User talk:Gwen Gale/archive10

Lois McDonall page deleted

Hello,

You recently deleted a page that I am trying to post on wikipedia. My page is on the Canadian Operatic Soprano, Lois McDonall. I am very new to wikipedia and would still like to post this article. I think I may have saved my page too early and so it did not have enough content. I am currently still working on it in my sandbox. I am worried about what will happen if I try to repost it in its finished form because it has already been deleted once. I was wondering if you could advise me on any steps that I should be taking. I really believe it will be a worthy page once it's done.

Thanks, (Shilpathefirst (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

The article was tagged and then deleted only because it was empty and as I recall, there was a note on the talk page saying it would be many days before there might be any content. Please feel free to recreate the article, but only when you have content ready to go. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor I have concern over,

The editor User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill recently started an account, and has only, with the exception of a single talk page, been editing a single article, Troy Davis case. Due to the editor's edits and username, I believe that this editor is the same officer mentioned in the article. I would believe that this falls under a conflict of interest, but because of this COI, and because of the position of the person in regards to the article, I worry that this editor might also be pushing a point of view. Lastly, even though this editor has been here all of about two or three days, they already know about WP policy, so there is also concern there about that as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It can't be Mark MacPhail because MacPhail was murdered. Going by the username "HonourOfficer..." the edits will likely be from some PoV, but so long as the user follows the sources and doesn't edit war there wouldn't be any worries. Alternate accounts are more or less allowed so long as they never vote/edit stack together on the same article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

KSEY

Hi Gwen, I just noticed that when you recently deleted/undeleted KSEY, you also undeleted older promotional edits that were deleted as the result of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wolfe_Ford_Dodge. It's not really a big deal, but those older edits should probably be re-deleted. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A Second Life

A user has recreated A Second Life AGAIN. Can we speedy delete per the new request, block the user, and protect the page? Do see the author's "plea" before any action, though. Thanks! Mononomic (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done and salted. In comparing his philosophy to Judaism, he may have missed that the latter has been with us for way over 3000 years, has had sway on the birth and growth of many other religions and has gotten rather a lot of independent coverage, hence neatly skirting any promotion worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Some people out there... Mononomic (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see pages Christian Schoyen and Christian schoyen, which this author has created too that are related to A Second Life. Thanks so much for your help! Mononomic (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, speedied but not salted, yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we block the user too? (Loose definition of we) Mononomic (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He hadn't been warned yet and likely doesn't know the first thing about Wikipedia policy, so I've left a warning about recreation instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Are the pages to be salted or is there a teeny-tiny possibility of useful content being added there at one time or another? I'm marking the discussions at WP:AN and WP:AFD as resolved. Mononomic (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's a slight likelihood the author may have borderline notability/coverage somewhere. I'm mostly waiting to see if either BLP gets recreated without any hint that the topic might meet the inclusion standards. If this happens, now that a straightforward warning has been given, I'll salt and block. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher deleted another re-creation so I've salted the two BLPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Thanks for the page deletion of Joe Falcon I have made the non-controversial move from Joe Falcon (musician)--Michael miceli (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe et Cléoma, wonderful :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard L. Madoff

Dear GG,

I welcome a careful editor to the Madoff article. I think if you look carefully, you'll see that I started this article and have been very careful to try to keep anti-semitism and OR out of it. I have hesitated to include reference to the size discrepancy that the mainstream press has ignored, figuring that sooner or later the topic will come up in the press. But it is a 500 pound gorilla in this case - there is no question that the size of the fund was officially reported as $17.1 billion with less than 25 investors. This is a fact that should be reported (and has been in the mainstream press). What hasn't been reported is that this is difficult to jibe with a $50 billion loss. Your jibe attempt is probably more OR than my attempt to just put the 2 widely reported facts into the same sentence. I'll re-insert my sentence, and please do look at it for OR, but also please do leave the facts in without inserting any of your own OR.

With all sincereity, Smallbones (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones, I'm not the one trying to put OR into the article, so please don't say I'm doing so. Those "less than 25 investors" in turn hypothecated (resold) parts of their shares to many others, who in turn did the same, thousands are likely exposed. For the third time, it is cake to lose $50 billion on $17 billion in declared assets, it's not at all hard to jibe, moreover if capital had been stolen through the years, with the remaining capital highly leveraged. Meanwhile, please keep this discussion on the article talk page. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do please also check out User:Betathetapi545 whose user page for a long time has identified him as a problem user. My problem with him is the repeated insertion of a Henry Blodget blog as a source. He's probably already gone over 3RR on this. Blodget has been discussed by myself on the Madoff talk page, and it seems it was talked about earlier as well.

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hedgefund harry

On Madoff.

It is a Ponzi type fraud. Therefore the 50 billion might be the accumulated amount of money coming in and going out. So in order to repay the clients that close an account you use the money from new accounts coming in. As long as more money comes in then leaves you, you can maintain this scheme. But whatever happens you act fraudulent on all the money coming in and going out and that might be one way to look at the 50 billion. But probably the US prosecutor is (also) trying to influence the scene here ? Anyway; besides the clients in funds that fall under SEC regulation, Madoff might have been managing offshore funds. These might be much bigger then the US accounts.

Good luck. Hedgefund harry (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re: not vandalism

Sorry about that. It looked like vandalism, on account of the discussion on the talk page of that article regarding categorical arrangement. I understand why it might look that way though. I don't see why my comment could be taken as a personal attack. In all fairness, isn't it a bit odd that you reply to an assumption of a personal attack with a threat? Mikco (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait-- the article remains the same, so what was the problem with my revert? It was only carrying out the guidelines layed out on the talk page. Mikco (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about article content at all. The word vandalsim has a very narrow meaning on Wikipedia. Please don't call good faith edits vandalism, not matter how nettlesome and wrong (or clueless as to consensus) they may seem to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:F3DCases

Template:F3DCases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:F2DCases

Template:F2DCases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Monolith Deathcult

Hi, you deleted our band page on the ground that is isn't notable. However, we believe it is notable on the grounds of criteria 1, 4, 5, 10 and 12 of Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Unfortunately, we weren't done editing the article yet, as all the touring/TV/radio stuff still have to be edited in. Could you please restore the article? Monolithdc Monolithdc (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article has been deleted 4 times by 4 different admins, although 3 of those deletions were over 2 years ago. I've put the deleted content in your userspace at User:Monolithdc/sandbox, where you can build it further. After you've added more text, which asserts notability, along with verifiable independent sources to back this up, it can be moved back into the mainspace (any admin can unlock the page). Feel free to ask me to do this when you're ready, I'm not very hardnosed about bands. Keep in mind, after being restored, the article would still be open to nomination for articles for deletion, where experienced editors can comment, so the more criteria which are met with verifiable sources, the more likely the article will stick this time. Please let me know if I can help you more in the meantime, or if you have any questions. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your page, Gwen!

I am new to wikipedia. I noticed that several of my favorite artists didn't have pages here and I had some free time this month and thought I would add them. I guess my problem has been walking the line between proving notability while not using existing writing and thus violating (c).

While I do come across dozens of pages that suffer from worse violations and have no references at all, I have to agree with all the admin changes with what I've done.

And of all the pages that Ive since found that explain the stipulations for new pages, I found your user page to be the best. I'll try to update —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynewart (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words. It's so easy to cite known sources ("existing writing") without violating copyright: Either quote the source directly or write what it says with other words, then cite it in the article. The lack of notability and/or sourcing in some other articles you may find on Wikipedia has little bearing here, see WP:OSE. Either way, the article you started needs more sources (IMdB is often very helpful for quick overviews and hints about what sources one might look for elsewhere but cannot be taken as wholly reliable in itself), it carries many assertions about activities which many readers would think of as notable, but without a way to verify these assertions, the article isn't at all helpful. I know you can understand why this is true. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

which article

Hi, just wondering which article was considered vandalism. I am here at work on a shared IP address so I don't think it was me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdandrea (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What vandalism? You'll need to tell me more before I can even begin to answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fever Sleeves

Hi wondering if I can have the article back for revision/ and if you can help me with what it needs. Fever Sleeves was listed under wikipedia's "Math Rock" section which covers the importance of an entire genre of music, and I noticed there was no active link. But now it's been deleted. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleevefever (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Fever Sleeves was deleted by User:Redvers, Fever sleeves was deleted by me. Now, keep in mind, it doesn't matter how fit/safe the band is, going by the text, it doesn't even give the slightest hint this group meets WP:MUSIC yet. This is not a put down in any way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only echoes back meaningful coverage from independent sources, is all. I've put the deleted text at User:Sleevefever/sandbox but until y'all have gotten further along with your project, it's unlikely you'll be able to recreate the article. Read this page for some tips as to why this seems to be true and feel free to ask me more questions. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(low priority / for my enlightenment) What would you do ...

As the only sysop I've gotten a cookie from :), perhaps you'll also share a bit of your wiki-wisdom. Ignore with impunity. I stumbled upon this while recent changes patrolling and am just wondering if someone with your experience would think anything would (in an ideal world) be done about this.

Consider the case of two Winnie the Pooh articles.

First, note the following Googles:

• Google pooh
• Google winnie the pooh
• Google "winnie the pooh"

NOTE: The two Wikipedia article URLs as shown in the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh

ALSO NOTE: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh

ALSO NOTE: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_The_Pooh

FINALLY CONSIDER that due to its higher placement in Google that

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooharticle gets twice as much traffic as the other.

Second ... now note that Wikipedia Searches (Go) Pooh OR Winnie the Pooh OR Winnie-the-Pooh...
ALL go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh (Which gets half the traffic of The other)

Third ... note the redirects within Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh_(character) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh

THE QUESTION :) Theoretically, in an ideal Wikipedia, would there be at least one change of article names (e.g., adding "(Disney character)" to that article ... or something else done about this? (NOTE: In reality, I understand there would be a LOT of work to straighten out all the links to pages, and probably not worth doing ... plus perhaps getting consensus etc ... )

Didn't mean to turn this into such a HUGE case study. lol If you can quickly make sense of this and dash off a quicker comment, I'd appreciate your wisdom ... BUT this is certainly not important. Happy holidays! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think, aside from this little dab, in the words of Gus Grissom, "Everything is A-OK." :) The name of the literary character is hyphenated, the name of the licensed Disney character is not hyphenated. Yes, the latter could be moved to Winnie the Pooh (Disney character) and perhaps the articles could make this a bit more clear from the outset but I see no worries with this naming scheme. Cheers and season's greetings! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bless you! And I see some people have been working on tweaking as you suggested.

(NOTE: I see the new lede says the article is about the Disney franchise). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Pooh Talk page(s) redirection error (now fixed)

P.S. My mention of "consensus" arose from my confusion from the one talk page which had been used for both Pooh and Disney Pooh articles due to earlier redirect error. Never knew I had to watch out for that, until now. lol ... Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That happens to me sometimes too :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

Hi, I just wanted to apologize if my response to your "Please be aware that here on Wikipedia, the word vandal has a very narrow meaning" comment was a little rash. I also wanted to say thanks for getting involved with the AN/I discussion and helping resolve the issue. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Highly nettlesome, unsourced and disruptive edits can indeed be blockable, but never as vandalism, which on en.Wikipedia means only what most editors would take as a straightforward go at trashing the encyclopedia: Stuff like "My friend Johnny B. Goode eats bugs!" or "Apollo 11 was launched on July 16, 1959." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

General question about BLPs

Hi Gwen, I come to you with this because of your experience and my appreciation for what I see you doing. I hope you dont mind and please ignore this if you do! :)

I know of over a dozen amazing artists who are not on Wikipedia yet, but should be. But having learned my lesson on the 2 pages I created not to start articles without first finding plenty of "reliable sources", I have not started these new pages that really should be here.

My question is how do info-dense pages like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Cohen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein

exist with very few citations? Am I missing something about what can be posted without protest? Or were these posted before stricter standards and not reviewed since? There just seem to be SO many of these pages with few citations.

I am torn between creating these pages on important artists and waiting until I have better "proof of notability". I've chosen to wait.

And I hate to tag these existing pages I find all the time (as I did the cohen page), yet that seems to be what Wiki calls for.

Any advice for a neophyte trying to understand and act appropriately with this inconsitancy?

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.48.134 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, I was about to ask pretty much this question too so have jumped in here. What is the process that catches articles for deletion, like The Display Team (above), and yet many articles, like Middle finger salute seem to sneak under the radar? Articles like Pull Tiger Tail give the impression of notability but I suspect would fail on closer scrutiny. I have just added a keep comment to the Laura Kearsey deletion proposal. Is there not a case for viewing such things from a users point of view rather than the administrators/editors side of Wikipedia? Is there a case for articles that achieve solid notability having some status, say below that of a Featured Article, and for other articles to be marked as Unverified information or somesuch? Could the deletion process be more generously timed so that if a new article looks like it has the seed of an article it could be given six months to grow - failure to expand and reference the article then leading to an automatic deletion. I too would appreciate any insights you may be able to offer to what appears to be inconsistent arbitrary policies. I shall go and reference Herb Cohen now. Lame Name (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is forever being written and grown by a community of self-selected editors and as such, is widely understood to be uneven and skewed as to PoV (sometimes highly so). The pith is, we tend to more or less put up with it because the outcome, taken altogether, has been shown to be so overhwelmingly helpful.

Some highly notable topics are skewed by echoes of the weaknesses in widely acknowledged reliable sources, which are not truth (TM), along with the PoV of whatever flock of editors happens to hold sway over an article at a given time. Sometimes this is ok, sometimes it's unhelpful. Either way it tends flit somewhere within the bounds of policy and it's unlikely this will shift anytime soon. Again, since so many folks like the outcome and most articles do indeed seem to grow into meaningful resources over time, we acknowledge the flaws and do what we can.

Borderline articles are often tough to deal with. Some which are indeed notable as to policy get deleted (mind, these can always come back someday if they're truly notable, or become even more so as new sources show up). Others which aren't notable get kept, for sundry reasons which nonetheless have mostly to do with how self-selected interest in a topic or subject can mix with traffic and sheer wiki happenstance.

As for the two BLPs above, I happen to know something about both topics (and the sources to be had on them) so I can speak to these rather quickly. The main worries with WP:BLP tend to be unsourced negative content, or unsourced promotional content. Herb Cohen is so flattering but neutrally worded, mostly, the only need I see there is for more sourcing (I must say though, the stuff about his condo building doesn't seem notable at all and I find it odd). However, Allen Klein's career was and still is a very controversial topic for some. I think the article is a basket case, mostly because it's not sourced. There are plenty of sources to be had which carry negative criticism of Mr Klein, but until these are reliably cited and heedfully written into the text, they should be skived straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks, Gwen. Those 2 articles just happened to be 2 I came across and it did strike me that there was so much info that seemed odd, or slanted without reference so I wondered why they were uncontested when other articles seem to be hotly contested when there is plenty of reference material cited. I guess it just depends on which editors get them and their own prejudices and personalities. Is it a good idea to call attention to articles that aren't under scrutiny and seem to be un-sourced promotions? (there are so many) Are interviews with artists considered to be an unreliable source for citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.48.134 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The two above articles don't seem slanted, neither do they seem promotional, the only worry is they're unsourced. Things haven't gotten all that stirred up with those two articles because both Klein and Cohen, while known and notable within the music industry, are not even close to being household names (most folks have not a clue as to who they are), so the articles are very low traffic. If Klein ever went on a reality show, the page would likely get locked down within a day and there might be months of smoldering edit wars. As for interviews with artists, whatever they might have to say should be put in quotes, not paraphrased. If it's controversial, sources with another PoV can help keep things neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

aught to do with something

Sure it does. It's politics 101, attack the messenger based on the public perception of their history that you want to present, to try to discredit and invalidate what they're saying, so that you can dismiss the criticism itself. But since I don't exactly hide or freak out about my stupid n00bie mistakes 2+ years ago, it's a worthless tactic against me, since I have no qualms about saying, "Yeah, so?" :) rootology (C)(T) 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence, it has aught to do with anything :) I wholly understand what you mean though and think the same way about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I tweaked my wording so as to lessen the likelihood of being mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or a Happy Holiday Season and a joyous and healthy 2009! Postoak (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Display Team

Hello. I have made the page much shorter and more to the point and referenced the bits I've left in. I think The Display Team meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Can I add it now? ThanksU1234u (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Which criteria in WP:MUSIC do you think the article meets now? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

11 U1234u (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the text which says a recording by the band "Has been placed in rotation..." (which would be, at the least, about 5 "spins" or plays in a week) "...nationally by any major radio network." The BBC6 source is but a tracklisting which shows one, single play in September. The text doesn't seem to meet criterion 11 of WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kooba Radio is a major radio networkU1234u (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kooba is not a major radio network, it's a podcast network, hence doesn't have sway as to criterion 11. Either way, the source cited in the text only leads only to their home page, not to any page which says anything about the band, much less any play they've gotten through Internet podcasts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well if you'd bothered looking you would have seen they were played in a number of the most recent show. In any case I've now cited some of thespecific shows they've been played on. I would argue should have sway on criterion 11 because it's listenership is huge and international.U1234u (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look, which is why I can tell you it's not rotation and it's not a major radio network. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the band doesn't fit neatly into the airplay criterion, taken altogether I think they have gotten enough indpendent airing and coverage, along with their touring, that many editors will think they can be taken as meeting the intent of WP:MUSIC for unsigned bands. I've rewritten the text (see The Display Team, which I've put back in the mainspace) in a way which is much less likely to stir up a CSD tag and speedy deletion and moreover, I think there is hope this article could now make it through an AfD. When I have time a bit later this evening I'll do a cleanup on the citations. Meanwhile thanks for gathering so many verifiable and independent sources on this. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cites done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff again

The semi-protection on Madoff seems to have disappeared (anons now editing) with the lock logo still up. I'm not sure that the semi-protection needs to be renewed, but think that the lock logo and the fact ought to be in agreement. I might leave it unprotected for awhile at least, but that's not my call.

