago, and I have no idea why you did that. It's scheduled to be released Dec 8, and there's plenty of sources to verify that. If there was a problem with the article I'd written, I'd like to know what made it worthy of being deleted so that I can fix it. Thanks! PATDalbum ( talk) 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, wondered if you could look at Marchetti99 ( talk · contribs) for an indef block as a sock of JeanLatore. I submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore, and the account replied with this. Normally I wait for checkuser to confirm, but vandalism, however mild, in article space crosses the line for me. Thanks, Darkspots ( talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen! You placed a notability tag on the article Egged Ta'avura earlier today, after someone tried to speedy it for the 2nd time. I have added a bunch of factoids and sources, which don't (yet) amount to a decent article, but at least IMO clearly assert the subject's notability (received significant coverage in various Israeli publications). These sources are just based on the first 2 pages of a simple Google search on the company, which by the way returns 7620 hits (significant for a Hebrew topic). Therefore, while the article hasn't improved much in terms of content, I believe that by now it clearly displays notability, and will remove the tag if you don't object. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, any chance you might consider running for ArbCom? I think you'd be a fine choice to serve on the Committee. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: "This band could likely meet WP:MUSIC if the coverage and radio play were reliably and thoroughly cited. However, with no charting and no notable distribution, the bare assertions of coverage were not enough to sway editors into keeping this article." .. are you saying that if the citations are made more thorough then the article can be re-instated? If so, that's something I can do (I'm just not 100% sure how to do this..?) but how do I edit the article now it's deleted? And can I reinstate it once the citations are done, or does someone else do this (do I have to submit it for review)? kiden ( talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Your ArbCom candidacy is being discussed here. This is a courtesy note. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on ( talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, I was wonder if you wouldn't mind helping me navigate some type of dispute resolution with a user over a content dispute? Specifically User:Factchecker atyourservice and the article Sarah Palin. I started a RFC and have used the talk page. I really don't want to be blocked over this and would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance. -- Tom 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Tom, there is rarely a need to remove reliably sourced content from a lengthy BLP about a widely noted politician, so long as the content has to do with politics or governance (rather than personal life and family). If you think the content spins up too much PoV, it's more helpful to find another reliable source which answers this. User:Factchecker atyourservice is flirting with edit warring, but given he's restoring sourced content, taken altogether, I don't think his behaviour is quite warnable, though his manner can be a bit edgy. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been. Please go there and agree to the new edit. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant to remove that when I userfied the page, thanks for noticing... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm Sam.I'm trying to create an article about Jesus Youth. Can you help me..Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantony ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
I have posted two articles on Wikipedia and they both have been deleted.
I think it is a mistake. And here are the reason why :
First article about the Mañana (label) was considered as non encyclopedic (A7) but as the tango is one of the most important musical genre of the 20th century and it still concerns hundred of thousands people worldwide, I thought it was useful for everyone to have a page in Wikipedia presenting the most important tango producing company. Besides, this label is producing legendary musicians like : Gustavo Beytelmann which was Astor Piazzolla sidemen during many years. Juan Jose Mosalini which is the only university bandoneon teacher in the World (in Rotterdam). And many more. It is totally unfair to consider that the major tango label in the world should not be in an encyclopedia whereas you can find a page for each record of some celebrity musicians. Knowledge is for everyone, not only for the consumer masses ! Tango concerns a few people but everywhere around the world !
Second article abour the musician Eduardo Makaroff was considered as a copyright violation (G12), which is false also because the text from which the article was inspired was given to me directly by Eduardo Makaroff himself. The text was not under any copyright. And as I used it for the article I adapted it in order to delete all parts that were compliment and not purely factual. Eduardo Makaroff is a member and founder of the band Gotan Project which sell millions of records around the world. I really think he should be presented in Wikipedia.
Please can you reconsider the deletion or at least give an answer to my message.
Edouard
PS : I just want to get involved and participate.
Hello Gwen,
Yes I've read this page. And I decided to write to you after that. Both arguments "non-encyclopedic" and "copyright violation" are wrong to me. Do you think there is any hope to put these articles back online ? Creation in tango today is what I know best, and this the way I can bring my little contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway thank you for answering me. All the best. Edouard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manana2000 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you already forgotten the last time we had this conversation? PaulB and myself had a debate a discussion. Read the talk page and discuss your changes. If and when there is agreement to change, THEN we can change it. The two of us did discuss and amongst others there was not other discussion. If you continue to disregard the ability to discuss and talk then don't change it.
ps- Don't reply to my talk page b/c it's pointless. Take it to the talk page. Lihaas ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Right after his block ended(and right after he logged back into WP(He has periods of being inactive for about a few days)), he reverted all of my, and Grz's courtesy blanks of the IP users' talk pages, with the edit summery of reverting vandalism. Before that, he removed our comments on his page with edit summaries suggesting they are personal attacks, even though they aren't, and lastly, he removed your block notice with the edit summery of: removing attempt at censorship.
This user clearly does not understand our policies.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Does that include the AN/I thread?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Morning. I've posted the General Questions list to your Questions for the Candidate page. You'll want to answer those when you get a chance. The individual questions already posted were moved to the bottom section, which matches the format of the other candidate's questions pages. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do to assist you, and - again - Good Luck! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, what do you make of User:Calleaa? I'm thinking the first edit and second edit were by two different individuals with access to the same account... Ϣere Spiel Chequers 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I like your wording here. But I confess I'm still unconfortable with the undue weight given to Heim Shepard's thoughts at the leading. Note, contary to what have been said or perceived, I had never claimed that that information should be removed because it was "unsourced". My problem is really with the weight it's given. -- Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
And this was really good. -- Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As you were typing the above, I was leaving warnings for both of you to stop edit warring over those two articles. From here on, please deal with it on the article talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to discover that the content dispute had been previously settled, and the addition was already known to be non-RS. With the core of the ANI dismissed, could you possibly look at the TalkPage vandalism, unpleasant personal labelling and outright attacks on other editors going on? PR talk 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I hate to ask you to be an arbitrator on an issue, but User:Hoponpop69 seems to have taken it upon himself to nominate a lot of long-standing record labels as non-noteworthy (see Special:Contributions/Hoponpop69). While I cannot speak for other articles or their creators/contributors, it seems that this user has a personal agenda with the deletion of smaller, yet significant punk-rock/alternative music labels. A review of his user talk page will show that he has a history of personal attacks, multiple complaints of erroneously nominating articles for deletion, as well as several of his own articles nominated for deletion. I feel that his intent for nominating articles for deletion may be a knee-jerk response to his own articles being nominated for deletion.
What sparked me to this was his nomination of the article I started about Eugene Records. If that sounds familiar, we discussed its viability as a Wikipedia article back in July of 2008 and it seemed to be decided that it was appropriate to rework. I've reworked it, included third party references (though it could use more) and I feel that it fits quite well within Wikipedia's standards. The label is 13 years old (as of this writing), published music from multiple nationally touring bands, has appeared in publications from sources in the same field (akin to trade journals), and has fulfilled a niche market in Central Kentucky, so I believe it meets requirements as far as notability.
All I'm asking of you, as an Administrator, is some intervention. I think that Hoponpop69 has a vendetta about one or more of his articles being deleted and wants to make it a juvenile situation of "if he can't play, no one can". Sorry to write such a long entry, but it's a situation that I hope to convey clearly and have resolved in a timely and courteous matter. I don't know what you would do in this situation, but I stand by your call on this. Thank you. - Team4Technologies ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please revert the edit you just made to my talk page. After having your questionable block overturned, you've immediately reverted his edit. This is extremely questionable in the circumstances. Rebecca ( talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why the deletions? What's going on?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yay you went for it!:) Sticky Parkin 02:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the block of NWA.Rep ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last week, and have some concerns that I thought best to bring to your talk page.
The incident relates to events of Nov 21 2008:
There is no question that NWA.Rep had issues as an editor. The discussion immediately after on ANI covers disruption, possible community ban, and so on. But reading the case it seems he was potentially open to following communal norms given help or mentoring. he had not been blocked for a long time, and in this instance at least, he had switched to seeking dispute resolution when warned, drew imperfect conclusions from policy but appeared to be trying (poorly) to follow it, and so on. His last prior blocks were in June 2007 (another account had block logs but these were from 2006-07 or were tagged as impersonation usage by known vandals).
The concerns I have are about the decision to block, the terms and duration of that action, and a guideline used to explain the latter:
Can you review these and let me know if in hindsight you feel that the user was handled well? My focus is not so much "blame", but more 1/ if there were issues then I'd like to make sure others aren't similarly affected in future, and 2/ while NWA may have had issues, I'd like not to see a user blocked or "blackened" if they had not really merited it in their actions.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above section is devoted to you, and considering the accusations of impropriety and disregard of policy directed at yourself I am rather surprised that the ip neglected to advise you that your actions were being commented upon... I shall be raising just that point, but otherwise am content for you to respond (or not) as you choose - that is, I am not concerned to investigate further as I doubt there is any substance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen.
Did you read my comment in talk page of Danny Choo before speedy deleting it? I restored the article after seeking advice from two admins: my Admin coach Revolving Bugbear, and the previously deleting admin, Stifle, who gave me permission to restore the article on his talk page archived here.
In summary, I was advised by Revolving Bugbear that "if your article is substantially different from the deleted version / addresses the reasons for deletion, you can simply recreate and it's not eligible for CSD-G4". Stifle acknowledged that he had overlooked significant changes and gave me his blessing to restore the page. Do you disagree with his assessment? DOSGuy ( talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, You've deleted the Yevgueni article I created - don't worry, I have read your guide for people whose articles have been deleted and I can understand why you did it. I'd like to ask you if you can deliver me the text that was already written so that I can try to make it harder, better, faster and stronger. Cheers, Jellevc ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the attack on your userpages here, I've added a small list to the discussion you noted in the above thread.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)`
I studied the edits which you blocked Rebecca for, and I believe that she is working to actually help the article as she has a history with these types of articles, and improves them very well. So I unblocked her.
