Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale/archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Palringo

I am requesting an unlock of and permission to write a non-advertising article about Palringo under the conditions:

1. non-notable product; possibly spam or advert (akaDruid) - Product has grown a very large user base; Product is no longer non-notable. 2. Article will be written to meet Wikipedia's no advertisement standards.

Due to the popularity among all age groups in the Palringo service, if possible, I request that only I may edit the article to prevent vandalism. If not, half-locked would still be appreciated. Please respond soon and thank you for your time.

ThymeCypher (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been deleted twice, the last time about 6 months ago. I want to help you. Please think about building the article in your userspace, say at User:ThymeCypher/sandbox and I'll be happy to have a look at it whenever you ask. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering tendentious editors with civility

OK, I dealt with a brand new case of incivility with civility. It would be nice if you would properly deal with this: [1]. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a diff of a post by you. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. May I draw your attention to my 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC) post on here on WQA? Cuddlybabe has twice now, [2] [3], struck text in a post of mine, which makes it appear that I retracted the affected text. I reverted him the first time [4] with the edit summary “The proper response to what you feel is bad speech is ‘better’ speech. Please don’t strike text in my posts”. I also added a link to the dispute. But he did struck the text again. We obviously weren’t arguing for the sake of arguing. I rightly feel that he was objecting to my contribution. He calls that libelous. The extent to which he feels righteous indignation has no bearing on whether or not he has the right to strike text in another’s post. Twice. After being warned about the proper way to do it. Tendentious and intentionally provocative. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This looks like something you can/should settle with Cuddlybabe yourself. A hint for next time though, when you quote others, or talk about something you think they've done, please use diffs instead of trying to write a narrative paraphrase about it, as you did here, which at the very least was highly misleading about what had been posted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no point trying to deal with Cuddlybabe over his violations of Wikipedia policies. I reverted him once with a polite edit summary advising him that practice was impermissible and he did it again. Your suggestion that I continue to plead with him that he not vandalize my posts hardly seems wise. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't vandalizing. See WP:Vandalism. Calling the good faith posts of another editor vandalism, when they are not, is at the very least incivility, which I warned you about before, closing this loop. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Five years

Happy Wiki anniversary, Gwen. Five years in any online community is a rarity, and doing it here is no mean feat either. Keep up the great work! All the best, Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia

Yeah, that's it! Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Whilst I find the etymology a bit worrisome, the book cover has always cracked me up. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Smiling at the touches of magic and grace ... like the book ... and the link ... that make manifest the why. (Too much, milady? lol No. More!) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Haha! That book cover has always cracked me up :) When I first saw it years ago, I thought I'd never put up one of those service awards until it could be that one, if only to show the book and even then, I had to carefully tweak the wording until I could stand it! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IP editor at Talk:Monk's Mound

It's pretty obvious who that is, our old friend Marburg72 (talk · contribs)- looking at the IP's contributions he seems to have several IP addresses that he's using right now. dougweller (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, I think that's why the article's on my watchlist (other than the topic being kinda cool). WP:RBI? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking. dougweller (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Done then. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the need for consensus

Thank you for post. I replied here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered there. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking towards consensus

I note, in your above-mentioned reply, that you have attempted to resolve an editwarring situation by looking towards community consensus on a style guideline (“…hint or hope of consensus…”). This seems to be the obvious way one must approach this sort of problem: if there is an allegation of tendentious editing against consensus, one must first properly discern what is truly the community consensus. Doesn’t this mean that pretty much any administrator (or regular editor) could act as a mediator—if both parties agree—and help to interpret the community consensus on more nuanced issues like the linking of dates? If the answer to this loaded hypothetical is ‘yes’… you know where I am headed. Greg L (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I don't and don't have to watch your activities, you have cut a swath across many of the talk pages of editors I highly respect and your modus operandi is becoming clear. Now you've switched rapidly from victim-of to supplicant-to Gwen. Perhaps seeking an advantage? Or maybe the plain-speaking but unduly set-upon plain old editor needing protection from those awful, awful people? Your tactic here is shameful IMO - but I'll stay small and let Gwen make her own response. Franamax (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, given all the background here, I can only say that if the back and forth keeps up, the next step would be a friendly RfC on how the MoS might deal with XiB notation. If that doesn't bring forth a consensus, there is always mediation. Mind, as for the date-linking (or anything else that winds up there) Arbcom is more or less the very last, thankless gasp, meant for fixing failures, not of policy or content, but of behaviour and the scythe wielded in the wake of an RfAR can be broad. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I was talking about the issue of the linking of dates (last several words—now underlined—in the second-to-last sentence, above); I have zero interest in the issue of XiB notation. I mentioned binary notation to illustrate the approach you took to resolving the issue. It seems you have no interest in mediating. That’s fine, we’ll figure something else out.