I don't know who semi-protected it originally, but I came to you simply because it looks like you are the last admin to edit it. BTW, it doesn't look like it's in bad condition considering that something like 500,000 page views have occurred in about 10 days (for both Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard Madoff).

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if a kerfluffle stirs up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's about the kerfluffle stage again, but not more serious than that (yet). Perhaps you can take a look and use your own judgment. (Mine's slipping). In any case, Merry Christmas. Smallbones (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! The revert warring was indeed a bit on the edge but it seems to have settled down again in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Conference

I changed my Catholic Conference article it is now located at Catholic Conference (MIAA) if you could check it and somehow link it to just plain old Catholic Conference that would be great because it has to be done by an admin. Thanks Bchs23 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Conference (MIAA) is enough, I think. Catholic conference is a widely generic phrase and should likely be disambiguated as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Schoyen

Hey Gwen, the article for Christian Schoyen is under protection and i think i understand why. I request it be unprotected as I have rewritten it with citations and references to his book and film work, have gotten rid of any and all remarks that may look like self promotion. it is now completely objective with citations that show he is a notable figure and would like to put it up it all possible. Spyglassent (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You've already put it at Christian Schøyen. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

birthdate of (minor) children in biographies?

Quick question. Someone has raised the issue on Talk:Caroline Kennedy and her husband Talk:Edwin Schlossberg that information like the birthdate of minor children should not be in Wikipedia. (I think one of the children is still a minor.) What's the policy on that? (Feel free to just point at the right policy page:) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't have much to say about the children of notable people. However, from what I've seen, birth years of minor children are ok if reliably sourced, but birth dates are mostly thought of as being too much (as to the sundry reasons why this is helpful in skirting nettlesome worries for widely known living persons over their minor children, WP:BEANS). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bless you, and happy holidays! (Didn't know "BEANS" about that.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:STBotI/BADUSER

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bot-assisted incivility. —David Levy 04:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've commented there (and happily, it looks like he's understood what was worrisome and has taken care of this). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

W.L. West

Please revisit your decline of the Speedy Deletion of W.L. West. He's not a town founder. He moved from one existing town to another existing town. The article speaks of family legend, and the actual citations are a map of the area, showing both towns exist. The main author is a descendant of the article's subject. The article makes no assertion of notability, and specifically, it does not claim that he's a town founder, just a resident. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, given it was way borderline to begin with, thanks for giving me more input. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, and being open to reviewing your decision. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a big favor and restore the W.L. West page to a user page? I would like to work with the original article author to see if the article can either be brought up to snuff or more likely some of the content be fleshed out into an article on the town of Caddo Grove, Texas instead.

If this is possible, please upload the article to User:Jmbranum/W.L._West ,Thanks, Jmbranum (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, moved there along with the contribution history. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jmbranum (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PSCU Financial Services

Hi Gwen You deleted an entry on PSCU Financial Services due to advertising content. I have modified the content to provide basic facts. How can I communicate this to you for consideration? The company is a nonprofit cooperative that is a financial services company that serves credit unions. Robin Betts (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add back the Miss Pakistan World document. Here are sites for proof:

http://misspakistanworld.com/ http://misspakistanworldofficial.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.210.90 (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your own website and a blog wouldn't be reliable sources for this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tpad - ITSP / VoIP Provider (Tpad page submitted for deletion, hangon tag placed)

Hi Gwen_Gale, Hope you are having a happy Christmas and new year, but for me it is not a good start for the new year. It seems the page i have added several weeks ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tpad) has been tagged as blatant advertising (G11). Let me explain, when i first added the page it was written towards advertising but after several discussions with the VoIP / Telecommunications moderators and admins they finally agreed my last edit of the page was OK and the citations were relevant. I used 2 current voip companies (who's page is still present on Wiki) as a basic template and simply replaced a few words and technical details. In terms of citation i had placed various PR releases from Prweb.com (one of the worlds biggest PR companies), see the link here for the Tpad press room which contains around active 15 PRs http://newsrooms.prweb.com/Tpad-Business-VoIP/index.html

As you can see, i have put together a semi-convincing argument that (i hope !) will help you understand that Tpad is a genuine brand and is an enormous help for poorer countries to benefit from VoIP (e.g. making international calls at local rate charges) and would see it as a personal favour if you could look over the page again and check the references and citations. The page is based on other pages that are still active on Wiki, so in theory if this page is advertising then the other pages need a review? One of the experienced full time moderators for the Telecommunications category Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications, called Kgfleischmann has approved my page a few weeks ago, so please talk to him if needed.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my (quite long) point of view and i appreciate any comments or improvements that i can make to restore the Tpad page. I can produce hundreds of more evidence / proof citations that Tpad is an actual brand, if needed.

StevenJohns (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I hope your holidays are going by happily :) If you'll have a look at Wikipedia's inclusion standards for companies, you'll likely see that the notion of a "genuine brand" has no encyclopedic meaning here and that the worthiness of a self-described business plan (such as helping folks in economically weak areas of the world) likewise has nothing to do with notability. The pith of notability on Wikipedia is independent and reliable coverage of a topic by third party sources (as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary reference which is meant only to echo meaningful, independent and verifiable coverage on a topic which might be had elsewhere). The deleted article showed no hint at all of any independent coverage, only citations to user-editable PR releases which were clearly written by someone linked to the company and hence, not independent. Those PR sites are very helpful for getting the word out about something and there is nothing untowards about using them if one thinks it fitting to do so, but they can't be given as citations on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, I am beginning to understand now, thanks for your great advice. So let me see if i have got it, if somebody (3rd party, not related to the company) creates a Tpad page that is written as non advertising, then uses non-pr and non-blog citations it would meet the guidelines and be OK?

I have some non-pr, 2nd party citations about Tpad that might be OK, please check:

http://www.telecomtiger.com/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1328

http://mobile-voip.tmcnet.com/topics/consumer-voip/articles/33732-tpad-offers-residential-mobile-business-voip-phone-services.htm

http://www.voip-news.com/feature/102-best-phone-services-032708/

http://businessvoip.tmcnet.com/topics/applications/articles/42683-voxbone-provide-tpad-local-access-did-numbers.htm

http://call-center-software.tmcnet.com/topics/call-center-software/articles/37932-tpad-releases-new-ip-based-pbx-service.htm

http://www.mobiletopsoft.com/board/3933/tpad-fring-sign-deal-on-mobile-voip.html

If the Tpad page is written loosely in the same style as another company based in our field (VoIP) then that should fit in with the guidelines so the page will stay? Does Google search have any bearing? if you search for keyword "softphone" soft phone then Tpad is on the 1st page beating all other competitors who already have a wiki page. We have recently signed up to other companies fring , nimbuzz and voxbone and have partnered recently with supanet

I really believe that Tpad will be a great addition to Wikipedia as we cover alot of new technology and are always expanding our services.

StevenJohns (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing with sway is meaningful, reliable and independent coverage. Everything else follows that. The sources you give above do indeed look independent and verifiable. The question now would be, is this meaningful and reliable coverage? Since these all look like trade (industry) sources, some editors would think so but others would not, it's borderline, I guess it would be enought to waive a speedy deletion but I don't know which way community input would go in an AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pandyu may be User:Fclass

Hi. User:Pandyu edits articles about auto racing and house music, has reverted User:Mcelite, and has called other editors racists and idiots. I'm wondering whether I should ask for a checkuser or if WP:DUCK applies. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's him. I was wondering only today when he might come back. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

G'ahh. He didn't go away, he never stopped! Just avoided the usual honeypots for a while. Given the serial abuse, is that enough for a checkuser to spot the next one? Franamax (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think CU is needed at all. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether to block him. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG I didn't even check the block log! I just assumed that you'd blocked him. Which diagnostic indicator doesn't perfectly align? Timing of the account creation, racing/house music/African-American issues/personal attacks edit history - is there anything else then? SSP then, as a slam-dunk. I was thinking of CU more towards catching the next one, however Fclass is more serial than parallel, so it would need looking at a week or two from now. The current indications seem pretty clear, so maybe a CU verifying the geolocation would make you feel better, otherwise, d'uhh - how is this not Fclass? Franamax (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Fclass. Blocked, given he's still posting racist outbursts. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Boarding School

I saw where you had attended boarding school. I also attended and was curious as to where you went. I was at Lathallan and Gordonstoun in the 1980's. If you are uncomfortable sharing this, then I certainly understand.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It warnt in Scotland ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool , I saw the flag at the top of your page, ergo the question. ( I usually say it 'twarn'tDie4Dixie (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Guettarda, thanks, hope you're having happy holidays! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World old articles found which were deleted....

found the article... miss pakistan world http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Miss_Pakistan_World_(deleted_17_Jun_2008_at_18:39)

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Ahmed

cause of deletion as... other members were posting their version and there was a debate on who is right.. the deleted pages are a mix od both version...most writers only want the controversies... not the positive as well.. so there was no balance..

(Sonisona (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Pakistan_World. Going by the above, it doesn't sound to me like much has changed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

asthma & allergy friendly

I'm not sure if this is the right page for this, but asthma & allergy friendly has been protected and I would like to request that it be unprotected. The protection page gave instructions to ask you first, forgive me if I'm not on the correct page.

I understand the first article was deleted due to copyright infringement. I was unaware that even those holding the rights to the information were not permitted to post it [I have rights to the information]. The other deletions due to recreation were my attempts at redirecting any misspellings of the phrase. I would like to recreate the page in the correct, wiki-friendly format and style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharCaldwell (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

asthma & allergy friendly has always been a redirect to Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Asthma & allergy friendly and Asthma and allergy friendly were indeed both deleted as a copyright violation/blatant advertising. Format and style don't matter nearly so much as Wikipedia's notability standards, which have mostly to do with significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant format in general, not just style wise. Meaning, I wish to format the presentation of the information in a wiki-friendly way. Is that acceptable? 74.11.248.50 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'm watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What to do in the face of a 3RR.

I have a question for you, what should I do if an anon pushes me to 3rr? Take the following example: [1] <- and the next six edits. I know that I violated 3RR before they did (and if I have to suffer for it then so be it). My question is what should I have done? Padillah (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you edit warred but neither of you strayed across the bounds of WP:3rr (the bright, blockable line is four reverts). The IP was wantonly removing easily verifiable content from a synopsis and you carried on reverting it back in. You shouldn't have called it vandalism, it was only a content dispute, but lots of editors make that mistake. The most helpful way to deal with this kind of thing is to post a note about it on the article talk page and wait for an answer. Truth be told, IPs aren't as likely to keep after something like this for more than a day or three, so if you had simply waited (and the content meant that much to you), you could likely have put it back in later without edit warring (the IP might not even care about the content but rather, could have been trying to nettle you or anyone else handy). Don't feel bad, most editors have fallen into this trap and most learn from it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year! Acalamari 23:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari, Happy New Year to you too! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Darwin200 Year! . dave souza, talk 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see Darwin's Rhea#Discovery)

Thanks Dave, all the best and happy tidings for the new year to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year from me. dougweller (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Heya Doug. Cheers back on that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion please ...

Hi. I was curious on why you deleted the article for Princess Protection Program, the new movie that's going to be coming out this year. Was it an advertisement or a copywright violation? I just want to know what the reasoning behind the deletion was. Have a very happy new year! 1 Jan. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.107.68 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen -- policy question for you (not really wanting to clutter a noticeboard unless it's absolutely necessary). Turns out Matthaeus Tomlinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Fiddleback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It may have been a good-faith mistake, as he admitted he was going back to his real account here. However, he seems to have used the secondary account only for edit warring and nasty personal attacks (although as the recipient, I'm probably not the one to judge their relative nastiness, and I did snarl back on my own talk page -- accusing me of perpetuating Nazism really pissed me off). When someone makes a secondary account which gets away with nasty things, leaving the main account uncontaminated, except to those who remember, what is the right thing to do? He hasn't done anything for which I'd block, if I were an uninvolved party. Cheers, -- and happy new year! I hope it is a wonderful one for you. Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think this needs to go on ANI. Fiddleback may have misunderstood and thought it was ok, in a "free-for-all" kind of way, to use a second account for doing dirty bits. However, it's still worrisome Fiddleback went about it in this way, since opening the second account shows a lack of straightforwardness. Either way, using an undisclosed personal account on overlapping articles or topics isn't allowed. I think Matthaeus Tomlinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked and Fiddleback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be warned about sockpuppetry.

In my experience any user, new or experienced, who gets wound up enough about racial stuff to edit war and/or soapbox about it without meaningful sources makes my eyes glaze over. Saying you were "perpetuating Nazism," even if he meant to imply you were doing so "accidently," was not only dumb but showed a sweeping and thoughtless lack of heed for others: Good faith has tumbled by the wayside. While I'd hope otherwise, I'll make no bones about saying he'll likely do something like this again. Hence, I also think Fiddleback should be blocked for one minute, with a note in the block log about Matthaeus Tomlinson. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen ... I just left a warning. I'm not going to block since I was involved in what is arguably a content dispute with him. Have fun with the article-writing (which is now what I plan to get back to myself ...) I also note that he actually made the account a day earlier on the Latin Wikipedia, so it may not have been a deliberate evasion of our policy. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Owing to the strength of the personal attacks and edit warring I've blocked Matthaeus Tomlinson and left a warning for Fiddleback. I'll wait for now to see how/if he answers, before making any note about this in Fiddleback's block log. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let me creat the page for Specialty hospital

i knw this page was deleted because it looked like an advertisment, please how can i creat the page another time, i will creat it this time in a neutral way MaD (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind,

But I fixed the template here regarding the lift of an autoblock you made. If I'm not supposed to do this, please let me know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Film09's sockpuppet Pprice1

User:Pprice1 also cleared their talk page [2]. I restored it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See my edit summary, he can blank his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Why would you wikilink my name, that is wikilinked several times in my signed comments and not Orangemarlin's? Was there a reason or was there some WP:POINT that you were trying to make?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, heh, it's only a quirk. In threads, I tend to copy-paste the names of editors I haven't dealt with enough to have their names memorized spot on. It's easier to copy-paste the whole wlinked name, wontedly from the sig, like this... Die4Dixie. See? It came out the same as in the ANI thread :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I apoligize and am off to strike the comment at ANI. Perhaps you might have a word with marlin. I apparently misunderstood his shaking comment. I should assume good faith more readily.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, you're learning firsthand and up close that if something can be taken wrong here, it will be. That's not Wikipedia, that's online. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as dropped, my last comment was to be my last, unless there seems to be some momentum for the gentleman's proposal. In fact, I had indicated that before the "not so fast comment". I certainly don't know marlinm,never until today interacted with him ( to my knowledge) and honestly could have gone the rest of my time on wikipedia with out that joy. Good night.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Live 'n learn, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anthony Chinn

A tag has been placed on Anthony Chinn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page is looking much better now , good job! -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 04:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta! See Talk:Anthony_Chinn. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good work, Gwen. I happened to see the notice here, glanced at the article, and it appeared to be notable on the face, i.e., a search would likely turn up better sources, so, given the initial list of films, and the A7 criteria, but not having the time to do the research, I pulled the tag. Glad to see you expanded it. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request To Restore A Deleted Page

Hi Gwen!