I did let her know however that she is not entitled to three reverts a day just because she didn't break it. I'll also let you know that templating regular users is not very nice; she's been here nearly five years now and you can talk to her specifically about issues. I don't wish to be rude about it, but if you're going to plop a template to shush up a dispute instead of engaging with unique thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with it. All disputes are specialized and need our utmost attention to solve. Mike H. Fierce! 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole "3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement" is both true and important for people engaged in edit-warring to recognize. On the other hand, it was a pretty simple back and forth slow edit war. Another warning, or an attempt to engage Rebecca on her talkpage, may have been better than blocking a fellow admin and former arbitrator. Avruch T 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the block was horrible, or violated any policy, etc. etc. I didn't say that admins and arbitrators should be immune to blocks. All I said, and all I mean to say, is that if I were an admin and in Gwen's position trying to stop an edit war on those articles I would have handled it differently. Maybe you guys have a totally different view of the world, but if someone involved in an edit war has been here 5 years and worked on ArbCom that would give me pause prior to issuing a block. I would think to myself, is there something I don't know? Is there a history here? And then I would ask, and I probably wouldn't link to the edit warring policy or use a stop sign. People who have been here a long time often get upset at being treated like they're just ignorant - so while DTTR isn't a policy, its good advice when trying to rein in someone who is as familiar with policy as you are, and it is the same principle when it comes to writing a warning. Gwen's point of view obviously varies, and she's free to disagree. Just thought I'd chime in with mine, since I happened to see the block/unblock. Nothing much more to say for me. Avruch T 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I kindly request that you undo your protection of Murder of Amanda Milan, considering that you are very clearly not an unbiased person in this matter (you wrote the version being protected to, and you have a stated issue with me). Being unable to use your administrative buttons according to policy is hardly a good sign in an arbitration committee candidate. Rebecca ( talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, I would like to ask for your assistance on a matter I am almost sure you will find of interest. In :
The Writer's Handbook 2007 published by MACMILLAN ISBN 1-4050-4937-5 ISBN 978-1-4050-4937-5
on page 512, in a chapter on the subject of Libel, entitled "The Words Complained Of ..." is the following passage. ( Taken from the end of line 7 onwards. )
Some errors pass into mythology. A British police officer called Morton collected damages on no less than three occasions from: W. H. Allen, Secker & Warburg, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, for the repetition of the canard that he was responsible for the shooting in cold blood of Abram Stern the head of the Stern Gang.
In the Wikipedia article "Lehi (group)" in the second paragraph of the section "Evolution and tactics of the organization" occurs the following sentence.
In 1942, Stern, after he was arrested, was killed by Inspector Geoffrey Morton of the CID.[14]
It is clear to me that the sentence in the article needs to be altered considerably but I am not sure how. Its removal would leave a hole in the narrative but I do not know the true facts nor do I know a source to verify them.
I am considering wether to take action myself but in a matter of such gravity I would prefer to place the matter in the hands of some one with higher authority, preferably with legal experience.
Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Best wishes,
Sesquihypercerebral ( talk) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, Perhaps you are under the misaprehention that The Writer's Handbook is one of those spurious style and/or grammer guides written by someone who barely knows what they are talking about, that are the bane of the lives of those of us seeking sound advice on those subjects; it is not. It is a major reference work listing contact details for all the major publishing houses in the english speeking world, together with more minor publishing houses with refernce to particular specialities. It covers a number of topics of interest to the would-be author including, in particular, libel. The section on libel is written by David Hooper, a respected media lawyer, a senior partner of a prominent London firm of solicitors, and a published author on the subject. The index of the book does not have an entry for Cock Robin.
You state boldly that this is not a legal worry. Are you qualified to do so? If not, perhaps you would be kind enough to pass on my concerns to someone who is.
Best wishes again,
Sesquihypercerebral ( talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My answer may have been too short (I was kinda busy). I didn't say The Writer's Handbook was a shoddy source about the libel actions, but that it couldn't be taken for a source as to who killed Stern. As to what I said about legal worries, I was speaking from an outlook on editorial and sourcing policy ("take it to the article talk page"), WP:V, but I guess not clearly enough: If Sesquihypercerebral thinks the article content exposes Wikipedia under civil law somewhere, contact should be made directly with the WikiMedia Foundation. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Heidi Wyss, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. لenna vecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gormglaith (novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Thank you. لenna vecia 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll chalk that up to too much rum in my mojito. Best of luck! Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Y'all, I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom. In looking over the first flurries of input, along with heedfully reading user talk pages for hours (and even a few threads about my candidacy elsewhere on the Internet), I've been thoroughly swayed into thinking my earlier thoughts held the pith. I'm not sorry I got nudged into running though. I enjoyed answering the candidate questions and have gained many insights. Please understand, it will be far more helpful for me to carry on doing what I already do, without further ado. Taken altogether, I'm kinda happy about this :) Thanks! Each and every one of you have my best wishes. Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you withdrew before I got a chance to vote! I might have supported you. But anyway, thanks for running, and keep up the good work :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do keep deleating IBeatYou you are not giving any time to provide a notabile article the final time it wasn't even up for speddy deleation. hda3ku ( talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand your decision, but I went looking to vote for you and a couple of others, and you weren't there. Other than the ones a voted for, I don't see anyone making a change to the Arbcom. You would have done a great job. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for your kind words and for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as a note, I will be citing past diffs that may be common knowledge to those who are versed in this matter, but as to why I'm citing them, it is for the benefit of anyone who is not versed in it)
Hello Gwen, I would like some input from you on this matter, as you have previously dealt with this admin/editor. During a discussion, as you well know this editor has strayed into personal attacks, starting with the aforementioned edit. I brought forwards that this was a content dispute, and that edit warring was not the answer. She responded that I brought up a random lecture. In my opinion, the note that she was edit warring and that that was not a good course of action for the future, was not random, as it was taking place in the article who's discussion page this discussion was now taking place on.
As per this edit by Jehochman, it is my understanding that accusing editors of making attacks, or any kind of vandalism without backing it up is a personal attack.
Continuing on, here, the user claims I am making personal attacks, and completely disregards my note about the content. Either the editor did not bother to read my sentence, or some other reason I cannot fathom. As a note, you shall see my comment about content as the last sentence in my post above the diff noted above. Here [28], I tell her to cite her accusations, as, as noted by Jehochman, accusing someone without evidence could be considered a personal attack. Here, she tells me I've apparently ceased the personal attacks, even though, throughout the entire conversation, she has yet to once cite a diff.
Here I ask her to either strike through her own accusation, or cite it. She evades again, refusing to communicate].
My final statement in the matter. If she refuses to abide by policy, this is cause for concern, and therefore, I shall be taking it to AN/I.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 10:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame really, that was a good site with lots of production and reception information for many television series. Could you please resurrect the page and rename it to a sandbox of mine, e.g. User:Cornucopia/BuddyTV? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
What do you think would happen if I ran for adminship two months from now?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
There was this page on a reasonably famous Indian singer(Soham Chakraborty which you deleted because you thought was not famous?). Is it possible for you to put it back up and I will update it and ensure it is upto Wiki standards then.
Thanks for your patience.
Niranjan
Randhirreddy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Gwen, as noted above, I'm having some trouble. Awhile back.. say.. last night, I nominated an article for deletion per an AfD. Since then, I have been constantly bugged about my nomination by the editor who created the article. Per the style of editing in the article, and by the fact that this creator is the only contributor, I would believe it is a safe assumption that the editor is the subject of the article(read: there is a sentence in the article which reads, later, I went on to star in (some odd number) of movies). But back to the point, she so far stated that she is an established editor, for what reason, I do not know why, as she has shown no signs what-so-ever of any knowledge of policy or the way things work around here. She also does not link her signature to her talk page. I'm getting sick of being bugged by her, and every time, I have told her that if she feels like arguing for the article, to take it to the AfD page. Can I have some help here?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry if this I'm burdening you by asking this again, but I posted a question about the Yevgueni article here a few days ago but it appears to be gone. Am I looking in the wrong place, did I break any rules asking about it here or did you simply delete it? Anyway, I was asking if it was possible to deliver to me the deleted Yevgueni article, so that I can try to upgrade it. I'm watching this page for any updates, I hope I don't miss your response. It would be mighty friendly if you could send me a message or something with your answer. Cheers, Jelle
Hi Gwen Gale, I noticed you have closed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky earlier this year. I'm turning to you just to check how to proceed with this. The thing is that the deletion request originally opened by
User:Renata3 was not related only to the root article but a collection of articles created by a hoax and sock-puppet master
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. Now, the thing is that sure, even though if the anarchist singer
Tõnu Trubetsky and his band
Vennaskond may be notable for Wikipedia purposes, all the rest of the articles in the deletion case, like the royal family tree that
User:Bloomfield has created for Tõnu Trubetsky is just too far out. if you check the article created by the guy:
Trubetskoy, according to the article that provides no sources whatsoever, the family dates back to the Grand Duke of Lithuania
Gediminas. Just that the real family tree of Gediminas is available in well referencesd article
Palemonids. Te most amazing hoax Bloomfield has created on wikipedia that has been spotted so far was probably
Principality of Estland.
So my question is, can we just open up the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky again? Since it was missed that the majority of the articles listed there may be complete hoaxes, and at best are WP:OR for sure since there are no any sources provided whatsoever. Please advise. thanks!--
Termer (
talk)
01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The most helpful way I can think of to get started on dealing with this is to start slapping these tags on the articles as you see fit:
Moreover you can remove/revert without further ado, any edit made by one of the confirmed socks listed on the CU pages you cited above. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, You've got my curiosity when you said:
This is interesting to hear the non-involved perspective and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that if you have the time. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Your role as “uninvolved informal mediator” appears to be once again required. You had warned Ghost about tendentious editing and personal attacks and the pattern seems to be continuing, especially the former. Although he is confining his efforts to the discussion pages, he is creating, in my opinion, an atmosphere in which productive discussion is no longer possible. Ghost’s contributions to Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861#Proposal -- Renaming of Article seem to be totally off topic and he has expanded the front with his contributions at Talk:Confederate States of America#POV's on Secession. Any assistance you can provide, either as informal mediator or administrator, would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the article title should be changed within a few days if either a reliable source (this is straightforward) or more than a consensus of one doesn't show up. The title as it stands strays enough from policy that I'm willing to implement that change if 2 or 3 experienced editors can agree on a new title.
Although I must say there are long-standing worries with the CSA article, as we've both said, what you're citing isn't linked with those worries since it's not a sourcing dispute, it's beyond the bounds of WP:OR, there's no meaningful sourcing at all. Without sources, there's nothing to mediate, unsourced content can be removed by anyone so long as it's in good faith and not pointy: This is a behaviour problem. I've already warned Ghost about OR (his synthesis of content from sources in the train article is also OR), so I guess he's edging very close to a block. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A Renaissance Man for our time? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I've been looking at other dip/condiment articles on Wiki, and before introducing this to the rather rowdy Hummus Talk page, I wanted to get your opinion on it.
Most of the other condiment articles stick to a basic outline of what the food is, how its made and a historical background. A few dive into short basic descriptions of modern uses in various nations or regions, but not one mentions any political disagreements or other similar issues which have been included in Hummus since day 1. My thought is, what about re-writing Hummus and modeling it off of other condiment/dips? examples: Guacamole, Fondue, Salsa (sauce)
Anyhow, just trying to come up with alternative ideas for a "fresh start".... -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
An article you have been involved with, Commerce revision is at AfD. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks - Unpopular Opinion ( talk · contribs) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You have written about
Pascale Casanova : "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion".