    As to you, Franamax, your conjectures about the reason why I approached Gwen are entirely off base and demonstrate a breathtaking lack of WP:Assume good faith. If you knew anything at all about my actions and motivations, it would be clear that I am highly motivated to get a MOSNUM guideline on date linking that reflects the community consensus. The same goes for bot activity, on which the community consensus is exceedingly clear. There is no “my truth” and “his truth” interpretation on many of the points touched upon the RfCs. So I’ll thank you to not accuse me sucking up to Gwen for an advantage. I saw her trying to be even handed in her counsel to both T-bird and me and thought her track record might be respected by all the parties who are warring over the date linking issue and they would all agree to mediation overseen by her. Pure and simply that. You know what? I just don’t harbor grudges and get over things rather quickly. The only thing that is shameful, IMO, is your presumptuousness in writing your above post.

    I can see that there are still hard feelings here and I won’t bother you again. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The pith is your behaviour, fresh off a block for edit warring with an Arbcom clerk, of all things. If you find yourself in choppy waters on some pages, it's likely because you've looped back into the wake of your own darting, churning speedboat. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glen

I have a funny feeling this Glen fellow is not too impresses by our shenagians the last night. I'm prepare to overlook your call for a spite block on me my Hoary, if you can cover this, somehow. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I give up. Who's Glen? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet. Adding advertisements to her page.

It seems User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day is trying to get around her ban again by using User:74.73.139.106. Thank you, drive through.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You can let me know if you see more. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"slippery slope" arguments, etc.

Hi Gwen. You seem to have a certain appetite for articles that produce arguments. I think that some well-intentioned people have gone off the rails a bit here. I understand "where they're coming from", but I think they've got it wrong. There's no raging argument now, but to my mind there's something worrying about what I see as an excessive defensiveness motivated by a desire not to provide tidbits that fools would relish: there's an unhealthy convention in the making. Perhaps you'd care to take a look. Feel very free to tell me it's me who's wrong, of course. Morenoodles (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of Wikipedia's highest profile articles, moreover those which in any way brush into the humanities (ever more so mainstream politics), show a highly skewed consensus, a canny brew of emotions and hard core COIs, often coming from the smash-up of two sweeping sides at once. This is somewhat owing to flawed weight in the reliable sources themselves, which the encyclopedia is more or less bound to echo. Moreover, otherwise reliable sources may be thrown away as unreliable for these articles, by skiving takes on weight even more. It also gets stirred up by WP's own systemic bias. Highly nettlesome as this may be, it's very hard to get by until the sources themselves overwhelmingly sway otherwise. This can take years. Sometimes, it'll take decades or longer. The only way to try doing something about this would be on a policy talk page. I should hasten to say, I don't think this is a worry stemming from open editing. Closed tertiary sources can wind up with skews which are much worse even than some of the stuff seen here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(sotto voce)

Picking an admin-to-ask by their user page painting, turned out to be an excellent strategy. (I.E., I have made a copy of 1st reply ... to study. (wow:) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Formalizing_community_ban, which relates to the now de-facto banned User:Naadapriya. This proposal, if enacted, would supersede the previous remedy, so all users who provided input at the previous relevant discussion are being notified. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More nonesense

[[5]] BestBali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

These will keep popping up for awhile, I glark. I've been told he has lots of them. Scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Surreal Barnstar
Well there doesn't appear to be a barnstar especially for startling people so you can have this instead for making me laugh. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


It was for this comment but when I put it in the barnstar message it didn't work! Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
At last, a barnstar for one of my (ever hopefully and sometimes lame) dry funnies :) Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I can get the link in the barnstar to work. Someone did explain how to do that properly but I forgot. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Those pesky templates ;D Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Shadow of Fclass