I am not very experienced on Wikipedia, and I hope I'm not doing anything wrong by making a request here.

I came to Wikipedia searching for an article on an online game called Virtual Family Kingdom, but I found that it had been deleted several times and protected by you. That was months ago however, and since then Virtual Family Kingdom has gained quite a bit of popularity and I believe it would make a meaningful article here. I'd love to start building an informative article that would include information on the company, the developers, and general information about the game. I know many people who would like to contribute to this article and read about it as well.

I appreciate your consideration over this request.

Thank You!

Goldhunt (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_family_kingdom

I've looked into this. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Family_Kingdom. The article has been deleted 10 times (the alt cap title you linked to has been deleted four times). I would suggest building a new article in your user space first. Please read WP:CORP carefully. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Gwen. After reading WP:CORP, I can see why the Virtual Family Kingdom articles have been deleted so many times. At the time at which the articles were being created, the game had just began, and it had not gained a lot of attention from outside sources. Over time, however, that has changed, and I will take your advice and begin working on a suitable article for the game on my userpage. Goldhunt (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

deleted article

Hi! Could you tell me how my artical was an example of advertising? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmm2008 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) - sorry wrong admit! excuse me

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've answered more completely on the user's talk RT | Talk 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, after looking at the contribution history I've blocked the account indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I reported him with AIV, but after he asked me for advice I removed the report (thinking i'd give him one more chance) however another user has added to the talk page, saying it's his third acount, so I was going to report again before I saw your comment below, thanks RT | Talk 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Swank vs swanky

I'm happy to defer to you on this, although where I am "swank" is more often encountered as a verb synonymous with "boast". Perhaps it might in any case be good to use a different adjective, such as "chic" or "fashionable"? Macphysto (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See swank, swanky, swank's the root word with the keener meaning. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

odd warning and ultimatum

[3] gives me an ultimatum -- where my last edit was dewiki-ing words which did not need to be wikified [4] in Joe the Plumber and where Tanthalas39 has been active in the talk page making quite uncivikl remarks about me (sigh). I fear that Tan is not totally unbiassed on the topic, and seemed upset by the fact that I asked on BLP/N for more unbiassed admins to look in, while Mattnad engaged in substantial canvassing (which appears to be what Tan prefers). Many thanks. Note also Tan's concept of "civility" to others here [5] Collect (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tan was more than likely talking about this undo/revert. I see you made at least one other the day before. On high profile, disputed articles, that'll be taken by many as edit warring, even more so on the fluff bomb which is Joe the Plumber. Try other wordings, or mixing them, instead. As for civility, Some IP said, Haven't found an honest admin since and apparently you're no different. and Tan answered Fuck off. A bit harsh, but then the IP was somewhat lacking in WP:AGF. Either way, I don't pay much heed when an IP starts up with that kind of talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mattnad's history of specifically editwarring and using Brendan19 as a surrogate has affected me -- he has canvassed dozens of people in his attack mode, and I found it odd that a dewiki-ing of words which made no sense to be wikified in the first place set anyone off (especially an admin who appears to have a short fuse). Thanks! By the way, the "reverts" had other minor changes as well -- ought I make sure that "undid" does not appear when multiple edits are involved? BTW, I agree that JtP is one of the least needed articles on WP. Collect (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I think you might want to look into other articles to blow away your time on. JtP is but a hollow light show of the bait and switch scam called politics. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Mulinux5.gif)

You've uploaded File:Mulinux5.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ping

Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at Una Smith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like to add Palringo page

Hi, I'm fairly new to this so apologies if I get anything wrong here! I was adding some info to Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients and noticed Palringo don't have an article of their own though nearly all the other clients do. Was going to start one, but it has been deletd in the past (as an advert) and from what I can see I think you've got it protected? If you could unprotect it I'd have a go at writing one from a neutral point of view? WorldsEndGirl (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since this was deleted within the last year through a deletion discssion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palringo), I have put it in your user space at User:WorldsEndGirl/sandbox. For this topic to be notable, you'll need to show that the business has gotten meaningful coverage from independent and reliable sources. Please do take the time to carefully read through the following pages, which will help you a lot in understanding what needs to be done, reading these will save you much time in the end:

• Tips on deleted articles and how to rewrite them
• Wikipedia's policy on the notability of businesses
• Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest (you can write an article about a company you're involved with, but if you do, you must be very heedful to write it with utter neutrality and put Wikipedia's interests before your own).

I'll be happy to answer questions and have a look at the text as you wish. If you can rebuild the article in a way which shows that the topic might be notable at this time, I or another admin can restore it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(COI) When an artist's article gets a PR upgrade

Hi ... another question for your experienced eyes. While RC patrolling ... I notice that Gary Husband has been "upgraded" into too-PR (apparently with correct information from the artist) ... and am pondering the most "elegant" way to respond to this change. Suggestion? Thanks. (Feel free to tell me to ignore it.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Way too many blue-linked names, too many gushing quotes from fellow musicians and such, too few sources, world renowned must go. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (Noting tags you added for future reference. I see they were quickly addressed.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the user is going to be slapped with a ban soon. It's obvious that they are new and confused; but I'm not sure how best to reach them to help them resolve their concerns with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the user 24 hours for edit warring and left a wlink for them to follow if they're indeed who they say they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff,

Gwen, what this IP is doing is against the rules of the site that the IP is using. Please contact them to have the information removed. I tried to, but I was not able to, as I am not you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops!!

Sorry! Half of my edits invariably call for one sort or another of correction!! The important thing is, you made the right call! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, meanwhile I so know what you mean about going back to tweak edits ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Husband

You think full-protection is a good idea for this article? I was about to full-protect it myself, but wanted a second opinion. Blueboy96 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Levelub44h 24 hours for edit warring so it may not be needed: Someone may want to work on the article in the meantime. Given this, I'd say do what you think is the most helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking into his contribs, I've blocked indef owing to a legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but have you seen this comment by Jimbo? PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that before blocking for the LT. However, there is nothing libelous or untowards at all in the article, the editor didn't heed the string of helpful comments followed by warnings, other than to edit war and say he wants the article his way (loaded up with kilobytes of promotional headshot stuff) or no way at all and has blanked the page to back this up. Moreover, we don't even know if this is GH. I think your nomination of the article for AfD was helpful, and if he shows back up on his talk page I'll do anything I can to talk about this with him and unblock if he'll take back the threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jetki

Hello there. I see that the Jetki page has been deleted; I understand that you facilitated this deletion for the following reason: "A9: Non-notable music by artist with no article here". Sorry if the article was not clear, but Jetki is not "music by an artist" but is in fact the artist; Jetki is the name of the group, and is as notable for various reasons as any other group with a number of albums sold on major labels. Without waxing poetic, the article did take a bit of time to create, has a significant write-up on Wikipedia Japan, and is as "notable" as any other major musical group; I would be grateful for your justification for deleting it, and if in error your kind re-institution of the page. Many thanks. Eastend (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the article featured a picture of a CD cover and the first sentence described the CD, it's easy to understand how this was mistaken for an article about a CD. All the redlinks and the lack of any independent, reliable sources finished it off. Although it is not a CSD A9, it still looks like an A7: No meaningful indication that the topic meets WP:Music.

I've put the text in your userspace at User:Eastend/sandbox, where you can work on it. Please read this page for some tips on how to try and fix a deleted article so it won't be deleted again. Without reliable, independent sources, there is no way editors can see whether or not this topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards for bands. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

asthma and allergy friendly

Hi Gale, I'm getting a bit confused with this whole process. I left you a note about this entry before, you responded and then I tried to respond but now I cannot find the entry! I'm sorry for sounding so helpless/desperate but what do I need to do in order to recreate this page? 74.11.248.50 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's the thread, which had been archived:

I'm not sure if this is the right page for this, but asthma & allergy friendly has been protected and I would like to request that it be unprotected. The protection page gave instructions to ask you first, forgive me if I'm not on the correct page.

I understand the first article was deleted due to copyright infringement. I was unaware that even those holding the rights to the information were not permitted to post it [I have rights to the information]. The other deletions due to recreation were my attempts at redirecting any misspellings of the phrase. I would like to recreate the page in the correct, wiki-friendly format and style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharCaldwell (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

asthma & allergy friendly has always been a redirect to Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Asthma & allergy friendly and Asthma and allergy friendly were indeed both deleted as a copyright violation/blatant advertising. Format and style don't matter nearly so much as Wikipedia's notability standards, which have mostly to do with significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant format in general, not just style wise. Meaning, I wish to format the presentation of the information in a wiki-friendly way. Is that acceptable? 74.11.248.50 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Format doesn't matter much, it can/will be taken care of very quickly through copyediting skills. What has sway with editors is reliable and independent coverage of the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

re: The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince

your reason for CSD decline was "not recent". can you please explain why it has to be recent? there are no incoming links to it and there already is a The Artist Formerly Known As Prince redirect and I can't see anyone typing in a search for the whole thing. OlEnglish (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CSD#Redirects (R3). It's not new, meaning someone in the wide world could have it bookmarked or hyperlinked on a web page and redirects are cheap. No worries about sending it to WP:RFD though, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NIUST page

Hello there Gwen, I was wondering if you could give me an explanation why you simply deleted my page without even further checking into this matter. How comes that organizations like Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and MBARI are allowed to have a page without being told to be "Blatant advertisement"? I was in the process of generating this site (my first one, and was improving it as I became aware of WIKI regulations. Yes I am involved in NIUST, however, I did not advertise this government funded organization, but merely wanted to put a proper presence of it in the wiki, just like other institutions are already present. I feel a more interactive motion would have been appropriate then a simple deletion. Did you actually check the content of my wiki article and referenced it against the website, or did you simply delete it without any motion to try to improve knowledge and let me as the creator know what is going to happen in person. I placed a hangon note on the page and you deleted it within 6 hours of its creation, without leaving me time to further improve it a bring it up to standards for the wiki. Further more, I was developing the page online and did not have any backups of it. So a personal note before deletion would have been appropriate. I am new to this wiki, and the introduction was not a very nice experience. I was under the impression that the wiki was meant to further knowledge and expand horizons of knowledge. I was adding to this by bringing a new topic online, which was not currently in the database, referencing a National Institute and was accused of "BLATANT" advertisement. The least I would like to ask from you as an administrator is to give ma chance to recover the page I had generated and you deleted, so I do not have to redo my work I had done up to this point. Thanks. (Oshndoc (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

The pith is coverage. Would you like me to put the deleted content in your user space while you try to gather some independent and verifiable sources on this topic? Meantime, you might also be able to get something out of these tips. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, that would be great. Can you define independent and verifiable sources, or better give an example? Thanks. (Oshndoc (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

(Gwen, pardon me for butting in ...) Oshndoc, NOAA is a reliable source, so you can find some useful stuff by googling this. The article in the Mississippi Business Journal might be helpful as well. With an entity like NIUST, it shouldn't be too hard to find independent reliable sources; it's best not to use the organization's own website (you can, but if you read WP:NPOV you'll see why it's best to use third-party sources). Good luck, Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oshndoc, please carefully look at my last post (18:36), where I had already put three clickable blue hyperlinks leading to most of what you need to know. Also, as another editor has told you, please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines so you'll know how not to stray beyond them. I've put the deleted content in your userspace, at User:Oshndoc/sandbox. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Не судите, да не судимы будете.

Вы, похоже, забыли заповеди. Будьте добрее, и люди к вам потянуться.

Привет! Спасибо за советы! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Niko Valkeapää

Gwen - I would like to know what was your reasoning for the deletion of Niko Valkeapää. This person is of interest in the Sami community and in my opinion satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements with many source on the internet and elsewhere. "(A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not assert notability)" Dinkytown (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I breifly read your page and there was nothing there that would have told me that Niko Valkeapää did not satisfy Wiki's guidelines (I'm preaty well versed in them already). The page was not spam and although Niko Valkeapää may not be well known outside the Sami connumity, he is notible within that community. There are plenty of sources that would support this - thanks... Dinkytown (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here they are:

1) Music Information Centre Norway - http://www.mic.no/mic.nsf/doc/art2004031810400998867017

2) In Finnish language - http://www.rockmusica.net/knews/index.php?Action=Full&NewsID=345

3) ...and in English - http://www.fimic.fi/fimic/fimic.nsf/mainframe?readform&5296F11B5E61C201C22573ED002BC922

4) Here is the Norwegian to English translation of Norwegian Wikipedia of this same person[6] .

5) Google has nearly 14,000 websites to him - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Niko+Valkeap%C3%A4%C3%A4%22&btnG=Search

Dinkytown (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The first cite is a start. The second-third isn't meaningful coverage. The fourth is a Wikipedia article which has no sway as a source (and either way it still would be a speedy deletion candidate here on en.Wikipedia, lacking sources and all). The fifth is a Google search, all of those hits may not be the same Niko Valkeapää and many look like little more than listings but among them all, you might be able to find more meaningful coverage, it looks hopeful. So far then, you've given one source. Please let me know when you find more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the page because of "A7... notiblity" (in fact I asked you for the reason why you deleted and you never answered that question...) You asked for sources. In fifteen minutes I provided sources in quick order for you based on "A7.. notiblity" deletion to show you the depth of this subject. I gave you a Norwegain Wiki page that described to you why he is important to Sami culture. The page I created did need work and was a stub, but instead of deleating the page, you could have put a tag on it and asked for additional sources, such as thousands of other pages on Wiki. The page did not qualify for speedy deletion as per Wiki rules. You don't have to insult someone to read your page - I am very aware of Wiki rules. I am curt in my statement because I have complined with your questions and have tried to answer them. I do not believe you have done the same. So I ask you again, what is the specific reason why you deleted that page? Dinkytown (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deletion log. If you don't want my help, no worries, you can take this to WP:DRV instead, if you want. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like your help and reinstate the page so I can continue to work on it. It would save me a lot of trouble. Dinkytown (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. First, forget about the article on Norwegian Wikipedia. On en.Wikipedia the article must assert the notability of the topic in some meaningful, believable way and if it doesn't cite significant, independent coverage to back this up, the article will likely be tagged again for speedy deletion or nominated for AfD. You've given one meaningful source, which is helpful. It looks like there may be more. As soon as you can come up with two more independent sources, not listings or passing mentions, which have something significant or in-depth to say about Niko Valkeapää's career, I can restore the article, cite them in the text and you won't need to worry about it being deleted again, either through a speedy tag or an AfD. You may be able to find citations in the Google search you linked above. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The sources that I listed above were just a showing of the volume of the material. I'll get three or more good sources and get back to you shortly. Thanks. (BTW: I'm shutting down here and will get them to you tomorrow - take care) Dinkytown (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen - Here are four sources:

1) A study of Riddu Riddu Festivála and its role as a cultural tool for ethnic revialization Riddu Riddu, joik or rock-n-roll ? [7]

2) Music Information Centre Norway; Niko Valkeapää: Niko Valkeapää, Listen to Norway continues with Niko Valkeapää: Niko Valkeapää [8]