You should have asked (me or anyone else) for these indications before the deletion.
Please, think about it next time.
Katalina Raspe (
talk)
00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia in general and I didn't quite know who else to ask. If you think I should look elsewhere for an answer, please tell me so.
I was wondering how far back article editing histories go? When I scroll to the earliest available edit of, say, the
Beatles article, the furthest I can go is February 2002, when there was already quite an extensive article. I suppose that wasn't the very first draft.
So I'm wondering, is there a limit to how long or how many edits are stored? To me it would be a huge downer to find out that Wikipedia was automatically deleting all edits beyond a certain criterium, from a historical point of view.
Cheers,
Jellevc (
talk)
00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:Page_history#.5Bedit.5D_Wikipedia-specific_help and WP:Usemod_article_histories. Wikipedia uses an SQL relational database management system to store edit histories and there is no limit to how long they're stored. Following the terms of the GFDL, they must be kept "forever." Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted this disambiguation page based on a speedy tag placed by an IP. I was just wondering what rationale they provided for the speedy? I'm guessing that both of the stations were redlinked, but they both have incoming links and licensed radio stations have generally been held to be notable. Not that
it's reason enough on its own, but there are probably two thousand or so of these call sign disambiguation pages, and many of them have only one or no blue links. However, all the red links are gradually getting filled in - the Radio Stations project is a very active one.
Would you be averse to restoring the page?
Mlaffs (
talk)
15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I'm sorry that my stalker decided to help out your stalker. Unfortunately I can't control him and hsi JIDF friends ;-)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Glen, my watchlist just pinged to tell me Khmer Karaoke was speedied as G11 and then deleted by you recently. Any chance I can get you to reconsider that decision? It was a very poor article, a very short article, an unreferenced article but not an inappropriate article for the encyclopaedia. There was no advertising language or spam in the article. In fact, I'm puzzled as to what you thought it might be advertising? The author's talk page has also been tagged with a speedy-delete-due-to-spam template - but there were no links in the article at all. This is the work of a new Cambodian contributor who needs some help learning how to write for Wikipedia. I came across the article a few days a go, made a few small edits and stuck it on my watchlist. I planned to come back later and work on it. Cheers, Paxse ( talk) 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, another editor is redirecting the user and user talk pages for "The Witch" to you on the presumption that these usernames belong to you. The editor has complained when I've undone the changes (which I considered low level vandalism, as it is messing with another user's personal page) so I'll leave it to you to revert the change if you are uncomfortable with it. Hope this makes sense. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Image:Vase1r_800.jpg, Image:Vase2r 800.jpg, and Image:Vase3r_800.jpg, judging from WP:MCQ these images were requested for deletion because the author wants to revoke the CC license. They are useful and encyclopedic and I don't think that the deletion request should have been entertained. What do you think? Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's true he can't revoke the CC licences. As for the images themselves, my thinking was only, they're his vases, they were his scans, they weren't being used in the main space, only on his user page along with one in my talk archive (from when I was helping him get his user account going again). He wasn't happy, was the only author and asked for them to be deleted.
I was going to wait a day or two and let him know I'd restore them if he wanted. I also planned on restoring them if anyone said straightforwardly, "please restore them." So, any thoughts will be helpful. Should I put them back now? Should we wait and see if he asks? I'm neutral and will be happy to do either. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You speedied it as a test page, and I do not see why. It was tagged as " Personal essay, original research, ", which is not a reason for speedy. Agreed it's polemical and not very unencyclopedic, but it's more than a test page. I do know somewhat about the subject, & I think much of the material can be referenced; I do not think any of it is actually OR--it has all been said and disputed for hundreds of years from various Jewish, Christian, and rationalist perspectives. I am not sure whether or not it can in its present form be salvaged, because the article seems to confuse these different perspectives,but the material even as it stands is not patently absurd or defamatory. It is quite possible that it duplicates in an unsophisticated way what is already in Wikipedia. The section Talmud#Attacks on the Talmud is of course a better approach to this material, but the specific points attacked in various contexts could be more specifically elaborated than in that article, though they may be covered here elsewhere in a scattered manner (eg Women in Judaism, etc. etc. ) . I suggest you restore the article and I will remove the parts just defending the article which should have been only on the talk p. i am reluctant to take a poor quality article to deletion review,as I prefer to sponsor only better things than this--but it is nonetheless not a speedy. I'll look here for a reply. DGG ( talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting my well research articles!-- Standforder ( talk) 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
hello Gwen - im an accomplished filmmaker living and working in LA / my production company DOOM Incorporated is unique in that it is a boutique film production company specializing in innovative projects --- many people have been inquiring so i wrote a simple Wiki page --- my company is notable for the following - has produced many award winning (i.e. MTV, MTV Europe, MTV Brazil, FUSE TV, etc) programs; it is listed on the professional database site IMDB for its feature film and video production work, etc. I think having its listing in Wiki is a very helpful thing for readers --- in just the last day several folks in the industry have emailed saying it is helpful.... i noticed a "slated for deletion" tag but im not sure what to do ---- should i add links to all the artists, companies, clients, projects, that ive listed in the article. I'm not very skilled at all these postings, and it is a simple description that says what it is, so please dont delete it --- pls just let me know specifically what u wish i should add / change to make it conform if necessary --- thank u for your diligence and expertise in helping. kind regards, thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doominc ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the process of blocking someone from editing, other than just leaving a pleasant note that the person just erases by blanking his talk page. The user in question is User talk:Watermelon_Eet_Choo_Weets. Every warning he gets is subsequently erased. I listed them all together on his talk page, and had planned on speaking to an admin, but he's already blanked it again. Could you help in this matter? Thanks, The27thmaine ( talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Appreciative of the great work you guys are doing at Wikipedia.
As per the article I posted, I meant it not for promotion of a personality of sort and I know the article was speedily requested for deletion based on the reference to University of Miami.
It is already deleted now and I want you to re-consider helping out on what to remove and add. One thing is for sure, the personality focused is bringing up some worthwhile thing in Nigeria and Africa that is undaunting.
I'm posting this to MiamiDolphins3 too.
Thanks.
Dbeloved ( talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. How do i regain my userpage:Ожиданиесчастья? I have not been using my userpage in a long time, but i would like to use it again so i was wondering how can i get it back? Thanks. 71.121.81.9 ( talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If an administrator has a strong point of view on a topic, or fierce emotional reaction to certain facts about a topic, do you think that said person should refrain from acting on that article, and instead restrict herself to topics on which she can maintain a neutral point of view? Chrisrus ( talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why the ConnectiCon page keeps getting deleted when pages for other organizations and groups such as ConnectiCon are listed here on Wikipedia. Examples being, Otakon, AnimeBoston, AnimeNEXT, PAX. What information is not being included to verify that ConnectiCon is a valid organization of note. With a membership of 6,000 individuals, 6 years of history, and being the first convention to focus on online comics and related genres and the devotion of thousands who saved the event from bankruptcy through an online fundraiser in 2005, by raising ~$35,000 in less than 10 days. The event is also cross referenced on a number of other wikipedia articles: Duck Duck Goose, GUComics, Clone Manga, Connecticut Convention Center, GeekKnights, Human Chess, and a Convention listing page, ConnectiCon ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I did, and I still don't understand, did I just fail to include enough information about the organization? ConnectiCon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
So basically, I just need to find clips our of TV coverage, and newspaper articles to link to the page as sources? I'm fairly certain that I can see the topic neutrally, I created this account so that I could monitor the page for facts, as some of the fans of the event like to inflate numbers, and whatnot, whereas I have all of the documented, factual information available to me. The event is notable, within the community of online comic artists and fandom at large, otherwise the event wouldn't have grown from 800 members to over 6,000 members in 6 years time. ConnectiCon ( talk) 18:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be great, I may have jumped the gun updating the page without having properly fleshed the article out, there is a lot more information that I was going to include on the page, but the editing system is tricky to figure out, but I guess I'll get the hang of it and post a full, finished product next time. I'm just hoping it doesn't get deleted on account that I am "too close" to the source, the article I created was more objective that the previous two articles which were posted by others, and then later (and quickly) deleted, before I could edit them for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnectiCon ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If you were to undo my last undo of your undo of my action, who would be "edit warring", me, you, or the both of us? Chrisrus ( talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh! :) -- Kbdank71 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
suono libero. it was released in 2008. i don't know how you can disregard this fact. here is a track listing: [1] thanks. 156.56.194.201 ( talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you reached any decisions about what to recite with those jucyfruits in your mouth? I should think Tennyson. ;) -- Fullobeans ( talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page [32]. Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. The possibility of getting into an edit war on my own talk page seems absurd. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am really getting tired of reverts with accusations like this [34] and unspecified and false accusations like this [35]. Why should I have to put up with accusations of vandalism from an editor who knows better? Why should I have to come to an administrator every time I want to make an edit? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I only have a few minutes now, but I want to say that I did not deny notability. The article does not establish notability. I put the notability template on the article hoping that sources for notability would be provided. I do not think that an extraordinary request. There was also a paragraph I removed. It was unsourced and made extraordinary claims about Sands views. Verifiable secondary sources should be supplied. I did search, but could not find support. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason that information on safer sex practices should not be included on the Lesbian Sexual Practices page? I included this information in the HIV section I posted because I feel it is rather important. Lesadv ( talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
where can I get a list of administrators? Oren.tal ( talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking this block does have its point, content issue aside. I would suggest you take an active role in mediation on the page which instigated the conflict as I have concerns towards some mainstream content that seems to be rejected for various concerns that I can't seem to follow. This might be a good chance to help nudge editors to discuss issues properly and resolve the issue. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't block Oren.tal for miscounting and I've never been near those articles. Dumping 19 (or 9) citations into an info box is too pointy, though. I mostly blocked him for edit warring and lots of badgering incivility. As I said on his talk page, if he acknowledges the reasons for the block and says he'll settle down, I'll be happy to unblock. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
One editor has sought to introduce material (all from mid-October) into the article which was removed weeks ago -- including "surmise" about Joe being an "illegal plumber" etc. I deleted the contentious material, and was charged by him with "vandalism" (this is BLP, where content disputes should be handled conservatively). His reaction was to form a RfC and then to solicit more than a dozen of his friends to enter in (including doing reverts) - which I think might run afoul of the spirit of WP:CANVASS. [36] where he avoids notifying any of the other editors on the article. I am probably too angry at the gameplaying I have seen (one editor already wrote on another page about me "There are at least a dozen editors that should know about a recent Administrative notice board request. Manic Brit, Anarchangel,Factchecker, LLLL, victorc, just to name a few. The problem is to invite fellow Witnesses for the Prosecution without seeming to be vindictive....or wait to play a better hand. Just thought Id drop you a line to say hello. Feel free to delete. This particular hand seems weak." Among the milder "collusion" posts <g>. In any case, thanks for allowing a minor vent. If this indeed rises to a level where admins should be formally told, tell me. I just do not like all my good faith edits labelled "vandalism." Thanks! Collect ( talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please semi for duration of block. thanks Enigma message 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[37] mooch ass grassy ass! And Dan K. Shane... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I am referring to you regarding
Fun Dial and
Fun Broker pages. Surprisingly, you have ranked them as an advertisements.