Hi Gwen I've recently encountered a user which is Urabahn seems to have the same pattern as Fclass. In the article African American he removes information pertaining to genetics relating to many African Americans having both European and Native American backgrounds. I chose to avoid the user and just let you know. The information he keeps removing is clearly sourced from reliable sources and is stated from historians and geneticists who have proven information that is in the section to be inaccurate.Mcelite (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It was him. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I altered the templates to reflect that he has been blocked indefinitly.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the conversation where my actions are discussed

Thanks for notifying me, your courtesy is much appreciated -- I'll just let this take its course without any comment from me, I think. I'm not sure if everyone would think this is realistic, but I'll actually hope to learn something from this and won't get in the way of that by justifying myself in hindsight. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was spot on a speedy, that ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I actually agree, but I definitely think I could have been more ... circumspect in my edit summary. This is the first time I've ever interacted with Mr. Wales, and that was interesting, although it made me a bit anxious. Definitely no more edit summaries where I come off as snarky! Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the edit summary was a wee bit snarky, but not untowards. As you have now learned, sometimes, a disgruntled editor may snatch on anything at all like that, in hopes of wedging something their way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Hertha thiele.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hertha thiele.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded 3 1/2 years ago! Done, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hertha thiele.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hertha thiele.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the image since the copyright holder, if any, is unknown and I've not a clue as to how much time it might take to get and reliably source a name. Thanks for keeping after this and nudging me about it. The image was uploaded years ago when we weren't so stern about this, so I find this outcome understandable. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Breach of admin policy

Resolved
 – fun fair is closed, not the page for this

You appear to have breached specific policy requirement of WP:ADMIN concerning the need to "provide the appropriate user(s) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions". Your entry "a long, steady pattern of incivility" without diffs to examples of such a pattern, or to a prior warning by an admin apart from one 11 minutes earlier by MZMcBride, appears not to satisfy the meaning of "explanation". I note that the prior warning stated "Please don't do so again", and that the editor you blocked did not "do so again".

The use of blocking without appropriate warning has been made worse by your failure to explain why the title of the image in question—the wording of the prior warning by MZMcBride—is entirely inappropriate and why a three-day block, indeed a block of any duration, was appropriate. MZMcBride himself has not breached the policy on explaining admin actions because he did not perform an admin action: you did.