3) Norway, The Offical Site in Japan; Music from Norway, Niko Valkeapaa [9]

4) Folkelarm 2008, Niko Valkeapää [10]

There are many others. Please release the Niko Valkeapää page. Thank you. Dinkytown (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the article, sourced the main assertion and done a bit of cleanup to get it started. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm still confused, but yeah. :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't you, it's how browsers read html layout each in their own ways. There are big ecommerce sites, where every little itty bitty user-configuration niche might spin off meaningful sales, which test on over a dozen browsers and platforms, sometimes even more if there's lots of bleeding edge javascript and imbedded flash stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Théo Vienne

Hello Gwen, Can you help me, please. I started the article Théo Vienne, but it should be moved to Théodore Vienne which is currently a redirect page that I also created. Many thanks in advance. Autodidactyl (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Editing as well! all part of the service. Many Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shenita Moore

Please explain why this page has been deleted (again). There are many references to Ms. Moore's on camera work. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightymoore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted five three times by five three admins in the last four months. Have you read this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And actually, that's not true, as I've only tried to update this page this week alone. In addition, yesterday the page was restored because approval was given to reuse the bio information. This page has much more information than some, yet you deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightymoore (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thrice, anyway and copyright/permission wasn't the worry. Meanwhile, if you've read this page then you know what's needed and what to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's not that big of a deal anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightymoore (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Asyraf Awang Besar‎

What point is there to going through with the AFD process for Asyraf Awang Besar‎? It is obviously a speedy delete candidate for non-notable person, and a hoax. The original creator used facebook links masked as NYT and Billboard etc... better to say "we'll squash such nonsense on sight" than "we'll let you play your little games here, removing the afd tag as many times as you want." NJGW (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article has already been deleted once before. NJGW (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's gone, sprinkled some salt. There was an assertion in there about having sold millions of bottles of perfume but the AfD was very snowy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you taking a second look. NJGW (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking further, I've blocked his sockies, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New NIUST page

Gwen, can you have a look at my sandbox article before I publish it to see if this is within guidelines? Thanks. (Oshndoc (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Done, see National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology, also with a redirect from NIUST. The text could still do with a stronger assertion of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Laura Ingalls Wilder

Hi there,

I understand that you are going by a published reference. I looked at that reference and there needs to be some clarification about who was paid. My grandfather took a $7500 tax credit for donating the house and 65 acres of land to the non-profit corporation which was actually established by him (Harland Shorter) and Norval Wallen. [redacted] my grandfather did not profit from the house or land.

I don't know if any of this makes any difference, but I wanted you to know that your cited reference was inaccurate.

Jennifer Shorter Jls09 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V. Wikipedia articles echo verifiable, reliable sources, not "truth." Given the book is published by the University of Missouri Press, about something that happened in Missouri, that's reliable. Mind, your grandfather may indeed have taken a tax credit somewhere along the way for something linked with all this, but the source doesn't say he did. Until a reliable source shows up to support your assertion (which I know you're making in good faith), it's original research, which isn't allowed here. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Thanks Gwen.[11] I added the sig. -- Suntag ☼ 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worried the website might crash without it :D Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated but grateful thanks for the eyes and actions. BusterD (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

Can you just make one line to this name - Miss Pakistan World is the only pageant for Pakistani girls in the world and takes place in Toronto, Canada. References - December 19, 2008 - New York Time Page A30, half page article on Natasha Paracha, Miss Pakistan World 2008. Natasha Paracha featured in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/nyregion/19bigcity.html?em

December 14, 2008 - Natasha Paracha on CNN Live Sunday at 8:00 PM. Please watch CNN Eastern Standard Time - USA and Canada. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/12/14/coren.intv.paracha.world.cnn?iref=videosearch

There is no need of deletion for at least this line.

Thanks (Sonisona (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)).

The NYT article seems to bring notability to this topic and I'm willing to see it recreated, but given the past conflict of interest and edit warring worries, only if you agree not to edit the article yourself. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more notable news agencies for you:

References – Miss Pakistan World

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/nyregion/19bigcity.html?em

CNN Live - http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/12/14/coren.intv.paracha.world.cnn?iref=videosearch

Times of India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2957969.cms Yahoo India - http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20081222/874/twl-founder-of-miss-pakistan-world-pagea.html

MSN News - http://lifestyle.in.msn.com/fashion/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1429533

Yahoo India - http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news-detail/16191/San-Francisco-woman-Mrs-Pakistan-World.html

DNA - http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1215341 The Telegraph - http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081220/jsp/frontpage/story_10278137.jsp

BBC Radio Interview with finalist contestant - http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2008/05/15/shawkat_st_people_feature.shtml

Please scroll to the interview done on BBC and listen as thats live and first hand information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree not to edit the article yourself? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Agreed. (Sonisona (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)).

Ok, thanks. I'll put up the article when I have time, likely later today. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (Sonisona (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)).

Sonia, I have written the article anew, with the two most reliable sources: Miss Pakistan World. Please keep in mind, always, that this is an encyclopedia article, meant to have neutral content cited to reliable and independent sources. The article is in no way a promotional medium or advertising for the pageant. I don't think a list of winners is needed. However, other experienced editors could come to a consensus to include one. Please feel free to comment here on my talk page, or on your talk page. To begin with, since you are the pageant's founder and hence have strong interests in the topic, I think it would be helpful if you would not make comments on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

History of the winners is very important..as it basically shows as to who was crowned and it is a very important element of the pageant. Its like we are talking about a country's political history with no mention of the president or prime ministers appointed... So think about it.. and add it if u think its imp. A very good list was made previous when the article got deleted... (Sonisona (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)).

Ok. I'll put it in. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Input is welcome. See talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through it once, there's a lot to like, I think, I'll read it again over the weekend. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Viktor_van_Niekerk

...removed his block notice a little early (6 days :-) ). I have restored it, but might be worth keeping an eye on. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye peeled ;) Truth be told, but for declined unblock notices, one can blank/rollback rather much whatever from one's own talk page. I must say though, even with all those wlinks, warnings and two block notices I don't know if that editor has read so much as a shred of policy. I'd think though, if one was here to edit an encyclopedia, one might be drawn into reading stuff (hint). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maelstron

Please could you review your deletion of http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_(live_role_playing_game)_(deleted_07_Sep_2008_at_09:44) Thank you. If it requires external verifiable sources then below is a link to 12 seconds of it from a BBC3 programme. http://www.paulwilder.co.uk/lrp_mmab.htm [PI redacted] 213.104.67.105 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This was deleted four months ago. I'd be willing to userfy this if asked by someone with a user account. If more sources have shown up since then, there may be a way to restore it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you recommend I do,

Regarding what is happening over at User talk:Ibaranoff24?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Having spent at least 20 minutes reading all that stuff, I do support the block (one doesn't often see that many declined unblock requests). Amazing how these things can get spun up over such meaningless shreds of article text. The socking took it far beyond the pale, the lack of understanding as to gaming 3rr is worrisome. As for his contrib history, it's true, highly helpful and experienced editors may be given some WP:IAR slack on edit warring and incivility now and then but mostly if they don't bring it up as such and instead, take the hint and slow down: Lots of folks have crummy days and so on. Here though, it looks like the editor has gone to war over some underlying unhappiness with Wikipedia. He'll likely need to let loose with waterfalls of apologies and some meaningful swerve in behaviour if he's to regain any trust again. Either way, I wouldn't bother posting anything more to his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to that, please check out the ANI thread, here. Also, a word of warning, this editor appears to be now stalking my contributions and emailing anyone I've been in contact with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't seen the ANI thread, busy weekend. Got the email :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He's now calling admin abuse persay, check his talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I should give it some time before I nominate myself, (or if I'm nominated for adminship, accepting) for adminship per what just happpened? How do you judge my conduct, and his, on that page? Did I overstep any policy?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, after Ibaranoff's last small tirade, I decided to go ahead and protect his talkpage. Perhaps it can be safely unprotected after some cool-off time. —Travis^talk 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw, so sad it's come to that but I agree it had to be done. That last post showed how much he needs to settle down and think things through. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Daedalus, I personally think that you could have handled the situation a bit more delicately. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong, but your responses and comments were too numerous and too frequent. Kudos for keeping a cool head, though. —Travis^talk 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

However, I do believe this is the first I've ever sweated because of wikipedia. It was very frustrating, but as I was informed long ago when I first really did start editing here(ie, not when I registered an account).... I can't remember, but I do remember that when insulted, you should not insult back, ever, and thus, I have not.

Besides all that, this whole thing was really taxing, if you can understand. I believe I'm going to take a break for a bit, not a wikibreak, mind you, but I still need a bit of rest.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, Daedalus. I agree with Travis that you stuck with it too long and might have tried other ways to tamp down the dispute. There are many crafts to editing Wikipedia. However, you did nothing wrong policywise that I can see.

Now, only since you're asking, whatever you do, don't nominate yourself, wait until someone brings it up with you and don't talk about it in the meantime. Believe me, when you're ready, it will happen quickly. en.Wikipedia is always shy of active admins. Mind, although adminship has something to do with knowing and understanding policy, it's not about policy, it's mostly about trust. I bring this up because when disputes like the above happen, sometimes it's more helpful to skirt going into loops of back and forth disagreement, even when policy is 100% on your side. Watch WP:ANI, try to help out in a friendly way with tasks there which don't need the admin bit. In other words, behave as if you already have the bit, but don't ever use it yourself. This will show other editors much about what it would be like if you were an admin and trust along those lines can grow very, very quickly here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the assistance. If I post on the page you've shown me then I won't discuss the admin's actions, it will be over why I think my edit was better than the previous version. But to be honest I don't think I can win there considering who I am dealing with. He responds to almost every section there, so I think we may be dealing with an WP:OWN problem. --Tocino 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe others there will see the worry? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: PCTP

Done. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Ta! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question :) -- deleting stupid redirects

Sorry to trouble you, but I'm getting lost in templates and requirements.

Once upon a time someone redirected "Facetious"[12] to "Off-color humor" -- clearly (I think:) that makes no sense. But (it seems) speedy delete "nonsense" is not appropriate for a redirect. lol (at my own confusion) ... Suggestion? Proofreader77 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(more specifically) Does this require going through the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion process? Proofreader77 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Facetious to humour instead. ;) Most often, you can fix it yourself, or tag it as a CSD R3 for speedy deletion if it's not old but beyond fixing. Only if a redirect is both old and also seems unfixable, must it go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, since sometimes there's a reason for (or a tearful background behind) odd-looking redirects which have been lurking about for awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and taken from the words of SirFozzie, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid admins." :D Gwen Gale (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bless you (again!) ... 'Now off to find something else to get confused about. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. (speaking of stupid:) What does a CSD R3 tag look like? Proofreader77 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

{{db-r3}} - Copy paste that into an editing window and hit preview. If you put it on a redirect page, through the magick of modern scripting, the RD will then show up at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, where a flock of admins will spot it and swoop in for a closer look, then either delete it or type something like "CSD declined, redirects are cheap." Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Smiling the warm and fuzzy smile of a (momentarily) enlightened ignoramus. :) And glad I asked. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My stalker

You should perhaps watch my pages, apparently my stalker doesn't like me because I'm a deletionist. Check out your watchlist after watching my userpage, and you'll see what I mean.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been acknowledged by Grawp. Saw it, your page is already on my watchlist :) Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to find out if Grawp is my stalker, I added the user to the spi.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are wannabe Grawps too. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, still, I have to have done something to attract this guy to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Grawp/Ha66er/WoW vandalism often hits editors who are active in the project space (noticeboards, XfDs and so on). As with most Internet trolls, they look for editors who they think they might be able to upset and if they see one of their targets wasting time trying to track them down or whatever, they get a kick out of that too, thinking of the editor as "pwnd." It's all more of a technical issue than anything else and it's sometimes helpful to keep in mind that with tens of thousands of folks browsing and editing Wikipedia, very, very few of them vandalize (and most of those are adolescent boys, or lately so). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lady of Shallot

Have you seen Braveheart? When I saw the painting on your user page I was immediately reminded of the bride in the scene where the English lord crashes a Scottish wedding to claim primae noctis. (That's the only picture of Julie Austin I could find from the movie.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, never seen Braveheart but yes, Waterhouse dug deep into Anglo-Saxon history for some of his subjects. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User that should probably be blocked

Socialism20091011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The username, for one, suggests that the editor is making edits per a certain point of view. Secondly, this editor is using wikipedia as a forum for discussion concerning various topics that have to do with his username, re: I'm adding a link to The Landlord's Game, the precursor to Monopoly, because it says Elizabeth Magie invented the game to demonstrate how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants, because it proves that renting should not be legal but it is., or But since most people live paycheck to paycheck, if they lose their job they're "starving", especially if it takes months or years to find another job, if ever. And don't argue that there is welfare, soup kitchens, etc to help feed them, because that's not the right way to keep people from starving. There is such a thing as lying through omission of such data because someone doesn't want too many people or nations to think that anyone in America has ever starved to death. Most people in other nations would be shocked to hear that America has ever had one homeless person, much less millions, & especially children sent west on the Orphan Trains.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't new block editors for making sweeping PoV, OR statements on talk pages, which are meant for this kind of thing. Let the editor know about Wikipedia's sourcing, NPoV and original research policies and see what happens next. Don't bite the newbies. The username hints at a PoV but doesn't stray from WP:Username. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Runestone template

Fair enough, I was just basing it you saying "I removed the tag because you put it at the bottom of the wrong section" (implying that you knew what the "right" section was, at the time), but can see that you may have been speaking in retrospect. Sorry for misreading it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Only after he blanked the whole section (a few minutes ago), did it become clear what he was after. No worries :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WITH A LOT OF RESPECT AND THEN SOME....

Malcolm Schosha's week long block extension seemed more like a block for insubordination than a block for a personal attack. It seems to me that a better way to deal with Malcolm would be to simply block him when he breaks the 3 revert rule and leave it at that. Malcolm's view of other wikipedians and the general public are ill considered but they are hardly the stuff of a personal attack. There are many admins who simply let such statements slide by them without further incident. Is that really too much to ask ? If you are sincerely offended by his assertions you should tell him that you are and perhaps take his case to arbcom. But if you are only acting as a concerned admin who is trying to rehabilitate a troublesome individual,then please at least consider just ignoring his outbursts and subsequently avoid any further drama.