I read your short exaplanations on why and when you decide to mark articles as an advertisements.
I know that you are working hard on keeping and improving Wikipedia content.
As you can understand, I just don't agree with your decision.
But this is your responsibility and your decision - I have a lot of respect to all work that have been already invested into Wikipedia project and really hope that the project will continue to grow and succeed.
My aim was to contribute something important to the world, that I was part of this during last 8 years - I'm talking about personilized ringback tone services. May be my try was not so successfull. I will not ask you to restore the pages, but please give me back sources, that I've worked on them and (unfortunately) never backed up on my PC.
In addition, once you decide to go and delete such type of articles, then why to do this partially?
Example - the name for personalized ringback tone services, which was choosen by several companies sounds as "Colored Ringback Tones" (see
CRBT), while these are still fully commerical systems provided by business companies (such as Huawei, WiderThan, etc.). There is no difference between CRBT service and Fun Dial - just an alternative name for the service. I don't see current decisions as politically correct ones - to have one-sided opinion representation and approach for the personalized ringback tones technology. I feel that decisions were made based mostly on the names, not on the content of the articles.
Moreover - I do think that term "Fun Dial" is better, due to it does not confuse readers with the normal ITU tones (see article about
ITU). "Colored Ringback Tone" is really marketing name, selected to promote the service...
My aim were to step-by-step expand content of the articles, hopefuilly with the help of other contributors, in order to show part of the telecommunication world with ringback tone (RBT) services, beginning from the history of RBT and continuing to high-end of the video RBT, currently developing in the world...
About me - in despite from the expected, I'm not a marketing person.
I would like to sorry for my poor English.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.ashkinazi ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Frank! Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, I was reading up on Legoland. Alexander, please have a look at this page if you haven't yet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! What a difference a day and a few references make. Cheers. -- Digital Mischief 10:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, this page had only just begun, and I'd tagged it for not having immediate removal. The DipWiki is the most prominent site for Diplomacy information! What is the point of adding the dont delete tag if we dont have time to fill in the rest of the article? The site has already been publicized routinely in Diplomacy World, the leading online publication regarding Diplomacy.
What is wrong with you? Is putting up an article of a respectable Psychologist who put forward a theory against Multiple realizability Blatant advertising? Do you suspect that I am Larry Shapiro. You are a funny man. Why don't you Google Larry Shapiro and see what Blatant advertising there is. Gabr- el 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
They're a band I think have added a lot to my local music scene. They've been my favourite band for years and have been played on a lot of well-known podcasts. Why have you deleted the page? I was adding in all the things you asked for (dates and times, references for all the information I used (some where not "reliable" as in they were sites giving their opinion but is the BBC not a reliable source?) Can you re-consider? I worked hard on this and I'm trying to comply with the wikipedia guidelines you gave me. I really think they deserve a page.
I just saw onw now about repeated removal. I didn't see that one before. I was removing it because I was adding in the things you asked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U1234u ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
ok. U1234u ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what was wrong with the references I used or the page I made. I tried to be factual and give a history of the band's work so far. The resources I quoted are where I got the information. How will I know if it meets your criteria if you put it in my userspace? U1234u ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
sorry I was just making space on your talk page didn't think you'd want this bit still here. That's why I deleted it. Sorry, I see you reverted it. That's my OCD, trying to make things neat. U1234u ( talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You said you would put my article in my user area. Any chance you'll be doing that sometime soon? Thanks U1234u ( talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (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. |
Hey Gwen,
I set up a page for Another Sky Press in the USA ( http://www.anothersky.org/).
For your own reference, you can check out: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/?title=Another_Sky_Press
So, fair enough - I decided to see if we could sort out some importance and/or significance, and got this response from Kristopher Young, who heads-up Another Sky:
"I've been researching this some. The issue noted by the mod is 'notability'. Which, on the corresponding detail page seems to require 'reliable secondary sources'.
"Which translates, I think, to the article by the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/NSG0IP23KS1.DTL&hw=another+sky+press&sn=004&sc=775
"And perhaps a few others from Dogmatika, maybe even referencing Click book club on Chuck Palahniuk's site."
Do you think we could reconsider the page? Cherrs for considering! Shareradar ( talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, Can you help me with a very small thing, please. The Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier) page was created by Les Woodland and revised by me. It should be moved to Augustin Trébuchon but the move function will not work. I think that he is, and probably always will be, the only Augustin Trébuchon that is notable. Can you fix it and/or tell me if what I should have done. Thanks. Autodidactyl ( talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC). ps. This is still the best user talk page on Wiki, Reithian in its education and entertainment values, and a must for any watch-list.
Based on our prior interaction, I had serious reservations that you had the temperament to make it as an admin. It seems I owe you an apology. Keep up the good work. Ronnotel ( talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I'm involved in a sourcing disagreement going on at Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (see [3]). I am holding a photo-copy of the article in question in my hand. The question ( [4]) here of doubt is extremely similar in scope and circumstances to [5]. In both cases there is a physical document (the first case a printout, this case a photocopy) that is being, to my mind, unreasonably disputed. Perhaps this is a massive coincidence (in which case my sincere apologies), but my evaluation of the patterns are that these two editors are mimicking each other in way that seems unnecessary. Given that I really do edit wikipedia in what I had always thought was good faith (and I respect and believe you that my faith has been weak or outright failed at times), what should I do? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Though I did use my education once or twice in discussions, I was properly chastised for it, and have not proffered it as evidence in any article discussion since, meaning in over 4 months. The Essjay controversy is a burning reminder to anyone who would misrepresent themselves inappropriately, and while I have the educational background of which i speak (though mostly via comparison, and not specificity), I won't be using it as a tool in discussions. No one is the smartest person in the room whilst editing in Wikipedia, and certainly not me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[6] TigerShark ( talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's get an outside view [7]. TigerShark ( talk) 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I am curious as to your speedy deletion of this article, care to elaborate? -- Jarrex ( talk) 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
yes "It's non-encyclopedic, it's a copyright violation, it's an advertisement (maybe even spam) or an attack page or other form of vandalism." I fail to see which guidelines it meets.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not feel as though I was taunting. I did read the article I still do not feel that it does not meet any guidelines. As for the music guidelines "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Bobby Reeves of Adema has been cited, as well as fullthrottleradio.com. There is also a source from a Portuguese soldier who plays them on their radio. I really do not see how it does not meet guidelines.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
About me? I am in no way related to this article. I live in Pennsylvania, these guys are from Colorado. I don't even know who they are. I cited exactly what guidelines it met, it says one of the following not more than one of the following.
-- Jarrex ( talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand the deletion. The source that is a website of the person the article is about. If permission is needed, I own the website and can give it. If the is not sufficient, I can delete the reference to the website.
Websrx ( talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Charles
I rewrote the everything.
Websrx ( talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'm now an involved editor in the argument on Talk:Murder of Matthew Shepard#Page move that used to be Matthew Shepard. There appears to be an effort to move LGBT related hate crime deaths to "Murders of" pages, for what reason I do not know but can only surmise. However, you have seen the edits and comments given by Lihaas ( talk · contribs) on the Lesbian article page, and he is responsible for suggesting the move at Shepard's page, as highlighted on the ANI thread.
There is no consensus to move these pages. I'm too emotionally involved to judge if moving them back to their original names, protecting them from editor moves until consensus can be reached is a good idea. I'm asking for your input, and ultimately, your moving them if you agree. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please move these articles back to Murder of... The guidelines for victims at WP:Notability (criminal acts) clearly states that victims are not notable in and of themselves. These articles were renamed to be about the crimes in convention with the policies established at Notability (criminal acts). There is no agenda here. This is the policy for all victims of all crimes regardless of race, age, sex, gender, sexual preference, or any other identifying factor. Further, discussions of moving are going on at other articles involving heterosexual victims as well. There is no attempt here to target LGBT people. I was simply going through cats related to crimes. You should also have read the move discussions on the articles as well. I asked first and discussed first before the move was made. Everyone seemed to be happy earlier. (P.S. I wasn't involved with the Matthew Shepherd article). Nrswanson ( talk) 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
and I resent "It's clearly a highly PoV try at dehumanization which is not at all supported by WP:Title. " - some of us became involved because of the mention at AN/I (where a number of people thought the move was fine) - are we also trying to dehumanise someone because we think the "murder of" title is correct? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:Notability (criminal acts) states: "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In these cases, none of these individuals were notable prior to their status as victims. As such, the articles can not and should not be biographies. They should be about the crime and the aftermath of such crimes which might have resulted in changes in legislation or other notable after effects. Since we don't do biographies of victims at wikipedia the article has to be entitled something else. That's policy. There is no attempt at "dehumanizing". Rather the intent is to remain encyclopedic and not become a place to memorialize. Nrswanson ( talk) 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am misreading it. Under it's current title I have grounds to nominate it for an AFD because murder victims are not notable. Not that I'm going to do that but I'm saying it to make a point. Nrswanson ( talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nrswanson, no, I don't think you're misreading it, I think there are sundry ways to read it and either way it's all too wonkish to get that far, which is why I struck out what I said. I wouldn't nominate it for AfD (as you knowingly hinted, WP:Point), although that aside, I agree with the spirit of what Moni3 posted, that it would be a wonderful way to see what happens (don't try this at home, or anywhere else, please, AfD is not the way). To say Matthew Shepherd isn't notable is highly mistaken, hence we have a flaw in either some editor's takes on WP:Notability (criminal acts), or in the policy itself (I agree spot on with everything you and the policy have to say about content by the way). I do think it's time to think about wonted biographies and crime victim biographies being different things, written under sometimes starkly different content policies as to notability and weight, smoothly and helpfully titled under their names (which takes us back to WP:Title). Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Y'all, I'm going to be gone for a few hours. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you are such a softie! – ukexpat ( talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the article I marked for speedy deletion. Is there anything I can do to help the process next time? Pwhitwor ( talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:-) Kinda confusing, really. Why would someone pretend to speak another language (and trusting MT to bluff it)? — Coren (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain in more detail why you declined the A7 speedy request for the above article. I know those edit summary boxes could sometimes do with being bigger. Thanks, -- JD554 ( talk) 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike persons deleting my work without at least giving me a chance to rework an article, make additions, etc., it shows a lack of etiquette on your part, which goes without saying. I hope you will think about this in the future. There are many of us trying to build Wikipedia by adding meaningful articles. It makes it difficult with people like yourself who do this kind of thoughtless editing! -- Robert ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)-- Robert ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale. As so frequently happens, I seem not to have gotten WP's processes to work for me. I initiated this [8], but it does not seem to have been filed any place. What did I do wrong? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I like the Celtic cross image you have at the top of this page. I have been working on the Celtic knot article, and may add that image.
Gwen, you just deleted a page I created entitled Business Model Innovation. I had put a Hang On notice and explained the reason why there appeared to be a copyright issue. The page you sited as the source of the copyright violation is a webage from the company owned by the authors of various publications cited in my article. As such, some of the wording is indeed similar given the sources are the same individuals. I attempted to go back and cite the webpage in the article's list of references but the deletion had already occured. Can you please advise me on how I can resurrect the article and demonstrate the author's willingness to release the content? I saw the GNU listing that must appear on the external source page and can have that reflected on that site in a matter of minutes. Would that suffice? if so, can you then resupply me with the article content? It took me a while to get all the tags and citations loaded correctly. Thanks for the help! Krbolen ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw you initially declined my A7 speedy of Christopher James DeRaps, but I'm confused as to how you then turned around a few seconds later and speedied it as G11. Mistake or did you see something that I didn't? -- Millbrooky ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing {{db-a3}} tags from all of these articles on Irish Baptist churches because they are redirects, so they are not expected to have content and anyway that criterion is only for articles. The last few I've looked at have been deleted by you. Why? Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the redirects. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No offense but I found that comment a bit suspect. One, I only reverted twice not three times so I am within bounds. Two, User:Queerudite had not commented at the relevent discussion on the article's talk page and had not even read it prior to making the move so it was a bad decision on his/her part. Three, you are an interested party in this discussion and I notice you didn't place a similar warning on User:Queerudite's talk page which seems biased if you were merely concerned about an edit war. That aside, please read this on naming convention on articles about murder victims Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. Nrswanson ( talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'? And what did the Article say? Morefight ( talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight by the way, i am starting to the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'. Morefight ( talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight
PLEASE CONTACT ME IN MY USER NAME TALK PAGE ( talk) OR IN YOUR PAGE AS SOON AS POSSBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Per this it is stated you are likely to run for the upcoming elections, you only have a couple of days left to decide. I think you would make a great arbitrator but can understand why you or anyone for that matter would want to decline. I left a note on Antandrus' page and he stated no simply because becoming an ArbCom member is the last rail stop on the line to oblivion. Do you share the same "uncomfortable ride?" 211.30.109.24 ( talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I had put my name on the "likely to run" list because at the time, I was asked to think about running since there was a lack of experienced and knowledgeable candidates. Now though, I see at least eight (and maybe more) editors I'd be happy to see on arbcom. I don't think there's a lack of the willing and helpful anymore.
As it happens, Antandrus often says stuff that canny goes for me too and I think he's more or less done it again. I made my first edit to Wikipedia almost five years ago and have been editing steadily for four. I like dealing with words, writing them, reading them, growing articles and helping out with some of the tidying tasks needed to build this thing and yes, it's fun! When I was little, wherever in the wide world my mum took me, if we walked into a room with books in it I was likely to yank one off the wall and start reading. Hey, I even sailed through my wild teens on a lake of books. My grandfather read encyclopedias for fun and I got that habit, too. Wikipedia has spun up the world's most widely-read encyclopedia because its policies, when followed by a pool of volunteers money could not buy, are fit for most folks. Ok, Wikipedia's political and economics articles tend to be a mess and deeply PoV, flawed and so unhelpful, but even that's but an echo of the wider, dodgy sources to be had on these topics: It's not so much a weakness of Wikipedia. I could go on about some other things that happen in the shadows here but again, these are only echoes of the world we live in. Meanwhile, as with most things people do, a few can't get along at all and instead of staying away from this private website, they stir up worries which can chavel Wikipedia for most everyone else. Arbcom is the last step in dealing with that. They see the worst of Wikipedia, without end and often must handle things which can have no happy outcome. Their work is thankless and the feedback they get is wontedly scathing. No wonder few arbcom members ever go back to editing.
Although I think we'll carry on needing arbcom until the community comes up with something which more closely fits the needs of what Wikipedia has become, I believe most worries can be (and are) handled through the sundry administrator boards by say, several dozen active and helpful admins, each with their own knack and talents, which we have, although barely sometimes. Many editors have emailed, asking me to run for arbcom, which has stirred me to think hard about it, for weeks. If I thought the project truly needed me on arbcom, I'd gnash my teeth (heh, I mean it y'all, I'd gnash 'em) and do it. All told though, I think for now, I can do more for Wikipedia by carrying on with what I'm already doing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree that this was copy right infringement. I had changed a few things before adding it. When I was tagged I changed the wording further and added a more uptodate source for the Obesity mortality. Wondering if you could review.
Thanks-- Doc James ( talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with him removing the block notice, and am not sure why you were so keen to continuously restore it - nothing in policy that I'm aware of prevents a user removing the block notice. If it had been declined unblock requests, that would have been fair game - maybe this is what you were thinking of? In any case, I've removed that restriction, leaving the block in place Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I note the following reverts by him (I had no edits involved in this) [9] 20:25 21 Nov user summary "(Undid WP:Tagteam This material was added by consensus in talk. It will not be removed unless there is a consensus to do so in talk.) "
[10] 19:13 21 Nov "(Undid Undoing vandalism. Persist in this and I will seek to have you blocked.) "
[11] 18:52 21 Nov "(Undid THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN.) "
Which looks at first blush to be 3RR in 90 minutes, with rather ill-tempered comments (IIRC calling people "TAGTEAM" is unwise?)
Many thanks for looking at this! Collect ( talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Weihnachtsgrrl yule.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that botty bot, you were too swift, I think it's all tidy now. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin. I've also filed an ANI. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[12]. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
We have had a discussion (Paul and I) in this regard, which you did not attend. As per wikipedia's consensus, if you want to change information take it to talk, and gain consensus. Lest those edits (w/o consensus, and certainly w/o discussion) be construed as vandalism. Lihaas ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ COI}} tag from this article - the sole contributor, Talskiddy, has been making useful contributions since the beginning of 2005, and while he/she has Cornish connections I think its very unlikely that they would have waited this long to promote their own company. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Rklawton. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD ( talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hence, I think a warning to User:Grayghost01 is called for. All that original research should be skived from the article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've warned the user this evening because he's decided, after ACW talk page discussion just last week, to insert modern army rank abbreviations against pedia and MilHist project MOS. I consider this an only warning, since user experienced this measurement of consensus last week. If he continues to insert these modern abbreviations in ACW era articles, he needs to be blocked. BusterD ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment: out of idle curiosity after reading the WP:AN/I item regarding User:Angels Live, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk-page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean ( talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw you deleted the article about Panic at the Disco's forthcoming live album, called Live in Chicago, and I have no idea why you did that. It's scheduled to be released Dec 8, and there's plenty of sources to verify that. If there was a problem with the article I'd written, I'd like to know what made it worthy of being deleted so that I can fix it. Thanks! PATDalbum ( talk) 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, wondered if you could look at Marchetti99 ( talk · contribs) for an indef block as a sock of JeanLatore. I submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore, and the account replied with this. Normally I wait for checkuser to confirm, but vandalism, however mild, in article space crosses the line for me. Thanks, Darkspots ( talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen! You placed a notability tag on the article Egged Ta'avura earlier today, after someone tried to speedy it for the 2nd time. I have added a bunch of factoids and sources, which don't (yet) amount to a decent article, but at least IMO clearly assert the subject's notability (received significant coverage in various Israeli publications). These sources are just based on the first 2 pages of a simple Google search on the company, which by the way returns 7620 hits (significant for a Hebrew topic). Therefore, while the article hasn't improved much in terms of content, I believe that by now it clearly displays notability, and will remove the tag if you don't object. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, any chance you might consider running for ArbCom? I think you'd be a fine choice to serve on the Committee. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: "This band could likely meet WP:MUSIC if the coverage and radio play were reliably and thoroughly cited. However, with no charting and no notable distribution, the bare assertions of coverage were not enough to sway editors into keeping this article." .. are you saying that if the citations are made more thorough then the article can be re-instated? If so, that's something I can do (I'm just not 100% sure how to do this..?) but how do I edit the article now it's deleted? And can I reinstate it once the citations are done, or does someone else do this (do I have to submit it for review)? kiden ( talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Your ArbCom candidacy is being discussed here. This is a courtesy note. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on ( talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, I was wonder if you wouldn't mind helping me navigate some type of dispute resolution with a user over a content dispute? Specifically User:Factchecker atyourservice and the article Sarah Palin. I started a RFC and have used the talk page. I really don't want to be blocked over this and would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance. -- Tom 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Tom, there is rarely a need to remove reliably sourced content from a lengthy BLP about a widely noted politician, so long as the content has to do with politics or governance (rather than personal life and family). If you think the content spins up too much PoV, it's more helpful to find another reliable source which answers this. User:Factchecker atyourservice is flirting with edit warring, but given he's restoring sourced content, taken altogether, I don't think his behaviour is quite warnable, though his manner can be a bit edgy. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been. Please go there and agree to the new edit. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant to remove that when I userfied the page, thanks for noticing... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm Sam.I'm trying to create an article about Jesus Youth. Can you help me..Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantony ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen,
I have posted two articles on Wikipedia and they both have been deleted.
I think it is a mistake. And here are the reason why :
First article about the Mañana (label) was considered as non encyclopedic (A7) but as the tango is one of the most important musical genre of the 20th century and it still concerns hundred of thousands people worldwide, I thought it was useful for everyone to have a page in Wikipedia presenting the most important tango producing company. Besides, this label is producing legendary musicians like : Gustavo Beytelmann which was Astor Piazzolla sidemen during many years. Juan Jose Mosalini which is the only university bandoneon teacher in the World (in Rotterdam). And many more. It is totally unfair to consider that the major tango label in the world should not be in an encyclopedia whereas you can find a page for each record of some celebrity musicians. Knowledge is for everyone, not only for the consumer masses ! Tango concerns a few people but everywhere around the world !
Second article abour the musician Eduardo Makaroff was considered as a copyright violation (G12), which is false also because the text from which the article was inspired was given to me directly by Eduardo Makaroff himself. The text was not under any copyright. And as I used it for the article I adapted it in order to delete all parts that were compliment and not purely factual. Eduardo Makaroff is a member and founder of the band Gotan Project which sell millions of records around the world. I really think he should be presented in Wikipedia.
Please can you reconsider the deletion or at least give an answer to my message.
Edouard
PS : I just want to get involved and participate.