Either way thanks for your time and for your contributions to Wikipedia thus far. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not offended at all by it, but other editors find it nettlesome. Either way I do think it's time for another admin to take over with Malcom :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave Simons

WTF? A guy who's been drawing comic books since the 1970s isn't important? What do YOU know about Dave? Nothing - so why the hell did you delete the page without reviewing/reading it first? And don't give me any of that "I read it first" crap when it's obvious you didn't. A decent excuse would be nice as Dave, as he has SEVERAL references to his work and contributions on the Wiki already, clearly deserves his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 06:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And I still have no idea why you've deleted it, other than some idiot excuse about Dave 'not being important'. It's a weak excuse - and it's not daunting - it's bloody insane. Did you read the page? Probably not. Do you know anything about Dave? No. So who and what has to be done before the page can be allowed up? This is crazy!Daniel best (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, reading the link she gave you here is a start. Please don't take the deletion of the page as stating that Simons isn't important. He may not have been notable based on what was included in the article, and he needed more reliable sources to show people who aren't familiar with his work that he is notable. For what it's worth, I'm familiar with Simons, and there are probably ways to show his notability. The deleted article must not have demonstrated this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense, however the page was removed before I'd finished working on it - hair trigger time. I had drawn the material from Dave's own site, interviews that I'd done with both him and others (about Dave) and knowledge that I have about Dave, from Dave. So what more do you need? The sources are reliable - if someone had bothered to click the links they'd have established that soon enough. Perhaps it might be prudent to allow me to FINISH the article before it's removed and locked out forever next time. Daniel best (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not an admin's fault for deleting something that's in the mainspace, that's for fully sourced articles. If you'd like to continue working on the article and try and get it finished, you can ask an admin to place the old article in your workspace. I'm not sure if you've worked there before, but that means the article will be on a page like your talk page, where you can continue to build on it until it's finished. It won't be live on Wikipedia until you upload it to a mainspace page, but it also won't be deleted while it's in your space. Dayewalker (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to continue working on it on the Wiki but it's locked out, so I can't. Seriously, this is not the way to do such things - deletion after a few hours of a page that hasn't been checked out, or discussed, properly. Also, and I've read the page that this 'Gwen' person has up, and also the excuse given as to why the page was removed and I still can't fathom the reason - what does the page need to prove that Dave is a person of import? It was all there, with the proper sources, links and references. I have to say it, this strikes me as someone with a power trip - deleting pages just because they can. And if it's not the admins fault then whose fault is it? 'Gwen' deleted the page, so yes, that's the one I'd be looking to blame. Daniel best (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can look to blame someone, or you can try to fix things. I thought since I was familiar with the subject, I could step in and help, so here's your options. If you want a copy of the deleted article, politely contact an admin and ask. If you want to complain about the article as is, take it to deletion review. Either way, since this is Gwen's talk page and not mine, I'll wrap it up with this as my final comment. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The only source (which might be reliable) cited for the whole article was http://www.adelaidecomicsandbooks.com/simons.html. Dave Simons is not locked, but you tried to recreate it at Dave simons, which I did lock. "Importance" has no meaning here. Biographies must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Someone who has worked as a staff artist for comic book publishers is not inherently notable. I'll be happy to put the deleted text in your user space while you look for more sources which might show the notability of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that because Dave has only got ONE major interview on line, not counting his own site and his artist rep site and the other sites I had referenced, he's not important? Give me a break!! That is the most infantile excuse I've ever seen and it shows me that you did not read the article - Dave was NOT a 'staff artist', he has worked for Marvel and DC, is the current artist for Army Of Darkness and has extensive credits in the animation field, including credits as a creator and director. If you removed Dave because you believe that he is only a 'a staff artist for comic book publishers(sic' then you might want to remove people such as John Romita, who was exactly that - a staff artist for Marvel Comics. And while you're at it you might as remove 95% of the comic book artists you have listed. 'Gwen', this is nothing more than you having a power trip - you saw it there and decided to remove it WITHOUT consultation and without actually reading the article nor waiting for it to be fully finished.

As for the source that 'might be reliable', I did the interview with Dave - it IS reliable. My site has been strip mined for various Wiki entries, without permission, and now you pull that rabbit out? How do I know that YOU are reliable? Again, another weak excuse from you 'Gwen' (if indeed that is your real name, after all I have nothing to 'verify' that source).

I would accept nothing less than the site to be re-instated asap so that it can be finished and to allow Dave to be listed on the Wiki.Daniel best (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you interviewed him yourself that would be your own original research, which isn't allowed, unless it has been published by a reliable source which is independent of you. Please also have a look at Wikipedia's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you on drugs?? So if I use my OWN work it's not reliable, but if someone else uses it then it is? You know what? I'm going to make sure that people know how insane this all is. If I'd done this and said that my cat had interviewed Dave then that'd be acceptable I take it?

Crazy, absolutely, certifiable crazy. No wonder no-one takes this Wiki stuff seriously. You clearly make the rules up as you go along. I now expect that you'll scour the Wiki for any research that I've done - off hand you can search Norm Breyfogle (and related), Ross Andru (and related), Alan Grant, Jim Starlin, John Romita, Jim Mooney, Alan Kupperberg and a host of others, and remove those pages because they feature my work and links back to my site. Hop to it.

Under your rules I shouldn't be allowed to write anything if I use my own research - so my Andru & Esposito biography, from which your entry on Ross Andru is based upon, should be taken down immediately.

Is there anyone there with 1] common sense and 2] a brain that I can refer this to?Daniel best (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All you want is for your article to be restored. I don't think you've carefully read the links I've given you. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your contributions to those other articles are few and most look like additions of external links, some to blogs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion here and Daniel certainly isn't doing anything to help by his continued aggressive style. The requirement is that wikipedia publishes only material which can be verified in reliable sources, that is we aren't the first publishers of original reasearch. In Daniel's case he is stating that at least some of the material is his own original reasearch, but has been published in reliable sources elsewhere (I'll assume that they are reliable in wikipedia's parlance, I haven't checked). Other editors have used his work in these sources as the appropriate cites for their contributions to articles. He is similarly free to cite his own work elsewhere, provided it has been published by a reliable source. (i.e. he couldn't write any old crap on a blog and cite it, but an article written for a reputable news source would be fine). There are of course potential issues of conflict of interest, but that is a different dicussion. Without seeing the article in question, it's hard to tell exactly where we are with this, anything which hasn't been published elsewhere would for wikipedia's purposes be considered original research and couldn't be used. The question of notability of the subject is a different one, wikipedia's standard of the general notability guideline is based not on any of use determining if the subject is notable, but on if the world at large considers them to be notable, this would be evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Gwen Gale is quite correct in saying "inherrently notable", meaning that there are very few cases where someone/thing is consider notable just for being of a certain class, if they are notable then the world at large will be interested as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is insulting to suggest that Dave is not 'inherently notable' just because someone here has never heard of him - under that guise then you need to delete around 90% of all comic book artists because the bulk of them, outside of the likes of Jack Kirby, have done less than Dave, who has forged a successful career in both the comic book industry and animation - John Romita, for example, has only worked in comic books and then only for Marvel & DC, so go ahead and delete the guy. The Wiki is full of people who have worked in a niche, and I can't help but wonder if Dave's entry was deleted for other reasons. 'Gwen' can rally against me all she wants, but the stark reality is that she deleted the entry without first allowing it to be finished, nor did she check with me, or consult, to verify the content. As it stands I'll have someone else submit the entry, as it'll be under their name and with third party links then it should be allowed.

All work by a biographer is made up of original research. Under your rules nothing would be published unless it was stolen from elsewhere. That is not the way things are done in the real world.Daniel best (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your reading of "inherently notable", the context in which it was used "Someone who has worked as a staff artist for comic book publishers is not inherently notable". Is everyone who has "worked as a staff artist for comic book publishers" notable by your standards? The whole point here and the whole basis for deletion was that from reading the article the importance or significance of the person wasn't apparent (Remember I haven't seen the article, I'm basing it on the stated reason for deletion). Wikipedia's standards aren't that those "in the know" will understand, the article should make it readily apparent. If he is/isn't more important/notable/significant than all these others isn't the issue, it is (a) does the article make that apparent and (b) does the world at large think it so, such that they have been willing to write about it.

"Under your rules nothing would be published unless it was stolen from elsewhere" - not at all, we rely on citing things to reliable sources, that doesn't mean that the work is "stolen", wikipedia certainly doesn't accept verbatim copying. As has been stated many times wikipedia isn't a first instance publisher of ideas, it relies on it being backed up by reliable sources. Quite frankly you can feel as indignant as you like, rant as much as you like, be as obnoxious as you like towards Gwen Gale, but wikipedia's standards aren't going to instantly change just on your say so. If you were willing to stand back and try and understand what the inclusion criteria are and how they apply to this case you maybe able to get the article restored and into a state where continued inclusion is beyond question, or to understand why this may not be suitable material yet. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you want a good reason as to why the Wiki is attacked and derided in the real world then read no further than the above post. You criticise me for being passionate about my cause and wanting an answer that makes sense, and then you attack me. Good stuff - fight fire with fire I guess. And yes I am aware that the Wiki has it's own set of special rules which do not match up with the rest of the world at large, especially when it comes to attribution (sorry, I've seen my work here copied and pasted, verbatim, with no recourse for myself), research and publication. You might think it's right and proper, but the reality is, it isn't. As for changing the rules, I doubt anyone ever will, until the lawsuits get really out of control. As for assistance, outside of supplying a few links that made no sense and an obtuse reason for deletion, 'Gwen' has been of no assistance at all. Others have pointed me in the right direction, not she.

As for the question, "Is everyone who has "worked as a staff artist for comic book publishers" notable by your standards?" The short answer is yes - if they've been published and have maintained a career for as long as Dave has then I'd say that they're very notable. Is Stan Goldberg notable? Absolutely. Is Rob Liefeld notable? Yes. Is the guy who penciled one comic notable? To someone out there the answer is yes. In Dave's case, again, he has worked in both comic books and animation as an artist, writer, creator and director since the 1970s - that makes him very notable. Is Orson Welles notable as a film director? He only directed a handful of movies after all. Is Jeff Buckley notable? He only released one album in his lifetime and left behind another, incomplete. One and a half albums - not much of a body of work is it? So, answer me that, is he notable?

At no point has 'Gwen' stated that she actually read the entry before deleting it, so I'll have to safely assume that I'm right - she deleted it without good reason, without consultation and without reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this, since I can see it being generally unfruitfull. But to a couple of your points "sorry, I've seen my work here copied and pasted, verbatim, with no recourse for myself" - well you do, there are certain questions of fair use for short quotes, but beyond that please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As to your allusions to lawsuits, I can assure you that no lawsuit will force wikipedia to change it's inclusion criteria, there is no divine right to have an article here. My question was "is everyone", not "are some subset meeting a different set of criteria.." indeed as was the original statement, inferring additional meaning as a mean to take offence is unlikly to get much sympathy. My answer as to if he is notable is the same as has been repeated multiple times, in wikipedia's inclusion criteria it is not for me to dictate based on my own set of criteria as to what I think is/isn't important, the question is does the rest of the world think he is notable such that they have "taken note" and written about him in reliable sources, if so then we have no argument, simply state those sources and the issue vanishes. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, IP. Had User:Daniel best been more civil from the outset, along with a bit more willing to understand what was going on, at the very least I'd have userfied the content, might have even restored it. However, this long string of personal attacks, mixed with an utter disdain for Wikipedia, makes me wonder what the user is doing here. Since I can't do much under these attacks and threats, I recuse from anything having to do with this user or the topic. Anyone else can handle this, however they see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maelstrom

Hi Gwen,

I'm aware that this was deleted months ago, but it's just come to my attention. You deleted Maelstrom (live role playing game) in September on ground A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"). At the time the article included the claim that the game is the second largest fest LARP (fest LRPs are generally the largest LARPs, but I think the source only covered fests) in the UK, which would seem to me to be a claim of significance? Its sourcing wasn't great, but speedy deletion didn't give any chance to rectify that. Could this be restored so it can be worked on further?

Thanks, TSP (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive10#Maelstron and let me have your thoughts, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. (I've asked Paul for more details of the BBC3 programme so I can see if this is actually a useful source.) The article certainly needs more sources; but I don't think that makes it a speedy candidate. I noted you've already provided a userfied copy at User:Alex/sandbox/Maelstrom_(live_role_playing_game), but working from that would lose attribution from all the earlier edits. TSP (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Claims of significance must also be believable (not always easy to glean with these RPGs). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Deletion review for Dave Simons

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave Simons. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Manhattan Samurai

Hi Gwen. That was a rather bold unblock. I note from your edit history that there is no evidence of consulting with anyone regarding this matter, which might have resulted in a more consensual decision. This user has demonstrated vandalism, personal attacks, and devious and deceptive behaviour in trying to cover up the evidence. The user demonstrates no understanding of how their behaviour impacts on the trust and good will of the community; doesn't apologise for the time-wasting; and attempts to justify the low-level disruptive behaviour by pointing out the good work. We really don't need people like this wasting our time and eroding motivation. Feeding this person's ego now will result in more problems later, and then more drama and squabbling between ourselves as we attempt to sort it all out. If someone gets unfairly blocked I have been one to stand up and get into trouble for objecting, but this person was fairly and squarely blocked for a long-running series of anti-community activity. I was initially shocked when this user was blocked because I had only seen the good side, but when I looked into the details, the deception and the failure to acknowledge wrong doing or to be open and honest was enough to convince me that the block was appropriate, and unblocking would only lead to more time-wasting and aggravation. What are your thoughts on there being a discussion on this matter with other admins on the best way forward now? I don't think it's appropriate to have this person blocked and unblocked as admins fight over them as the new Giano; however, I think there needs to be a little more put in place than an unblock and a promise to behave for a month. Perhaps you would accept being Manhattan Samurai's mentor for a year? SilkTork *^YES! 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for five years and have never seen mentoring help any user with blockable behavioural worries. To me, this is a canny hint behavioural mentoring rarely (if ever) has a happy or helpful outcome. Raul's editing restrictions are very, very tight. Let's see how the month goes. Meanwhile I wouldn't think those restrictions should be lifted without a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gwen, I just thought you might like to know that, as said above, this user cares not for those around him, or the community. He told me so, in an email, that he thinks users who personally attack others should be allowed to get away with it if they do good article work. That doesn't sound promising to me. By the way, this was around the time of Ibaranoff24's indefinite block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If MS makes any personal attacks he'll be blocked indef again straight off and it's unlikely any admin will want to unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on there being a wider discussion on this unblock? I'm concerned because there was clear consensus for the original block - a certain degree of concern and tut-tutting at Raul's unblock - and several admins refused to undo my block until you came along. In those circumstances I would have thought that the potential drama and ill-will caused by an impromptu unblocking might have been diverted by some form of discussion before-hand. SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to discuss my admin actions. I thought the last unblock request showed the first meaningful hope that MS might be willing to sway his behaviour. Given this, I didn't see any harm in unblocking a user under a pre-existing, very heavy restriction which more or less keeps him on a single article and in his own talk space. If the user carries on being disruptive, there is no way he'll get through a whole month without breaching the bounds of that restriction. Moreover, that restriction won't automatically lift in a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Could you please unclose it? I was in the process of reducing it to a single article, as in, the original article I nominated.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You should have waited until I was done, but I guess it'll be ok like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done? Sorry, I didn't realize it would take several edits. I thought the last edit you made before I made an edit was your last edit. Sorry.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RAR!~

-*Sharpens all implements of war* ;0)~ sinneed (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean pencils, I hope ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. *hides the hatchet* Yeah. uh-huh. *nod* Pencils.
...
Now my screen has funny grey marks on it. sinneed (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Too hard to see. Try a sharpie ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

You deleted my article -The Fags- in December. Since this was my first contribution I'm pretty sure I did not follow all the guidelines correctly. I'm almost certain that I could edit this article and add proper citations to meet guidelines. How can I gain access to the original entry? I'd like to have a go at doing it over. Of course any advice from you would be most welcome! Thanks!!! Dennis White Dennybop (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put it at User:Dennybop/sandbox. You might be able to glean something helpful from this page, but also carefully go over WP:BAND. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder

If you're watching me, heh.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oo! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bielski and Defiance

As a neutral administrator you may want to take a look at Defiance (2008 film), from which Aron Bielski was a kind of offshoot. I have tagged for neutrality and explained my tagging on the discussion page. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. If the source doesn't talk about the film, it doesn't belong in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article has actually been a major headache, the worst since I started editing film articles. I've seen worse, but never have I had such resistance on basic principles. Take a look at some of the earlier versions and the talk page conversations and you can see what I mean. One section was pure synthesis and it was a nightmare getting it fixed. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This also has something to do with the ongoing awakening of eastern Europeans to their own histories, which were mostly rewritten by the Sovs and kept that way for half a century. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a sore subject. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

Thanks for the laugh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

You've taken care of four out of five of these blocks. Could I persuade you to take a peek at Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again?—Kww(talk) 14:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Happily, auburnpilot has done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re: ani

::Sounds like you two don't agree on how to say the models are very, very much the same, but a 17 can't be quickly made into an 18 by swapping in the key bits. Why does this bring my thoughts back to Arlo and Woody? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

my point was that we should word it according to the provided jane's.com source, (jane's is quoted about 20 thousand times on wikipedia), and nukes4tots's point was that we should word it according to cybershooters.org 'the deactivated gun club website', which aligns with his personal expertise and opinion. i was trying to go with the more reliable source over the editor's opinion and the gun collector's club website, which is possibly a questionable source. but that's more about a content dispute, and i was more concerned with the language used to argue the dispute. i am not familiar with the song he quoted, or what he was trying to imply by posting the lyricss. the whole thing sounded uncivil, but that's why i reported it. if you disagree, i respect that. i'm not trying to present a case or anything, just reporting what i thought to be uncivil. cheers. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only since you're asking me here:

• This is a wide open, wild 'n wooly wiki, more or less. Stuff gets misunderstood here all the time. It wasn't a personal attack, it was Nukes4tots. That's how he is, he comes off as a bit uncivil but it's not clear he means to be uncivil, he's harmless, I don't know what he was getting at by quoting Alice's Restaurant but it was funny, not mean, please don't worry about it, he's not targeting you (erm, so to speak, given the topic).