Hello Gwen,
Yes I've read this page. And I decided to write to you after that. Both arguments "non-encyclopedic" and "copyright violation" are wrong to me. Do you think there is any hope to put these articles back online ? Creation in tango today is what I know best, and this the way I can bring my little contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway thank you for answering me. All the best. Edouard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manana2000 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you already forgotten the last time we had this conversation? PaulB and myself had a debate a discussion. Read the talk page and discuss your changes. If and when there is agreement to change, THEN we can change it. The two of us did discuss and amongst others there was not other discussion. If you continue to disregard the ability to discuss and talk then don't change it.
ps- Don't reply to my talk page b/c it's pointless. Take it to the talk page. Lihaas ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Right after his block ended(and right after he logged back into WP(He has periods of being inactive for about a few days)), he reverted all of my, and Grz's courtesy blanks of the IP users' talk pages, with the edit summery of reverting vandalism. Before that, he removed our comments on his page with edit summaries suggesting they are personal attacks, even though they aren't, and lastly, he removed your block notice with the edit summery of: removing attempt at censorship.
This user clearly does not understand our policies.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Does that include the AN/I thread?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Morning. I've posted the General Questions list to your Questions for the Candidate page. You'll want to answer those when you get a chance. The individual questions already posted were moved to the bottom section, which matches the format of the other candidate's questions pages. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do to assist you, and - again - Good Luck! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, what do you make of User:Calleaa? I'm thinking the first edit and second edit were by two different individuals with access to the same account... Ϣere Spiel Chequers 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I like your wording here. But I confess I'm still unconfortable with the undue weight given to Heim Shepard's thoughts at the leading. Note, contary to what have been said or perceived, I had never claimed that that information should be removed because it was "unsourced". My problem is really with the weight it's given. -- Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
And this was really good. -- Damiens.rf 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As you were typing the above, I was leaving warnings for both of you to stop edit warring over those two articles. From here on, please deal with it on the article talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to discover that the content dispute had been previously settled, and the addition was already known to be non-RS. With the core of the ANI dismissed, could you possibly look at the TalkPage vandalism, unpleasant personal labelling and outright attacks on other editors going on? PR talk 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I hate to ask you to be an arbitrator on an issue, but User:Hoponpop69 seems to have taken it upon himself to nominate a lot of long-standing record labels as non-noteworthy (see Special:Contributions/Hoponpop69). While I cannot speak for other articles or their creators/contributors, it seems that this user has a personal agenda with the deletion of smaller, yet significant punk-rock/alternative music labels. A review of his user talk page will show that he has a history of personal attacks, multiple complaints of erroneously nominating articles for deletion, as well as several of his own articles nominated for deletion. I feel that his intent for nominating articles for deletion may be a knee-jerk response to his own articles being nominated for deletion.
What sparked me to this was his nomination of the article I started about Eugene Records. If that sounds familiar, we discussed its viability as a Wikipedia article back in July of 2008 and it seemed to be decided that it was appropriate to rework. I've reworked it, included third party references (though it could use more) and I feel that it fits quite well within Wikipedia's standards. The label is 13 years old (as of this writing), published music from multiple nationally touring bands, has appeared in publications from sources in the same field (akin to trade journals), and has fulfilled a niche market in Central Kentucky, so I believe it meets requirements as far as notability.
All I'm asking of you, as an Administrator, is some intervention. I think that Hoponpop69 has a vendetta about one or more of his articles being deleted and wants to make it a juvenile situation of "if he can't play, no one can". Sorry to write such a long entry, but it's a situation that I hope to convey clearly and have resolved in a timely and courteous matter. I don't know what you would do in this situation, but I stand by your call on this. Thank you. - Team4Technologies ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please revert the edit you just made to my talk page. After having your questionable block overturned, you've immediately reverted his edit. This is extremely questionable in the circumstances. Rebecca ( talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why the deletions? What's going on?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yay you went for it!:) Sticky Parkin 02:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the block of NWA.Rep ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last week, and have some concerns that I thought best to bring to your talk page.
The incident relates to events of Nov 21 2008:
There is no question that NWA.Rep had issues as an editor. The discussion immediately after on ANI covers disruption, possible community ban, and so on. But reading the case it seems he was potentially open to following communal norms given help or mentoring. he had not been blocked for a long time, and in this instance at least, he had switched to seeking dispute resolution when warned, drew imperfect conclusions from policy but appeared to be trying (poorly) to follow it, and so on. His last prior blocks were in June 2007 (another account had block logs but these were from 2006-07 or were tagged as impersonation usage by known vandals).
The concerns I have are about the decision to block, the terms and duration of that action, and a guideline used to explain the latter:
Can you review these and let me know if in hindsight you feel that the user was handled well? My focus is not so much "blame", but more 1/ if there were issues then I'd like to make sure others aren't similarly affected in future, and 2/ while NWA may have had issues, I'd like not to see a user blocked or "blackened" if they had not really merited it in their actions.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above section is devoted to you, and considering the accusations of impropriety and disregard of policy directed at yourself I am rather surprised that the ip neglected to advise you that your actions were being commented upon... I shall be raising just that point, but otherwise am content for you to respond (or not) as you choose - that is, I am not concerned to investigate further as I doubt there is any substance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gwen.
Did you read my comment in talk page of Danny Choo before speedy deleting it? I restored the article after seeking advice from two admins: my Admin coach Revolving Bugbear, and the previously deleting admin, Stifle, who gave me permission to restore the article on his talk page archived here.
In summary, I was advised by Revolving Bugbear that "if your article is substantially different from the deleted version / addresses the reasons for deletion, you can simply recreate and it's not eligible for CSD-G4". Stifle acknowledged that he had overlooked significant changes and gave me his blessing to restore the page. Do you disagree with his assessment? DOSGuy ( talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, You've deleted the Yevgueni article I created - don't worry, I have read your guide for people whose articles have been deleted and I can understand why you did it. I'd like to ask you if you can deliver me the text that was already written so that I can try to make it harder, better, faster and stronger. Cheers, Jellevc ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the attack on your userpages here, I've added a small list to the discussion you noted in the above thread.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)`
I studied the edits which you blocked Rebecca for, and I believe that she is working to actually help the article as she has a history with these types of articles, and improves them very well. So I unblocked her.
I did let her know however that she is not entitled to three reverts a day just because she didn't break it. I'll also let you know that templating regular users is not very nice; she's been here nearly five years now and you can talk to her specifically about issues. I don't wish to be rude about it, but if you're going to plop a template to shush up a dispute instead of engaging with unique thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with it. All disputes are specialized and need our utmost attention to solve. Mike H. Fierce! 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole "3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement" is both true and important for people engaged in edit-warring to recognize. On the other hand, it was a pretty simple back and forth slow edit war. Another warning, or an attempt to engage Rebecca on her talkpage, may have been better than blocking a fellow admin and former arbitrator. Avruch T 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the block was horrible, or violated any policy, etc. etc. I didn't say that admins and arbitrators should be immune to blocks. All I said, and all I mean to say, is that if I were an admin and in Gwen's position trying to stop an edit war on those articles I would have handled it differently. Maybe you guys have a totally different view of the world, but if someone involved in an edit war has been here 5 years and worked on ArbCom that would give me pause prior to issuing a block. I would think to myself, is there something I don't know? Is there a history here? And then I would ask, and I probably wouldn't link to the edit warring policy or use a stop sign. People who have been here a long time often get upset at being treated like they're just ignorant - so while DTTR isn't a policy, its good advice when trying to rein in someone who is as familiar with policy as you are, and it is the same principle when it comes to writing a warning. Gwen's point of view obviously varies, and she's free to disagree. Just thought I'd chime in with mine, since I happened to see the block/unblock. Nothing much more to say for me. Avruch T 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I kindly request that you undo your protection of Murder of Amanda Milan, considering that you are very clearly not an unbiased person in this matter (you wrote the version being protected to, and you have a stated issue with me). Being unable to use your administrative buttons according to policy is hardly a good sign in an arbitration committee candidate. Rebecca ( talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, I would like to ask for your assistance on a matter I am almost sure you will find of interest. In :
The Writer's Handbook 2007 published by MACMILLAN ISBN 1-4050-4937-5 ISBN 978-1-4050-4937-5
on page 512, in a chapter on the subject of Libel, entitled "The Words Complained Of ..." is the following passage. ( Taken from the end of line 7 onwards. )
Some errors pass into mythology. A British police officer called Morton collected damages on no less than three occasions from: W. H. Allen, Secker & Warburg, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, for the repetition of the canard that he was responsible for the shooting in cold blood of Abram Stern the head of the Stern Gang.
In the Wikipedia article "Lehi (group)" in the second paragraph of the section "Evolution and tactics of the organization" occurs the following sentence.
In 1942, Stern, after he was arrested, was killed by Inspector Geoffrey Morton of the CID.[14]
It is clear to me that the sentence in the article needs to be altered considerably but I am not sure how. Its removal would leave a hole in the narrative but I do not know the true facts nor do I know a source to verify them.
I am considering wether to take action myself but in a matter of such gravity I would prefer to place the matter in the hands of some one with higher authority, preferably with legal experience.
Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Best wishes,
Sesquihypercerebral ( talk) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, Perhaps you are under the misaprehention that The Writer's Handbook is one of those spurious style and/or grammer guides written by someone who barely knows what they are talking about, that are the bane of the lives of those of us seeking sound advice on those subjects; it is not. It is a major reference work listing contact details for all the major publishing houses in the english speeking world, together with more minor publishing houses with refernce to particular specialities. It covers a number of topics of interest to the would-be author including, in particular, libel. The section on libel is written by David Hooper, a respected media lawyer, a senior partner of a prominent London firm of solicitors, and a published author on the subject. The index of the book does not have an entry for Cock Robin.
You state boldly that this is not a legal worry. Are you qualified to do so? If not, perhaps you would be kind enough to pass on my concerns to someone who is.