• This is a wide open, wild 'n wooly wiki, more or less. Stuff gets misunderstood here all the time. cybershooters.org looks canny reliable to me when it comes to swappin' out Glocky bits. Janes is ok I guess but I hear tell there are reasons why they might not be all that helpful sometimes (hint). Cite both sources if you like and keep tweaking the wording until you're both ok with it. Either way, I think it's time for y'all to get input from other editors, there must be a few watching that page. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting some advice...again.

Being my "go-to" admin for advice about the thorny, I'm here again for a question on "what to do". As you note above about some other editor, I tried to mentor and it blew-up in my face. The guy went completely over the edge and started ranting about WP being racist. The editor has (obviously) been blocked but I was wondering what to do with the attack page (our adoption communication page)? I don't want to delete it because it's in his user space and he's not indef blocked. I don't want to leave it because it's disgusting to me. I don't know if I should blank it or not, it might be seen as trying to hide something. I've edited it enough to think I could blank it, but it's not my user space. If you can't figure out what page I'm talking about, just ask. Padillah (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean this. Yeah, I've never seen a mentorship spin up happily, not once. I hear tell that, long ago, on a Wikipedia far, far away in space and time, someone lucked out and a mentorship came up sunflowers (only because someone didn't need a mentor to begin with) and the tidings spread like bird flu. You might want to leave that page be, as a cairn to your worthy, cringing pain. I'll be happy to either redact the personal attacks, courtesy blank the page, or delete it altogether (as a CSD G10), if you ask me to. Oh and speaking of truth (since he brought it up), Wikipedia is not truth, Wikipedia is verifiability, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Belew Power Trio

If you have a spare moment or two I would value your thoughts on this article. Is it worth keeping/working on or should it redirect into the Adrian Belew page where they are already mentioned in this section? The original article was initially up for deletion but somehow survived. As it stands it seems to be more a promotion for the Slick siblings (with slender notability) than an article about the band. Lame Name (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Adrian Belew Power Trio would make it through an AfD. Meanwhile, with a blue-linked member and an old contribution history it's not quite a CSD A7. So, yes, I'd suggest an editorial merge and redirect to Adrian Belew until/if the band gets some coverage on its own. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi Gwen. I made a mistake when I added the url to the Speedy template. Here is the correct url, which is the word for word copy used to create Nicolas Suard. Once again, apologizes for adding in the wrong url >.> Synergy 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've swept out the cupboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Record Holders Republic

This page was deleted because "it did not indicate the importance or significance of a company."

The significance, however, is quite obvious. It services human achievement world record holders who, in many instances, cosubmit to Guinness World Records. Record Holders Republic has over 1,400 verified human achievement world records by over 700 individuals. It's relevance as a searchable Wiki article is quite clear, to inform potential world record holder candidates of an additional place to submit their record for verification.

Throwdini (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORG and WP:WEB. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting that you look in upon a situation

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

A time ago, this user was the subject of a bad block. The block ran it's course, but during that entire time, the user trolled on his talk page that the blocking admin should be blocked, or desysoped. Once the block ran it's course, and the ANI thread(the block was found to be bad), Spotfixer immediately went to the original blocking admin's talk page and mocked him regarding the block, not to mention making a note on the ANI topic that the admin should be desysoped.

Another matter concerning the mistake of an admin in regards to a BLP has apparently attracted his(Spotfixer's) attention, and in regards to the ANI matter, he called for the admin who made the mistake to step down from adminship, he is also trolling the ANI thread where the mistake was discussed, trying to get the admin desysoped/blocked.

All I ask is, after a review of what I said, and the user's talk page, before the addition of the picture, you weigh in.

The ANI thread I speak of: Wikipedia:AN/I#Excessive block

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Eleland's incivility block may have been a bit long but it's not beyond the pale either, given the blocks he's gotten before for this kind of thing. Wehwalt has been warned about straying from WP:BLP but I don't see a hint of any admin tool abuse, so a call for de-sysopping is unhelpful. If Spotfixer keeps up this badgering he'll likely get blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read his proposal on the ANI thread?: And I propose that we block Wehwalk indefinitely for their actions, and unblock Eleland with with a sincere apology for the unwarranted abuse. Wehwalk can come back if they promise not to violate BLP or make excuses for their violations, but they obviously can't ever be an admin again. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Would a comment on the ANI thread be at all possible? Or perhaps a warning on the userpage? He won't listen to anything I say, as I was involved in the matter originally, regarding his behavior in regards to the admin who made the bad block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll get bored if editors stop giving him heed. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I really need to get my glasses prescription updated; I first read "heed" as "head." Bad Arimareiji. arimareiji (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

hahaha! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: happier tangent from this muddle

Thank you; I was actually curious about the French when I first thought about it.
I used to informally use "y'all's" as well, but I changed over to the even less-correct "your guys'", as a corruption of the nominative "you guys", after a few years in New York City. (No, not the stereotypical "yousguys" / "yousguyses'" ^_^) English really does need a distinct second-person plural possessive, so we don't have to keep making it up! arimareiji (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Y'all has become "correct" in everyday speech (which would also mean Wikipedia talk page psts, I think). All of you and everyone can also be made to fit the task. In formal narrative writing, the need for 2nd-person plural seldom comes up, so the lack isn't all that nettlesome. Now, I also find you guys (which is gender neutral) ok, but youze guys... that's both ugly and redundant! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Small Problem

Hi. If i understand the situation, you're keeping an eye on MS. Some users i'm dealing with have been attracted over to his talk page by subtle attacks he's been directing at me (he seems to harbor some old grudge though we've had very little direct contact). I've been checking on them (they're mostly SPAs with fewer than 50 edits, so its easy) and so have ended up at his talk page. He describes me as being involved in "odd maneuverings," edits of mine and others as "destructive," as having "demolished" and "smashed to bits" an article in a manner he characterizes as "sick" and "disgusting." He uges "sane" editors be rounded up to fix the article because of "misinformation" that i and other editors have allegedly placed there. He also generally seems to be trying create a battle-type atmosphere with lines like "I tell you a civil war is looming, pitting inclusionists against deletionists." (what actually happened was the removal of a bunch of original research and speculation from a BLP that implied someone was a serial killer). Maybe I'm being overly sensitive. But take a look for yourself and if you agree with me i'd appreciate it if you get him to desist. If you don't agree with me, I can live with no action. Best and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm "unfit to be editing" he continues, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Question About Parasoft Deletion

Hi Gwen. I just read your 'Why did you delete my article" page, but I was still wondering if you could help me understand why the Parasoft article was deleted as advertising. From what I remember, it was written in an objective and unbiased stile, and all statements were backed up by third-party verifiable sources. I do not believe any marketing terms were used, or that it read like advertising copy. Pages written in a similar style—such as the Coverity, Fortify Software, and Klocwork pages—are still online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtechwr (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, it still reads like a sales/publicity handout to me. Please see WP:ORG and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then let me have your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my Article

Dear Gwen,

I noticed lately that you deleted the Frontiers Research Foundation article. I went to the page where you explain why an article can be deleted and its seems that this one was deleted because of A7 argument that "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". However, the article was decribing that the Foundation was significantly taking part of the Open Access publishing movement and set up a new scientific research publishing model to serve the movement.I would like to be able to review the article with your help in order to fit the requirements and be able to have this article page on wikipédia.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration!

Wikipédia Administrator of Frontiers Research Foundation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.89 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORG and WP:COI and let me know what you think, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

A non-article has been recreated for Marling school card system. An earlier version was was speedily deleted. I have been round and round the pages regarding the deletion of articles but am now unsure as to just where or how (and probably why) to propose this as an article for deletion. Lacking anything close to WP:N or WP:V is it another Speedy or otherwise? Thanks Lame Name (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've skived it off as a CSD G11. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanertan Rant

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

---

Vandalism?? You call my changing the Apollo articles to read the facts for a few seconds vandalism huh you stupid crackwhore? Ya well the mere existence of those Neil Armstrong fairy tales and maniacs who are still deluding themselves into thinking shit like that could have actually occured in 1969 is the ultimate vandalism of human culture on this planet in general. I looked into this Apollo nonsense in greater detail than I would have liked to. To the extent of trying to correspond with NASA. There is no such thing as a Neil Armstrong or anybody else actually going to the moon anytime soon, nevermind the 60s. If you look carefully at these so-called TV broadcasts of those events they look as outrageously unrealistic and disgustingly fake as Ed Wood movies. But hey why listen to me when you can keep right on regurgitating your appaller space balonies and other lies. That's how science and wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanertan (talk • contribs)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page, where theoretically it's supposed to go. Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
• Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings.

Heh. Lots of big, big lies are told by politicians these days but the Americans did land people on the moon 6 times between July 1969 and December 1972. They stopped because it was amazingly, staggeringly expensive and also quite dangerous, with few economic benefits in sight. Mind, almost 800 years went by between the time when Norse settlers are first known to have set up housekeeping in North America at L'Anse aux Meadows (the settlement failed) and the founding of the United States (which by the bye, was 300 years after Christopher Columbus): Even by then North America was still mostly empty of Europeans and they didn't have to deal with the hard vacuum of space. Anyway you're welcome to talk about the reliable sources to be had on this topic but if you disrupt this encyclopedia or carry on with personal attacks, I or someone else will very swiftly block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya right Americans landed on the moon 6 times just like your mentally diseased articles claim. That only happened about as often as Santa Claus flew in with his flying rein-deer to deliver presents. With all due respect you seem to personally excell in being the most unreliable source to be had on this topic.

[snip copy pasted stuff/screed]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanertan (talk • contribs) 08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Apollo project is one thing, but how dare you bring Santa Claus into this. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to explain to you once and for all that Neil Armstrong landing on the moon is just as fictitious as Santa Claus appearing on Xmas or 007 and his submarine cars. How dare you pollute cyberspace with outrageous lies that suggest it was otherwise and that deadly diseased celebrity liars like Armstrong's and Aldrin's and Nixon's were telling the truth about it all. What if young and impressionable children looked up Apollo on wikipedia and all they see is nothing but your deadly mistaken rehashing of late 60's hoaxes presented as scientific achievements?

Furthermore how dare you delete the historically accurate edit of the wikipedia article I posted here? For the benefit of more broadminded individuals here is a link to a page where this article will appear without being subject to editing by the (personal attack removed):

(removed per WP:EL)

A scientifically accurate and reliable observation about someone's intellect is never actually a personal attack. It is legal information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanertan (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What you consider fact, and what is actual fact, are two entirely different things. Quite simply, you were calling people stupid because they disagree with you, and that is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What I consider a fact, I do so on a scientific basis. There's nothing to be gained nowadays by clinching on to the insane idea that the Apollo hoax was for real. It stands in the way of actual moon landings. For now, before we can actually attempt landing something on the moon we have to take the needless detour of explaining to all and sundry how Apollo was a tragic hoax. We could have maybe actually landed people on the moon in the late 80's or something had it not been for the persistent re-circulation of this chunky piece of baloney called the Apollo missions. --Tanertan (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to not believe you there, most conspiracy theorists do nothing based on science. For instance, take the moon rocks. These rocks were dated to be far, far older then the oldest dated rocks found on earth, but that is beside the point. You're purpose here is to do nothing but insult others, and insert your POV into articles. So unless you plan on following our rules, I suggest you leave.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, let me see here, can you please outline which scientific points illustrate how you are right? Since apparently your opinions are based on science, and not a bunch of forums which can contain anything, I would like to hear how exactly you came to this conclusion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tons of scientific points already made and available at the Three world wars forum/rants and raves/ Apollo zero: The eagle that never was, Apollo zero re-visited and other similar topix. Apollo was fake. Get on with it. Why are you so concerned about it being proven fake unless your life was nearly as pretentious and useless as those who faked moonlandings and tried calling it a momentus scientific achievement? Why was this planet confined to 100s of space shuttle launches after these so-called moonlandings?? What did the last space shuttle mission accomplish that the first one already hadn't??? Why can't we start sending some people towards the moon in one of these things nowadays? It would only expose how Apollo was a hoax in a hurry is what. --Tanertan (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You know even if you block me I can comeback as an anonymous internet cafe terminal user or create new IP addresses etc time and again to haunt you with the ultimate truth. It's not like given all that I know about the Apollo hoax, I am likely to be someone who is not tech-savvy. But the point is, the point has already been made. Apollo Lunar Landings were the biggest pieces of bullshit in circulation ever. That's all there's scientifically significant about them. Peace and tranquility to all... --124.177.179.193 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is so funny how you call us delusional, when you yourself are the one that is. We have satalite TV, and sometimes these satalites need repairs, so guess what happens then; We go up and fix them. I asked you for your scientific points, I'm guessing you don't have any, as you can't even provide five. Continuing on, we have the technology, and we have had the technology to send people into space, but we don't do it often because of how expensive it is. As Gwen said, it isn't cost effective, as there is no real profit or gain from landing on the moon. I also find it funny how you completely disregard the point that has been made about the age of the rocks found on the moon, the meteorites found on the earth, and the age of the oldest rocks on earth.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Santa Claus never landed on the moon? I don't know if I can agree with that. Dayewalker (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tane, if I was an admin, I would have blocked you right there, for personal attacks. Now, seeing as how you do not wish to contribute constructively here, I suggest you leave, and go somewhere else, because the only thing that attitude will land you here is in an indefinite block. You should try Conservapedia, they might welcome you with open arms.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The fairies weep. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Kudos!

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Typed by hand, spot on, first try :P Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ellow, ellow, wot! Too right! (You rock!) Edit Centric (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcade

Hi, thank you for taking interest in my page. I see you just deleted it, I was in the middle of rewriting it to address another users problems. I just recreated it, please take a look and see if the changes address your issues as well. All secondary neutral sources were used and referenced. The company has notability because the people involved work on major film, television, music video and commercial projects. They've won awards in all aspects of the industry. They help to create pop culture as well as to help and entertain the public.

I plan on and hope that others add links to the work that they do. It will be informative and useful for tracking down these projects in the future.

Please help me to create a better page, rather than deleting if possible.

Thank you! GtotheR (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi thank you! Hopefully someone will write a wiki in the future when there are even more articles written to clearly establish notability. I thought it was a good addition because there are similar companies in the industry written about currently on wiki. Since you locked the page, can you actually just delete the wiki entry entirely. Now it shows up on google search with the tag "blatant advertising" which no company would want. So delete page and delete the deletion log, possible? Thank you. GtotheR (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be saved with a thorough re-write. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding. I'll try a re-write in the future in my sandbox and ask for feedback first.

Also,It still has the deletion log up, is there a way to remove all trace of the page? Or somewhere else to submit to have it deleted completely?

Thank you! GtotheR (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be rewritten now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've done a re-write in my sandbox can you take a look and let me know what you think, thank you so much for your time! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GtotheR/Sandbox GtotheR (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi just checking in to see if you'd a chance to look the page over! thank you!! GtotheR (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Specialty Hospital

Please remove the protection tag, i want to create a redirect on the page Maen. K. A. (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What Why was the Page Deleted??, I Created the Page With Allot Of Neutrality!! what Exactly looked like an advert?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPAM, WP:RPDA, WP:ORG and WP:COI. I see you've already been blocked for copyright violations, Wikipedia is not a listing service or directory for hospitals. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I Know its not a directory, Yet there is allot of page for different hospitals, can i ask for your help to rewrite the page in a Way that doesn't look like an advert, please give me some advice and some notes about the page, and what exactly made you see it as an advert so i can avoid that?? thank you for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Without coverage by reliable secondary sources I don't think anything can be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and i ll Find Second Resources Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't think I'm cheeky...

Hi Gwen,

You deleted the Marilyn Stowe page yesterday, and I can see why you sent it on its way. I've had my eye on that page; it had been hacked around a bit and was missing some of the most pertinent info IMHO, and I had been meaning to edit it for a while now. Marilyn Stowe is a well-known divorce lawyer in the UK, and the subject of numerous national newspaper interviews. She also played a key role in exposing a notorious miscarriage of justice, the ramifications of which are still felt in England and Wales today - this in itself, I think, is notable enough to warrant an entry. So I've taken this opportunity to start afresh and have created a new page, complete with new refs.

Best wishes, WinslowBoy (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, thanks for the fix :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sonia Ahmed was deleted along with Miss Pakistan World at the same time.

could you use this article created by you to create Sonia Ahmed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Pakistan_World Please advise--Sonisona 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

Miss Pakistan World hasn't been deleted. As for an article about yourself, please wait for someone else to get stirred up enough to write one. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

James Ibori (a warning re it being used to legitimate a scam)

Sorry to trouble you. (Ran into this on patrol.) What's the appropriate action in a case like this? [13] Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It strayed beyond the bounds of WP:BLP, so I undid back to what looked like an ok revision. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re BLP: I was stymied by that fact that assertion was not that the subject is a crook, but (seemed to imply) that the article was being used to legitimate a scam. By BLP implications, I knew it should go -- but what should Wikipedia do (us:) when there is such a notice (allegation) of an article being used criminally? (NOTE: When I saw it, I first created a comment on the talk page about it -- that should be deleted too ... but then what is our responsibility? Any notice board this should be noted on, etc?) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Any negative, unsourced assertion in a BLP must be taken out. Either way, from the outlook of WP:BLP and policy overall, without a source, the claim was utterly meaningless graffiti bordering on vandalism (whether true or not). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, and excuse my being obtuse on that -- it must 've hit one of my obtusions right in the sweet spot. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't notice the Wikinews box on the page: "Wikinews has related news: Nigerian anti-corruption officials arrest former governor James Ibori." (Didn't know some pages had those ... Now studying how/when they get displayed.) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no wikinews box in the revision you first saw, which was before I reverted it all the way back to a "clean" version. However, as I said, "whether true or not," without a source, it had to go and either way, This page is being used to provide credibility to a Nigerian Scam. View with extreme caution wasn't the way to put it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Count on me to be dumb at the right time. Once again I'm glad I asked you ... and was dumb enough to keep talking until I learned something. :) Hmmmm ... See sub-topic. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(old/2007) Wikinews (vs recent news)

Some quick notes:

1. Wikinews item is old news (2007) ... Recent news (via Google news search for subject) reveals a very complex situation (suspending of trial, allegations of politics, etc. I.E., Old news of "arrest," must be "modulated" by news of later events.
2. SO: Removal of Wikinews box bringing up old news may have been justified.
3. NOTE: The 2007 item is the only news item in Wikinews re the subject (James Ibori)
4. Consider July 31, 2008 (sourced/cited) version of the page with "Corruption charges." [14]
5. On December 26, 2008 an ip editor erased the Corruption charges section, replacing it with "He is a thief." (diff)
6. (...)

(Excuse my taking preliminary notes on your talk page; but since I put this article on your plate, would rather clarify issue here for your oversight. Still researching this ...) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

News is news, no worries. Wholly aside from this, most politicians are predatory criminals, but here on en.Wikipedia, we must follow whatever reliable sources we might stumble upon and WP:BLP indeed has sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(NOTE: I added some numbered items while (?) you were responding -- excuse confusion.) Reviewing reliable sources (now) available... and pondering "balance"/proportion in BLP when most notability is from negative information. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hint: Go with the sources :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: re formatting of negative information in BLP

Consider the July 2008 Corruption charges version of the Ibori article (and another negative example Feiz Mohammad) ... Is this formatting the accepted way to deal with negative information in a BLP? (I.E., Making topics/subtopics of negatives creates "screaming headlines" -- especially for a very small article with little more than a sentence of introduction. Is that within policy?) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'll put it this way, if you were to revert to that revision I'd think it'd not be untowards as to WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Would have to be updated taking into consideration recent events, but before attempting that) wanted to make sure that restoring and expanding the Corruption charges section is an appropriate way to go. Thanks! Proofreader77 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Meta) So much attention on a little thing?

(sotto voce) No, no particular passion for lavishing so much attention on getting this article "right." It's just that bite-sized articles (with issues) are good for learning on. :)

My sincere thanks for your time/insight/judgment. And rest assured I will not drop many things on your plate... Just every once in awhile... when a (good?:) færie's attention ... is required. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, ask/post as you please :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Honoured, milady. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The "James Ibori" (emails/letters/phone) scam (i.e., Not the man, the scam)

Another ip editor just added "scam scam scam ..." to the page. Seems we're going to have to address this.

Google "James Ibori" scam ... and there is the problem. The subject's name has been being used for scam purposes. (Different scams over time.)

Targets of the scam (and those who know about scam) look up the name, find Wikipedia article (duh). People who know about the scam want people warned about scam.

Interesting little case, issue-wise, huh? :)

1. The notable person (most notable for alleged corruption / but not email fraud) vs
2. The notable (?) abuse of the person's name (by others) for fraud (that he isn't committing)
3. (ruling out, let's hope, the case where the subject is behind #2 himself)

THINKING: People are going to keep putting "SCAM!!!" on this page ... and their desire for people to know about "the scam!!!" is quite understandable. Need to figure out how to note this "notable" (?) use of his name. (Will look for newspaper articles which speak of this ... but if not, well, will cross that bridge when we get there.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: "James Ibori" is one of many names which are used in "Nigerian letter/email" frauds. There may be some new one(s) that specifically play off his name ... Researching ... Proofreader77 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a nest of worries. Perhaps it needs a disambiguation line reading something like:

This is an article about the Nigerian politician. For Nigerian "419" email fraud, in which the names of prominent Nigerians may be fraudulently used, see Advance-fee fraud.

Yes, his name is likely being used. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's go with your disambig version immediately (can adjust later if newer scams are a special case). Thanks! ... especially for inviting me to keep talking on your talk page. :)Proofreader77 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rootology's RfA

Thanks for fixing that vandalism to the archive. Is there any harm in fully protecting the page? People should not be modifying it anyway... Just a thought. Have a great week! — Jake Wartenberg 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This will likely settle down, but semi-protection would be ok if it keeps up. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it too soon,

To ask for another Editor Review?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How long has it been? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember... I'll get back to you when I figure it out.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you check something for me?

As I was neutral in the process, I did a non-admin closure of Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd's AfD ... it was my first one LOL. Did I do it right? Is there an easier way than all that manual crapola? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I found a script :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one can find those lurking about :) I close 'em by hand though, takes less than a minute, a few copy-pastes. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Servatius Janetius

Hello Gwen,

• Your speedy deletion of the article that I have created was too soon, in my humble opinion. Some anti-Janetius DLS-CSB student (as indicated by the ISP) who would not even identify himself/herself must have requested it. Fr. Janetius, O.C.D., Ph.D. is very notable: a google or a yahoo search on this Carmelite priest-psychologist-photographer-Carnatic music composer-guidance counselor, yields a long list of reliable websites and links that indicate a rare combination not often found even in select organizations and societies. Perhaps, the only serious matter regarding the article is that Fr. Janetius may have indeed edited it a little. I agree with you that one should not yield to the temptation of touching an article about oneself, and just let others do the corrections.
• I will recreate the article on Thomas Janetius, even though I know that it will be in danger of getting speedily deleted again, for the sole reason that I believe that he is notable and the world should know that a fine person like him exists. FadulJoseArabe (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIO doesn't carry fine person as a hint of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai

Hi. Manhattan Samurai emailed me through Wikipedia in order to ask me "look into" his indefinite block. I wanted to respond on his Talk Page, but when I hit "Edit", the edit field was pink (I assume because it's blocked to anyone other than admins), and it said that "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." Is it permissable for me to comment on such a page, or not? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In his last email to me, Manhattan Samurai said the block was "probably an appropriate end" for him. Since he has twice broken his unblock restrictions (along with sundry other worries), I think the only way to deal with him would be through consensus at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Update, MS has been sending lots of emails. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. When I received the one he sent to me, I imagined that this was someone sending out emails to many people. But would it be all right for me to chime in on his Talk Page? Nightscream (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a thread about this at ani. It is titled something about Lex Luthor. You can prob chime in there. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Young People

i was working on my article. sorry, this is very complicated. i started with a couple of link about this subject

i think it's a very interesting article about a french musical movement from late 70's/early 80's, french post-punk & new wave.

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

yes i've read. i think you don't know this subject. and i'm sorry about that..... it's about french post-punk and new wave. BTW, lots of bands which are already here on Wiki. i mean they have their own page. it's a shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Le but c'est WP:RS, rien non plus. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So France Info, the radio -french equivalent of the BBC.....- Telerama, one of the most respected cultural magazine and France 2, french public TV -again equivalent of BBC- are Non-Reliable sources........????!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Qui disait ca? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

euh.... vous. vous avez dit : le but c'est WP:RS. Reliable Source, c'est ca? eh bien les liens que j'ai mis en tête d'article -comme conseille de la faire Wikipédia- viennent de ces médias francais qui font partie des plus sérieux. gilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nyet, je n'ai pas dit que des sources francaises étaient peu fiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok. donc contenu "essai non encyclopédique"? "Des Jeunes Gens Mödernes" (Naïve)(isbn 978-2-35021-146-6). j'ai collaboré à ce livre qui fait aujourd'hui référence sur la periode post-punk francaise; comme "Please Kill Me" en UK et dans le monde. mais je n'ai pas eu la pretention de me citer moi-même mais le texte d'intro et initiateur du projet, Jean-Francois Sanz. c'est un livre sur une periode musicale/fashion/clubbing francaise très importante dans l'histoire des tendances artistiques en France en tout cas. c'est aussi aujourd'hi une exposition qui circule dans le monde (actuellement à Hong Kong; bien tot a Tai-Pei, puis Tokyo). c'est aussi une compilation musicale qui est sortie et un film documentaire à venir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Citer vous-meme, cela dépend, en effet, que sur l'indépendence/fiabilité de la maison d'edition. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

mais je ne me cite pas justement. en plus j'ai pris l'artcile qui fait lieu d'editorial du livre ou sont tout de meme present Alain Pacadis, Yves Adrien, auteur francais de l'epoque respectés. c'est un livre serieux dans une maison d'editin serieuse!!! Naïve...... et qui plus est sur une sujet sérieux qui interesse les gens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Se calme, je ne veux pas vous empecher, je voudrais vous aider. Allez-y donc. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

donc je peux continuer? mais vos conseils sont les bienvenus. and as we say in french : "c'est une usine à gaz". when sthg is very complicated to understand or handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, GDF Suez, ou les tuyaux tremblent! :) C'est pourquoi j'ai dit au début, "I know this can be daunting." Prière de citer plusieurs sources, soigneusement. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. i will try. but the article disapeared now. it's empty and they change the name to "Des Jeunes gens Mödernes"!!?!? what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesleguen (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is at Modern Young People/Des Jeunes Gens Modernes, where it's always been, where you re-created it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i've been working on it. still in progress; much to do still. but is it better? THX.--Gillesleguen (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)gilles

Template:Zack Snyder

Hello, why did you delete {{Zack Snyder}} without discussion? We generally have director templates to link to their other works. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think you're getting a bit, um, enthusiastic. tfd is your friend. - Richfife (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you want? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Less unilateralism. Restore the template and put it on TFD if you have concerns. Zack Snyder is a major director (the upcoming "Watchmen", for instance) and stating that a template dedicated to him to allow easy browsing of his works is "useless" is certainly a matter of opinion and worthy of discussion. - Richfife (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The deletion wasn't unilateral. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I see the discussion? A template being marked for deletion is not nearly as obvious as an article. It doesn't show up in watchlist changes for articles that it is attached to for instance. - Richfife (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't unilateral but there was no discussion? I put it up in DRV. - Richfife (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I might have restored it had you given a meaningful reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for a forum for public discussion, which is a legitimate request. Your reason for deletion was one word: "useless". My reasoning was, as stated above: "Zack Snyder is a major director (the upcoming "Watchmen", for instance) and stating that a template dedicated to him to allow easy browsing of his works is "useless" is certainly a matter of opinion and worthy of discussion." You also seem to be ducking the "unilateral" charge (I'm guessing you're going for "bilateral"). Did you contact the template creator? The people that added it to articles? - Richfife (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I ask you to restore the template and post it at WP:TFD. Director templates are commonplace in film articles, and there was not a clear-cut reason to delete this. We can determine consensus of how to handle this template through discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that it's at DRV. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, Erik. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

...and, if the original complainant had not acted along the offensive manner it would have been much more pleasantly dealt with :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you were right to delete this template. This man has directed only three films (and one hasn't even been released yet) and a music video. That doesn't make him a "major" director. He's not Spielberg or Scorcese and doesn't deserve a template. Stick to your guns! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Naw, I'd have been happy to restore it, the CSD wasn't untowards but it was all about WP:CIVILITY. Richfife commented on the editor, not the template. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for restoring the template; the DRV looked like turning into a SNOW overturn in any event. I just wanted to say that while I'd likely vote for the template's deletion should it appear at TfD, another option if you come across something like this in the future might be to drop a note at WT:FILM to prompt a discussion. I think there's a perception among a lot of Wikipedians that anyone dealing with pop culture articles will automatically be a rabid inclusionist fanboy (or girl) who will immediately fight any attempts to see a precious, if useless, resource removed, and I can well understand the desire to avoid what you may have felt would have been a tiresome fight against such editors. But I think that most of the editors who contribute to WT:FILM have proven over time that we're able to discuss such issues in a mature and non-partisan manner. So should anything similar crop up in the future that you perhaps lack the time to take to TfD (or wherever), please don't hesitate to contact me, one of the other coordinators, or the project talk page itself. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know about these. I was going through a big backlog at CSD, someone had tagged it for speedy deletion and when I didn't see lots of films linked to the director, made a mistake in deleting it. Then, when an editor showed up saying I was being "enthusiastic" and "unilateral" I took this as an unhelpful sign and waited longer than I otherwise would have done, to see what would happen. The deletion wasn't "unilateral admin abuse," the deletion was my botch! :) I was happy to put it back once I saw this for what it was. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

I am back! jk, however, that statement is partially true. I am GENIUS, however, i am only back for a brief span in order to inform you of who exactly my sockies are, so we can come to an understanding. Simply read This page in order to find the answers you are looking for. Chao! —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

That's ciao. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dog chow? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

my email is down today

My email is down today, so I may not get Wikipedia email for awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

email back up

My email is back, I'll get any Wikipedia email sent to me. However, I may never get any email sent over the last 12 hours or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The first of many, no doubt

The Departed Fan 365 per this [15]. There might be an argument to be made to start getting rid of his sleepers (there are many). I bring this here, since being on AN/I is what he wants.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been told there are many, WP:RBI. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that RBI is the right course. But, per this [16], when do we get to the "B" part? (I'm not an admin if that isn't obvious). If you don't want to deal with this, don't blame you. But if you don't, how do i get this dealt with without giving him his drama fix? BestBali ultimate (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Both blocked, let me (or another admin) know if you see more. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a few more sleepers were turned up: [17]Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ricno Technologies Inc. Deletion...can you help?!

Hi Ms. Gale-

I wrote a page for Ricno Technologies Inc. on Monday 2/2/09. It was recommended for speedy deletion. When I contested it, I stated on the user talk that I was not intending for my article to break any Wikipedia policies or rules, and that I was asking for assistance to make my article appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Well, when I checked back on the user talk, I found out that my message had also been deleted without an offer of assistance to make it more Wikipedia-appropriate! Anyhow, I read your entry on why a page might be deleted, and you mentioned that you can recall a deleted page and advise on how to make it Wikipedia suitable. I would greatly appreciate your feedback and help.

Thanks for your time!