Best wishes again,
Sesquihypercerebral ( talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My answer may have been too short (I was kinda busy). I didn't say The Writer's Handbook was a shoddy source about the libel actions, but that it couldn't be taken for a source as to who killed Stern. As to what I said about legal worries, I was speaking from an outlook on editorial and sourcing policy ("take it to the article talk page"), WP:V, but I guess not clearly enough: If Sesquihypercerebral thinks the article content exposes Wikipedia under civil law somewhere, contact should be made directly with the WikiMedia Foundation. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Heidi Wyss, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. لenna vecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gormglaith (novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Wyss. Thank you. لenna vecia 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll chalk that up to too much rum in my mojito. Best of luck! Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Y'all, I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom. In looking over the first flurries of input, along with heedfully reading user talk pages for hours (and even a few threads about my candidacy elsewhere on the Internet), I've been thoroughly swayed into thinking my earlier thoughts held the pith. I'm not sorry I got nudged into running though. I enjoyed answering the candidate questions and have gained many insights. Please understand, it will be far more helpful for me to carry on doing what I already do, without further ado. Taken altogether, I'm kinda happy about this :) Thanks! Each and every one of you have my best wishes. Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you withdrew before I got a chance to vote! I might have supported you. But anyway, thanks for running, and keep up the good work :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do keep deleating IBeatYou you are not giving any time to provide a notabile article the final time it wasn't even up for speddy deleation. hda3ku ( talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand your decision, but I went looking to vote for you and a couple of others, and you weren't there. Other than the ones a voted for, I don't see anyone making a change to the Arbcom. You would have done a great job. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for your kind words and for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as a note, I will be citing past diffs that may be common knowledge to those who are versed in this matter, but as to why I'm citing them, it is for the benefit of anyone who is not versed in it)
Hello Gwen, I would like some input from you on this matter, as you have previously dealt with this admin/editor. During a discussion, as you well know this editor has strayed into personal attacks, starting with the aforementioned edit. I brought forwards that this was a content dispute, and that edit warring was not the answer. She responded that I brought up a random lecture. In my opinion, the note that she was edit warring and that that was not a good course of action for the future, was not random, as it was taking place in the article who's discussion page this discussion was now taking place on.
As per this edit by Jehochman, it is my understanding that accusing editors of making attacks, or any kind of vandalism without backing it up is a personal attack.
Continuing on, here, the user claims I am making personal attacks, and completely disregards my note about the content. Either the editor did not bother to read my sentence, or some other reason I cannot fathom. As a note, you shall see my comment about content as the last sentence in my post above the diff noted above. Here [28], I tell her to cite her accusations, as, as noted by Jehochman, accusing someone without evidence could be considered a personal attack. Here, she tells me I've apparently ceased the personal attacks, even though, throughout the entire conversation, she has yet to once cite a diff.
Here I ask her to either strike through her own accusation, or cite it. She evades again, refusing to communicate].
My final statement in the matter. If she refuses to abide by policy, this is cause for concern, and therefore, I shall be taking it to AN/I.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 10:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame really, that was a good site with lots of production and reception information for many television series. Could you please resurrect the page and rename it to a sandbox of mine, e.g. User:Cornucopia/BuddyTV? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
What do you think would happen if I ran for adminship two months from now?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
There was this page on a reasonably famous Indian singer(Soham Chakraborty which you deleted because you thought was not famous?). Is it possible for you to put it back up and I will update it and ensure it is upto Wiki standards then.
Thanks for your patience.
Niranjan
Randhirreddy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Gwen, as noted above, I'm having some trouble. Awhile back.. say.. last night, I nominated an article for deletion per an AfD. Since then, I have been constantly bugged about my nomination by the editor who created the article. Per the style of editing in the article, and by the fact that this creator is the only contributor, I would believe it is a safe assumption that the editor is the subject of the article(read: there is a sentence in the article which reads, later, I went on to star in (some odd number) of movies). But back to the point, she so far stated that she is an established editor, for what reason, I do not know why, as she has shown no signs what-so-ever of any knowledge of policy or the way things work around here. She also does not link her signature to her talk page. I'm getting sick of being bugged by her, and every time, I have told her that if she feels like arguing for the article, to take it to the AfD page. Can I have some help here?— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry if this I'm burdening you by asking this again, but I posted a question about the Yevgueni article here a few days ago but it appears to be gone. Am I looking in the wrong place, did I break any rules asking about it here or did you simply delete it? Anyway, I was asking if it was possible to deliver to me the deleted Yevgueni article, so that I can try to upgrade it. I'm watching this page for any updates, I hope I don't miss your response. It would be mighty friendly if you could send me a message or something with your answer. Cheers, Jelle
Hi Gwen Gale, I noticed you have closed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky earlier this year. I'm turning to you just to check how to proceed with this. The thing is that the deletion request originally opened by
User:Renata3 was not related only to the root article but a collection of articles created by a hoax and sock-puppet master
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. Now, the thing is that sure, even though if the anarchist singer
Tõnu Trubetsky and his band
Vennaskond may be notable for Wikipedia purposes, all the rest of the articles in the deletion case, like the royal family tree that
User:Bloomfield has created for Tõnu Trubetsky is just too far out. if you check the article created by the guy:
Trubetskoy, according to the article that provides no sources whatsoever, the family dates back to the Grand Duke of Lithuania
Gediminas. Just that the real family tree of Gediminas is available in well referencesd article
Palemonids. Te most amazing hoax Bloomfield has created on wikipedia that has been spotted so far was probably
Principality of Estland.
So my question is, can we just open up the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky again? Since it was missed that the majority of the articles listed there may be complete hoaxes, and at best are WP:OR for sure since there are no any sources provided whatsoever. Please advise. thanks!--
Termer (
talk)
01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The most helpful way I can think of to get started on dealing with this is to start slapping these tags on the articles as you see fit:
Moreover you can remove/revert without further ado, any edit made by one of the confirmed socks listed on the CU pages you cited above. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, You've got my curiosity when you said:
This is interesting to hear the non-involved perspective and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that if you have the time. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Your role as “uninvolved informal mediator” appears to be once again required. You had warned Ghost about tendentious editing and personal attacks and the pattern seems to be continuing, especially the former. Although he is confining his efforts to the discussion pages, he is creating, in my opinion, an atmosphere in which productive discussion is no longer possible. Ghost’s contributions to Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861#Proposal -- Renaming of Article seem to be totally off topic and he has expanded the front with his contributions at Talk:Confederate States of America#POV's on Secession. Any assistance you can provide, either as informal mediator or administrator, would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the article title should be changed within a few days if either a reliable source (this is straightforward) or more than a consensus of one doesn't show up. The title as it stands strays enough from policy that I'm willing to implement that change if 2 or 3 experienced editors can agree on a new title.
Although I must say there are long-standing worries with the CSA article, as we've both said, what you're citing isn't linked with those worries since it's not a sourcing dispute, it's beyond the bounds of WP:OR, there's no meaningful sourcing at all. Without sources, there's nothing to mediate, unsourced content can be removed by anyone so long as it's in good faith and not pointy: This is a behaviour problem. I've already warned Ghost about OR (his synthesis of content from sources in the train article is also OR), so I guess he's edging very close to a block. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A Renaissance Man for our time? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I've been looking at other dip/condiment articles on Wiki, and before introducing this to the rather rowdy Hummus Talk page, I wanted to get your opinion on it.
Most of the other condiment articles stick to a basic outline of what the food is, how its made and a historical background. A few dive into short basic descriptions of modern uses in various nations or regions, but not one mentions any political disagreements or other similar issues which have been included in Hummus since day 1. My thought is, what about re-writing Hummus and modeling it off of other condiment/dips? examples: Guacamole, Fondue, Salsa (sauce)
Anyhow, just trying to come up with alternative ideas for a "fresh start".... -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
An article you have been involved with, Commerce revision is at AfD. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks - Unpopular Opinion ( talk · contribs) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You have written about
Pascale Casanova : "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion".
You should have asked (me or anyone else) for these indications before the deletion.
Please, think about it next time.
Katalina Raspe (
talk)
00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia in general and I didn't quite know who else to ask. If you think I should look elsewhere for an answer, please tell me so.
I was wondering how far back article editing histories go? When I scroll to the earliest available edit of, say, the
Beatles article, the furthest I can go is February 2002, when there was already quite an extensive article. I suppose that wasn't the very first draft.
So I'm wondering, is there a limit to how long or how many edits are stored? To me it would be a huge downer to find out that Wikipedia was automatically deleting all edits beyond a certain criterium, from a historical point of view.
Cheers,
Jellevc (
talk)
00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:Page_history#.5Bedit.5D_Wikipedia-specific_help and WP:Usemod_article_histories. Wikipedia uses an SQL relational database management system to store edit histories and there is no limit to how long they're stored. Following the terms of the GFDL, they must be kept "forever." Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted this disambiguation page based on a speedy tag placed by an IP. I was just wondering what rationale they provided for the speedy? I'm guessing that both of the stations were redlinked, but they both have incoming links and licensed radio stations have generally been held to be notable. Not that
it's reason enough on its own, but there are probably two thousand or so of these call sign disambiguation pages, and many of them have only one or no blue links. However, all the red links are gradually getting filled in - the Radio Stations project is a very active one.
Would you be averse to restoring the page?
Mlaffs (
talk)
15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I'm sorry that my stalker decided to help out your stalker. Unfortunately I can't control him and hsi JIDF friends ;-)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Glen, my watchlist just pinged to tell me Khmer Karaoke was speedied as G11 and then deleted by you recently. Any chance I can get you to reconsider that decision? It was a very poor article, a very short article, an unreferenced article but not an inappropriate article for the encyclopaedia. There was no advertising language or spam in the article. In fact, I'm puzzled as to what you thought it might be advertising? The author's talk page has also been tagged with a speedy-delete-due-to-spam template - but there were no links in the article at all. This is the work of a new Cambodian contributor who needs some help learning how to write for Wikipedia. I came across the article a few days a go, made a few small edits and stuck it on my watchlist. I planned to come back later and work on it. Cheers, Paxse ( talk) 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, another editor is redirecting the user and user talk pages for "The Witch" to you on the presumption that these usernames belong to you. The editor has complained when I've undone the changes (which I considered low level vandalism, as it is messing with another user's personal page) so I'll leave it to you to revert the change if you are uncomfortable with it. Hope this makes sense. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Image:Vase1r_800.jpg, Image:Vase2r 800.jpg, and Image:Vase3r_800.jpg, judging from WP:MCQ these images were requested for deletion because the author wants to revoke the CC license. They are useful and encyclopedic and I don't think that the deletion request should have been entertained. What do you think? Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's true he can't revoke the CC licences. As for the images themselves, my thinking was only, they're his vases, they were his scans, they weren't being used in the main space, only on his user page along with one in my talk archive (from when I was helping him get his user account going again). He wasn't happy, was the only author and asked for them to be deleted.