Mr Richard Richter (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The next step, I think, would be for you to read WP:ORG and WP:COI and let me have your thoughts. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Danigro89

This user has been asked not to update episode counts and add episode recaps to articles about television series numerous times, but he keeps doing it. If the episode hasn't aired, he obviously is copying the recap description from another website, probably the one for the show itself, which is a copywright violation. Also, Wkipedia isn't a crystal ball and shouldn't list a recap of an episode that could possibly be replaced by a different one or pre-empted completely, which already hasd happened a couple of times. Can you please intervene? Thank you for your assistance. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC) ‎

I left a warning, let me know if it keeps up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

...has evidently chased Untwirl to Rachel Corrie. Any suggestions for how to nip it in the bud? The article might be best described as a damp powderkeg, which I would think is a bad place for a red dragon to roost. arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Please note I'm not asking for involvement; the last thing I want to do is expose you to claims of vendetta. But advice would be wonderful, if any comes to mind.) arimareiji (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, consensus will nudge things in a helpful way. However, if Malcom is removing reliably sourced material, this could be taken as disruption. Moreover, one doesn't need to stray beyond 3rr to be blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll quietly wait and watch for now. Thank you for letting me get it off my chest. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the lede paragraph is not the point to go into the controversy in detail, and that's where he was removing it from--see [18] --there's enough place for it later on, and the lede is fair enough even without it. DGG (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If the lede shouldn't try to characterize it at all, I can see the validity. It would be weaker and awkwardly short, but it might be better than constant warring. However, the version he keeps reverting to is one which does try to characterize it, and it does so in a manner intended to cast the IDF's version as the factual one.

That might seem like an outrageously-strong characterization, but the editor who first started lobbying for it to be kept that way asserted that one proposed version was blatantly POV and asserted as a fact that the IDF was wrong. That version was the version that the editor, and MS, is arguing to keep - with only the names of the sides switched. arimareiji (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Methinks I spy PoV lurkin'. If a topic is controversial, the lead should canny say so. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King

Hi, I just noticed your edit here to Margaret Truman and was wondering if you could take a look at Coretta Scott King#Longevity which is similar to what you removed. I've removed the same sort of thing a couple of times first, second, but it returns. At this point I was able to get the OR and the "only 78" bit removed. There has been some discussion at Talk:Coretta Scott King#Relevance and speculation in "longevity" section and the person wanting the section has been open to discussion. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if you need more help, meanwhile, have a Mozilla. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

my talk p

Gwen, is there some reason you reverted the edit of Tom Vickers on my talk p.? I don't quite understand, but maybe I'm being stupid .DGG (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're not, neither is Tim, I sent you an email. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Samurai which frequent Manhattan

Hello, I was wondering if you could restore his talk page, as it appears he has been sockpuppeting, and it has been my understanding that the talk pages of socking masters are not deleted.

* 15:21, February 6, 2009 Gwen Gale (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Manhattan Samurai" ‎ ({{indefblocked}})

Thanks for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

However, any admin can see the deleted content and his user page has sock tags along with links to sundry CU posts. WP:RBI. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Well, night.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More MS, this one a little more disruptive

Per [[19]] and this AfD nomination [[20]]. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos: Creative Commons license(s)?

Hi. Question: Is this version of the Creative Commons license OK for Wikipedia ... or does there need to be one which specifically says the word "commercial" etc.? NOTE: "Attribution" required. (Never dealt with this before ... Creating new notches in brain.) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP(S):

• NOTE: Photo is on Flickr ... by Joi Ito ... who has a Wikimedia Commons gallery [21] (this photo is not in that gallery, but on Flickr with license specified above). Doesn't seem to be very active on commons at the moment, so I'll still ask you about this instance. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• AH! Here on en User:Joi ...(doh!) Joi Ito He's the CEO of Creative Commons etc etc. :) (Still not very active, can try emailing him ... twittering :) ... But I'll leave this note here for you for now.) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• (Smiling at the fact that I had NO idea I was stumbling into this "fascinating character" ... just trying to figure out image copyright)

THE QUESTION:) Anything I need to know about using this Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses#Creative_Commons {{cc-by-2.0|Joi Ito}} ... and anything else that needs to be a detail other than the name of the creator? Proofreader77 (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Think I've got it right. Fang Xingdong.jpg. Working on categories ... and getting it reviewed ... etc (tomorrow). Proofreader77 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok so far. The main thing is that the claimed CC license be verifiable the image page seems to have what's needed for this to happen. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your looking over my shoulder on this. I may leave a few more notes until I'm sure "everything" is done right. No need to reply to follow-up notes ... unless you see some stupidity. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

photo auto-upgraded to 1.8 megabyte original

NOTE: I see the 44K size I uploaded ... has been automatically upgraded to the full Flickr size of 1.8 megabytes. ... I understand, but also fear for Wikipedia bandwidth. :) (Will attempt to read the manual.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1.8 Mb is nothing on an image server and besides, WP likes high resolution free license images, no worries. :P Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (Seems I'm thinking too hard.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

cropping

I assume the right to use in "derivative works" will cover photo cropping. BUT not clear how one gets a cropped version "approved." Don't want the original reloaded to replace the cropped version... Pondering. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why get any approval? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is my first upload. :) My understanding is that a bot or trusted user will check/verify any image. AS WE SAW: The examining bot uploaded the original version of the image after I uploaded a lower-quality version originally. I.E., If I create a cropped version ... won't the bot just upload the original, replacing the cropped version? I.E., How do you get a cropped version in the system, with the rights attached (as they have to be). Again, thanks!Proofreader77 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's easy :) Now that the bot has done as it was written to do as a mindless but helpfully meant script, upload another file with filename x_cropped.jpg or whatever then moreover cite the uncropped one with a wlink to its image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Once again, very glad I asked. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta! (Even if I do canny botch it now and then :P) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity unionism

This has been open for less than 24 hours and already there seems to be some discussion going on, and a quarter of those taking part in the discussion are not in favour of keeping. Doesn't look like a WP:Snow situation. It looks fairly certain the end result would be Keep if left open, however as the AfD runs its course so views are aired which can be valuable both to this article and to other articles that people might wish to put up for AfD. In addition, articles can be strengthen by the testing of an AFD - attention is given to them, and references are found (some have been indicated by StickyParkin for this topic). There is benefit all round to the discussion running the allotted span, and no benefit to the discussion being stopped early. SilkTork *^YES! 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but there is no need to run something through a process when the outcome is foregone. Moreover, there is a background to why I closed the AfD early. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The benefits of running an article through AfD I mentioned above, but I can clarify: The doubts about the article's status are challenged and either strengthened or dismissed - by closing early the doubts remain; issues aired during such discussions may have wider implications, and decisions reached during the discussion can inform notability guidelines, as such guidelines are not written out of people's heads, but from the experience generated by AfD discussions; articles are frequently strengthened during an AfD discussion by people either rewriting the article to clarify matters, or by finding good sources - this was starting to happen during the AfD we are talking about. As a general rule it is better to allow an AfD to run the full five days. There are times when an AfD should be cut short, and these are listed here: Wikipedia:Speedy keep. In the case of this particular close I don't see any of the listed reasons applying. WP:Snow is not part of the AfD process so shouldn't be used to close AfD discussions early, and - in any case - did not apply here. If you felt the AfD nomination was in bad faith then a less contentious approach might have been to have a word with the nominator to discuss the matter. I don't intend to overturn your closure, this is simply a comment on what I see as a growing tendency for people to close AfDs too early. I think it's a habit that is becoming ingrained, and I just wish to raise the issue and ask people who are closing early to reflect on such an approach. Regards as always! SilkTork *^YES! 08:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I know you're trying to be very helpful and moreover, I wholly agree, way too many AfDs have been closed early lately, but this wasn't one of them and WP:SNOW still has sway. Asking that a single XfD be re-opened for any reason other than an editorial wish that the outcome for that topic not be the same as the XfD close, hovers however mildly on the edge of WP:POINT.

There were meaningful worries as to why that AfD was put forth to begin with and no way would it ever have closed with a delete. The pith is, if an editor were to post here in a halfway friendly, AGF and civil way (I think your posts on my talk page are always thoroughly such, bye by the bye :) saying, "I so think this article should be deleted because the topic is foo and besides, it's bar, could you please re-open the AfD and let it run through?" I'd very likely re-open it straight off. As an aside, it's true, uncivil or snarky editors asking me something like this do wontedly wind up at WP:DRV because I may take such behaviour as a hint such an editor's thinking on the topic is framed by something other than policy (since they're not even sticking to WP:CIVIL), hence I'll want more input on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• With due (and thoughtful) respect to the important issues raised, I strongly concur with Gwen Gale's action/explanation in this matter. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Would you have any advice to give to me regarding how to respond to edits like this or this?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Long long ago, in a galaxy far, far away (Los Angeles) a friend told me, "Chill." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I chill when someone purposely goes to an AfD I made and then refuses to discuss his reasoning with me because he doesn't like me?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the worst thing that happens to you here, you're lucky ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MS of the day

[[22]] [[23]]Bali ultimate (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

They were quacking enough, I should say. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at Thunderbird2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Direct Link To Message Tom94022 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Consensus, WP:Weight and WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh

I loved your comment of "Like how to handle ethnic PoV and strife at Hummus." arimareiji (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcade revision

Hi Gwen! I've been leaving you notes inside your archive, but just realized that you might not see those!! If you have a chance, can you take a look at this revision to the arcade page, it's in my sandbox. Let me know what you think, thank you so much for your time!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GtotheR/Sandbox

GtotheR (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's coming along! However, the project list isn't encyclopedic. By the way, if you want to leave a message for me after a thread has been archived, start a new thread on this talk page. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen!! I revised the project list to be by date and alphabetic within those dates, is that good? What else is needed do you think before I can put the page up :) Thank you!! GtotheR (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the list itself shouldn't be there. One might put maybe 3-5 of the projects into a prose sentence along with why they might be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen! I rewrote that section, eliminated a bunch of awards, and combined it into works. When you get a chance, can you please take a look. If it's not right, do you have a page that you can give me as an example on how to write that section? Thanks so much!!! GtotheR (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped a lot. I cleaned out the advertising lingo only a bit more and moved the article to the mainspace (see Arcade Edit). The inline references should be put into readable format but that's not a big deal. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help on this! Amazing! GtotheR (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions? (if you have a few moments)

This is unreal, and kinda long. I think some new eyes (and possibly powers) are needed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've left two warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to avoid those (since I had earlier said I didn't think they should have been necessary, but it escalated beyond that point). Hope you don't mind me occasionally using you as a second set of eyes. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oo ! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think he caught the drift. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Gwen. I appreciate your post. I am 100% confident that you are very well intentioned. I don’t think there is much I can add about my ‘leprosy’ comment to T-bird that hasn’t been said here at his WQA. Let’s remember that, in reality, T-bird wasn’t shocked and offended by what was said there. Nor did he really think I was really suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations. Concern over readers from Iran and North Korea is silly. T-bird was simply wikylawyering to remove an obstacle to his one-man crusade. Nothing more. Nothing less. People are wasting their time if they presume that enlightened liberalism is an entitlement to tell me how I may think, or how I may express my thoughts. If you want to go to T-bird’s talk page and say “Gee gosh Wally, I really do wish you’d drop the stick and stop flogging the horse, and stop disrupting Wikipedia”, be my guest. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The civility warning I left for you had aught to do with T-bird, who I've warned about tendentious editing and forum shopping. As for any "concern over readers from Iran and North Korea" I think you wholly, deeply misunderstood what I was getting at, but that's ok. The only pith is, if you're going to edit on this website, you must abide by Wikipedia's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am. You aren’t. See below. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, as a third set of eyes on this whole thing, and as one who agrees with you on the behaviour of Thunderbird, you're being unnecessarily disruptive here. You accuse Gwen of being thin-skinned, but by reading re-read your knee-jerk reactions to her polite suggestion that you tone down your language to a less "in-your-face", one has to wonder if you don't have an "one atom thick skin" as well. The problem here is not that you use sarcasm in your remarks, it's that you knee-jerk everytime someone doesn't slob all over your dick as a manifestation of their 100% agreement with you. Thunderbird completely deserves these knee-jerks reactions (whether or not we should make them is another debate). Gwen however has done nothing to deserve the biting sarcasm you're thrown at her as a response. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point, Headbomb. It wasn’t “biting sarcasm” but biting indignation. Gwen: I see you were trying to help. Most all of the admins here are trying to help. I appreciate your contributions. Perhaps I was a bit too quick to take offense to your “skin” post. Your post came near-instantaneously after I deleted a previous post from you, was referencing an edit summary, connecting the dots to something I wrote a week ago, and then a less-than-veiled threat of being blocked, and it all seemed like a rapid-fire pile-on at the time. I further perceived it as intentionally provocative but it certainly simply could have been unintentional. I hadn’t been looking at the goings on at T-bird’s WQA (his antics are a bug splat on my windshield of life and I try to ignore him). So I didn’t know of your efforts on the WQA where you were tying to be even handed. I wasn’t aware all of that was still going on. Now that I’ve had time to go back and look at all the time everyone has devoted on this thing, and the sincere effort Gwen was making there, I realize you didn’t deserve to be treated like a punching bag. I apologize for that.

  Headbomb: “…everytime someone doesn't slob all over your dick…”??? And I thought *I* wrote whatever the hell I thought! :·) Greg L (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Greg L. Only so you know, on Wikipedia, civility isn't always what you or I think it should be, but what a consensus of editors takes it to be, which now and then won't be the same thing. Truth be told, keeping within that "consensus of civility" will often get one much further editorially ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thunderbird and his crusade to flog the dead horse until there is nothing but compost remaining is old news to me. The better response to his disruption is to ignore him. The IEC prefix issue has been moved to a subpage of WT:MOSNUM so no one has to be reminded of it. I am interested in getting past this and can see that you want to put an end to this too. I’ve struck my original ‘leprosy’ post and replaced it with Wiki-language. [24]. I posted a notice regarding this on the WQA (just above “Libelous claim”). Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your stalking and abuse balking wan caboose

You are the subject of a complaint to a bureaucrat (Rlevse) here. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment there. I'm also a sitting arb. Also, crats' role is bot flagging, RFA, and renames. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been a misunderstanding. :P Gwen Gale (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il

I reverted your revert, since you offered no explanation. My change made no visible difference to the article, it is merely a better way of transcluding the infobox. PC78 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have boldy reverted you again. This is a trivial change that does not require a talk page discussion. Please discuss if you have an issue with this. PC78 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you give a reason for this needlessly heavy transclusion on the talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The template was already there, all I've done is update the transclusion and remove three lines. You're not making yourself very clear. PC78 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wall, meet fog. Fog, meet wall. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. When you're ready to enunciate your problem in a way that I can comprehend, do please let me know. PC78 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Then please tell me, what's the pith of the /president tag? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been perfectly civil with you, but your "wall/fog" comment above was hardly civil towards me.

As for the template, until now the width and colour have been set manually in the article to harmonise the infobox with {{Infobox President}}; this is the case with other such articles. Now, by switching the transclusion to the /President subtemplate, these conditions can be set from a centralised location. The advantages of this are twofold; first, it means that if changes are made to {{Infobox President}} then it will only take one edit to update the Korean name infobox, rather than having to hunt down each transclusion and fix them all in turn; second, it makes life easier when adding the template elsewhere. As I have already said, the edit made to the article in question is trivial and makes no visible difference. Why do you think this requires a debate at Talk:Kim Jong-il? PC78 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for at last telling me what you were doing. An edit summary saying something like "transclude to {{Infobox President}}" would have skirted all of this. You didn't use an edit summary at all. Please keep this in mind next time, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind, but I did mark the edit as minor and honestly didn't expect such a fuss. By the same token, had you offered an explanation for your revert at the first time of asking we might have cut to the chase much sooner than we did. You might also have simply asked me instead of being so quick to revert. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries, it's most helpful to use them always, even on minor edits, moreover on controversial topics. In your preferences, under the editing tab, there's a box you can tick which will stir up a reminder whenever you don't leave an edit summary. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)