I was going to wait a day or two and let him know I'd restore them if he wanted. I also planned on restoring them if anyone said straightforwardly, "please restore them." So, any thoughts will be helpful. Should I put them back now? Should we wait and see if he asks? I'm neutral and will be happy to do either. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You speedied it as a test page, and I do not see why. It was tagged as " Personal essay, original research, ", which is not a reason for speedy. Agreed it's polemical and not very unencyclopedic, but it's more than a test page. I do know somewhat about the subject, & I think much of the material can be referenced; I do not think any of it is actually OR--it has all been said and disputed for hundreds of years from various Jewish, Christian, and rationalist perspectives. I am not sure whether or not it can in its present form be salvaged, because the article seems to confuse these different perspectives,but the material even as it stands is not patently absurd or defamatory. It is quite possible that it duplicates in an unsophisticated way what is already in Wikipedia. The section Talmud#Attacks on the Talmud is of course a better approach to this material, but the specific points attacked in various contexts could be more specifically elaborated than in that article, though they may be covered here elsewhere in a scattered manner (eg Women in Judaism, etc. etc. ) . I suggest you restore the article and I will remove the parts just defending the article which should have been only on the talk p. i am reluctant to take a poor quality article to deletion review,as I prefer to sponsor only better things than this--but it is nonetheless not a speedy. I'll look here for a reply. DGG ( talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting my well research articles!-- Standforder ( talk) 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
hello Gwen - im an accomplished filmmaker living and working in LA / my production company DOOM Incorporated is unique in that it is a boutique film production company specializing in innovative projects --- many people have been inquiring so i wrote a simple Wiki page --- my company is notable for the following - has produced many award winning (i.e. MTV, MTV Europe, MTV Brazil, FUSE TV, etc) programs; it is listed on the professional database site IMDB for its feature film and video production work, etc. I think having its listing in Wiki is a very helpful thing for readers --- in just the last day several folks in the industry have emailed saying it is helpful.... i noticed a "slated for deletion" tag but im not sure what to do ---- should i add links to all the artists, companies, clients, projects, that ive listed in the article. I'm not very skilled at all these postings, and it is a simple description that says what it is, so please dont delete it --- pls just let me know specifically what u wish i should add / change to make it conform if necessary --- thank u for your diligence and expertise in helping. kind regards, thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doominc ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the process of blocking someone from editing, other than just leaving a pleasant note that the person just erases by blanking his talk page. The user in question is User talk:Watermelon_Eet_Choo_Weets. Every warning he gets is subsequently erased. I listed them all together on his talk page, and had planned on speaking to an admin, but he's already blanked it again. Could you help in this matter? Thanks, The27thmaine ( talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Appreciative of the great work you guys are doing at Wikipedia.
As per the article I posted, I meant it not for promotion of a personality of sort and I know the article was speedily requested for deletion based on the reference to University of Miami.
It is already deleted now and I want you to re-consider helping out on what to remove and add. One thing is for sure, the personality focused is bringing up some worthwhile thing in Nigeria and Africa that is undaunting.
I'm posting this to MiamiDolphins3 too.
Thanks.
Dbeloved ( talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. How do i regain my userpage:Ожиданиесчастья? I have not been using my userpage in a long time, but i would like to use it again so i was wondering how can i get it back? Thanks. 71.121.81.9 ( talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If an administrator has a strong point of view on a topic, or fierce emotional reaction to certain facts about a topic, do you think that said person should refrain from acting on that article, and instead restrict herself to topics on which she can maintain a neutral point of view? Chrisrus ( talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why the ConnectiCon page keeps getting deleted when pages for other organizations and groups such as ConnectiCon are listed here on Wikipedia. Examples being, Otakon, AnimeBoston, AnimeNEXT, PAX. What information is not being included to verify that ConnectiCon is a valid organization of note. With a membership of 6,000 individuals, 6 years of history, and being the first convention to focus on online comics and related genres and the devotion of thousands who saved the event from bankruptcy through an online fundraiser in 2005, by raising ~$35,000 in less than 10 days. The event is also cross referenced on a number of other wikipedia articles: Duck Duck Goose, GUComics, Clone Manga, Connecticut Convention Center, GeekKnights, Human Chess, and a Convention listing page, ConnectiCon ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I did, and I still don't understand, did I just fail to include enough information about the organization? ConnectiCon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
So basically, I just need to find clips our of TV coverage, and newspaper articles to link to the page as sources? I'm fairly certain that I can see the topic neutrally, I created this account so that I could monitor the page for facts, as some of the fans of the event like to inflate numbers, and whatnot, whereas I have all of the documented, factual information available to me. The event is notable, within the community of online comic artists and fandom at large, otherwise the event wouldn't have grown from 800 members to over 6,000 members in 6 years time. ConnectiCon ( talk) 18:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be great, I may have jumped the gun updating the page without having properly fleshed the article out, there is a lot more information that I was going to include on the page, but the editing system is tricky to figure out, but I guess I'll get the hang of it and post a full, finished product next time. I'm just hoping it doesn't get deleted on account that I am "too close" to the source, the article I created was more objective that the previous two articles which were posted by others, and then later (and quickly) deleted, before I could edit them for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnectiCon ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If you were to undo my last undo of your undo of my action, who would be "edit warring", me, you, or the both of us? Chrisrus ( talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh! :) -- Kbdank71 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
suono libero. it was released in 2008. i don't know how you can disregard this fact. here is a track listing: [1] thanks. 156.56.194.201 ( talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you reached any decisions about what to recite with those jucyfruits in your mouth? I should think Tennyson. ;) -- Fullobeans ( talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page [32]. Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. The possibility of getting into an edit war on my own talk page seems absurd. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am really getting tired of reverts with accusations like this [34] and unspecified and false accusations like this [35]. Why should I have to put up with accusations of vandalism from an editor who knows better? Why should I have to come to an administrator every time I want to make an edit? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I only have a few minutes now, but I want to say that I did not deny notability. The article does not establish notability. I put the notability template on the article hoping that sources for notability would be provided. I do not think that an extraordinary request. There was also a paragraph I removed. It was unsourced and made extraordinary claims about Sands views. Verifiable secondary sources should be supplied. I did search, but could not find support. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason that information on safer sex practices should not be included on the Lesbian Sexual Practices page? I included this information in the HIV section I posted because I feel it is rather important. Lesadv ( talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
where can I get a list of administrators? Oren.tal ( talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking this block does have its point, content issue aside. I would suggest you take an active role in mediation on the page which instigated the conflict as I have concerns towards some mainstream content that seems to be rejected for various concerns that I can't seem to follow. This might be a good chance to help nudge editors to discuss issues properly and resolve the issue. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't block Oren.tal for miscounting and I've never been near those articles. Dumping 19 (or 9) citations into an info box is too pointy, though. I mostly blocked him for edit warring and lots of badgering incivility. As I said on his talk page, if he acknowledges the reasons for the block and says he'll settle down, I'll be happy to unblock. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
One editor has sought to introduce material (all from mid-October) into the article which was removed weeks ago -- including "surmise" about Joe being an "illegal plumber" etc. I deleted the contentious material, and was charged by him with "vandalism" (this is BLP, where content disputes should be handled conservatively). His reaction was to form a RfC and then to solicit more than a dozen of his friends to enter in (including doing reverts) - which I think might run afoul of the spirit of WP:CANVASS. [36] where he avoids notifying any of the other editors on the article. I am probably too angry at the gameplaying I have seen (one editor already wrote on another page about me "There are at least a dozen editors that should know about a recent Administrative notice board request. Manic Brit, Anarchangel,Factchecker, LLLL, victorc, just to name a few. The problem is to invite fellow Witnesses for the Prosecution without seeming to be vindictive....or wait to play a better hand. Just thought Id drop you a line to say hello. Feel free to delete. This particular hand seems weak." Among the milder "collusion" posts <g>. In any case, thanks for allowing a minor vent. If this indeed rises to a level where admins should be formally told, tell me. I just do not like all my good faith edits labelled "vandalism." Thanks! Collect ( talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please semi for duration of block. thanks Enigma message 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[37] mooch ass grassy ass! And Dan K. Shane... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. I am referring to you regarding
Fun Dial and
Fun Broker pages. Surprisingly, you have ranked them as an advertisements.
I read your short exaplanations on why and when you decide to mark articles as an advertisements.
I know that you are working hard on keeping and improving Wikipedia content.
As you can understand, I just don't agree with your decision.
But this is your responsibility and your decision - I have a lot of respect to all work that have been already invested into Wikipedia project and really hope that the project will continue to grow and succeed.
My aim was to contribute something important to the world, that I was part of this during last 8 years - I'm talking about personilized ringback tone services. May be my try was not so successfull. I will not ask you to restore the pages, but please give me back sources, that I've worked on them and (unfortunately) never backed up on my PC.
In addition, once you decide to go and delete such type of articles, then why to do this partially?
Example - the name for personalized ringback tone services, which was choosen by several companies sounds as "Colored Ringback Tones" (see
CRBT), while these are still fully commerical systems provided by business companies (such as Huawei, WiderThan, etc.). There is no difference between CRBT service and Fun Dial - just an alternative name for the service. I don't see current decisions as politically correct ones - to have one-sided opinion representation and approach for the personalized ringback tones technology. I feel that decisions were made based mostly on the names, not on the content of the articles.
Moreover - I do think that term "Fun Dial" is better, due to it does not confuse readers with the normal ITU tones (see article about
ITU). "Colored Ringback Tone" is really marketing name, selected to promote the service...
My aim were to step-by-step expand content of the articles, hopefuilly with the help of other contributors, in order to show part of the telecommunication world with ringback tone (RBT) services, beginning from the history of RBT and continuing to high-end of the video RBT, currently developing in the world...
About me - in despite from the expected, I'm not a marketing person.
I would like to sorry for my poor English.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.ashkinazi ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Frank! Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, I was reading up on Legoland. Alexander, please have a look at this page if you haven't yet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! What a difference a day and a few references make. Cheers. -- Digital Mischief 10:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, this page had only just begun, and I'd tagged it for not having immediate removal. The DipWiki is the most prominent site for Diplomacy information! What is the point of adding the dont delete tag if we dont have time to fill in the rest of the article? The site has already been publicized routinely in Diplomacy World, the leading online publication regarding Diplomacy.
What is wrong with you? Is putting up an article of a respectable Psychologist who put forward a theory against Multiple realizability Blatant advertising? Do you suspect that I am Larry Shapiro. You are a funny man. Why don't you Google Larry Shapiro and see what Blatant advertising there is. Gabr- el 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
They're a band I think have added a lot to my local music scene. They've been my favourite band for years and have been played on a lot of well-known podcasts. Why have you deleted the page? I was adding in all the things you asked for (dates and times, references for all the information I used (some where not "reliable" as in they were sites giving their opinion but is the BBC not a reliable source?) Can you re-consider? I worked hard on this and I'm trying to comply with the wikipedia guidelines you gave me. I really think they deserve a page.
I just saw onw now about repeated removal. I didn't see that one before. I was removing it because I was adding in the things you asked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U1234u ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
ok. U1234u ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what was wrong with the references I used or the page I made. I tried to be factual and give a history of the band's work so far. The resources I quoted are where I got the information. How will I know if it meets your criteria if you put it in my userspace? U1234u ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
sorry I was just making space on your talk page didn't think you'd want this bit still here. That's why I deleted it. Sorry, I see you reverted it. That's my OCD, trying to make things neat. U1234u ( talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You said you would put my article in my user area. Any chance you'll be doing that sometime soon? Thanks U1234u ( talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)