Thus, you appear to have breached second policy tenet concerning the use of blocking: "Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" and "the decision to block an editor should not be taken lightly or as a first resort. An admin should resort to blocking only if other means are unlikely to be effective". At the very least, an explanation is required of what "damage or disruption" was being caused by the title. Tony (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, the block was wholly preventative and he'd been straightforwardly warned by me at least twice, commented upon by many others. His block appeal was declined by another admin. He then abused his talk page and his block was lengthened to one week by a member of arbcom, who also locked the page and shut down the user's email. Hence, three admins have agreed on this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed my points. Where exactly did you warn him twice, and when? The diffs are a necessary part of an "explanation", and are critical to judging which block is the "prior" one (MZMcBride's is the obvious one, but you seem to be referring to others), and thus whether your block was within the policy in this respect. You have not addressed my query as why the title of the image "Clerk.jpg" was at all worthy of a block. I see another admin below your entry claiming that the title was "harrassment". This needs to be explained.
The matter is a serious one, since several major tenets of the policy are at issue, and a number of editors have said that the block was "outrageous", "way out of proportion". I'm waiting to hear first about the "title".
"It was up to him to appeal the block. Instead, he abused his talk page and his block was lengthened by a member of arbcom, who also locked the page and shut down the user's email." Yes, we'll get to those issues in due time. I'm starting with your role in this. I do hope that you feel able to cooperate. Where is the "abuse" on his talk page? Tony (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise. Three admins have had something to do with this block. If the user wants to appeal his block further, he'll need to email arbcom off-wiki. If you want more input on this, please take it to WP:ANI or start an RfC. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is quite simply outrageous. That is exactly the sort of stonewalling and bureaucratic buck passing which gives admin a bad name. Your non-explanation of how "[t]hree admins have had something to do with this block" does not address the fundamental issue being raised. Without an adequate explanation, this just amounts to a cabal in action. I am aware of the shenanigans where you appear to be taking sides with a possible troll, and your action here in a totally unrelated case on a flimsy pretext. You appear to be blocking just because you can. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Outrageous? What's outrageous is that you don't take care to review the entire situation before you enter it. Do you even know what user this thread is about, or are you just taking up this thread to scream admin abuse? The fact of the matter is that three uninvolved admins reviewed the block and agreed with it. Just because an admin agrees with another's actions does not mean there is some kind of hidden Cabal. You can't just accuse of everyone being in some hidden group because they disagree with you. Try reviewing all the material before you get involved with something like this.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I will do that, but would rather settle the matter here. You have not satisfied the requirement for explaining the block after the event, nor have you located the diffs so that your decision can be judged by anyone who comes along. Nor have you explained why the title "Clerk" warranted a block. Please do this now. Tony (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, there is no need for me to go over this with you and what's more, the block went altogether out of my hands when User:Rlevse, who is a member of arbcom, further lengthened the block to a week. Tell Greg to email arbcom off-wiki, if he likes (although I glark he'll read this soon himself). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you're wrong on that. First things first: you made a block in breach of the rules, and we'll deal with the others in due course. It's not like passing a football from one to the other. As for your petulant comment "there's no need for me to go over this with you", wrong again—as an admin, you're very much bound to explain your actions ("promptly", actually), and to retain the trust of the community. You are showing signs that you should yourself be disciplined as an admin. Rather than being rude, you might simply read WP:ADMIN and remind yourself of your obligations. One way or another, we will need to resolve the breaches. Tony (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken. I've already said what you and Greg can do next. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, take this somewhere else, okay? RfC, ANI, whatever you want to do. You've both said your piece here, it's starting to be a bit harassing on your part. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're the one who branded the posting of the picture in question as "harrassment", aren't you. Is that your modus operandi now? Gwen steadfastly fails to adhere to the policy, and has ended up harrassing Greg L, it seems, through a blocking that breaches the admin rules. I think you should choose a different line from the "harrassment" one, every so often. Tony (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, I am completely uninvolved with this issue (except for trying to politely ask you to take this to the next step and off this talk page, whatever that step may be). I wasn't aware I used the term "harassment" (you might want to note the spelling) too much; I'll try to tone that down from now on. Tan | 39 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I confused you with another username. However, hurling "harassment" around under such circumstances is not a tactic I have any respect for. Tony (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, Hersfold said that. As with most, if not all of your assertions, that one was also mistaken. You should now either take this elsewhere, or rather more helpfully to the project, drop it altogether. It's mostly up to Greg, to contact arbcom. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, lets just drop all the sniping here, everyone. Tony, there's several other forums that are appropriate for the escalation of this issue, if you see fit (and I assume you do see fit). You tried to resolve it here, that didn't work, now you're just har - uh, making bitter comments to Gwen without solving anything. Tan | 39 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
She needs you to weigh in, does she? I'm most dissatisfied with her responses, particularly her total failure to address the breaches. This she is bound to do by WP:ADMIN, and you are a little out of order in trying to choke off this conversation. Whether I take this further is, after all, my business, and I won't be brow-beaten into backing off. Good night. Tony (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Good night. Tan | 39 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How not to help someone

It's mostly up to a blocked editor to appeal their own block. Aside from this, it's ok to ask about why someone has been blocked, but it's not ok to come barging onto someone's talk page, start a thread straight off called Breach of admin policy, then begin making unsupported claims and mistakenly quoting other editors with nary a diff to back them up, likewise any claims such as "quite simply outrageous" or "stonewalling."

This strayed far beyond the pale of WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time.

Wikipedia is a very forgiving website. The blocked editor could have gotten himself swiftly unblocked by me with but an acknowledgement of understanding and a word that he would stop doing things which have been taken as uncivil, or at least try. Instead, he went on the attack, as he has done before: Another admin declined the unblock and yet another admin lengthened the block to a week, shutting down both his talk page and email. Incivility does chavel to any open editing project, which is why we don't put up with it here (never mind when an editor who has been uncivil comes to understand this and does something about it, any worries can and often will dwindle very fast).

I'll end with a tip. I've found that very few blocked editors ever bother to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Following this guide will work like "magick" with most admins, who often find themselves clutching at straws of hope when a blocked or worrisome editor lets slip even a clue they have one about how Wikipedia can carry forward day by day. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Guide; although I have no need for it personally, in terms of contributing to the review of WP's policy and procedure concerning the appealing of blocks and admin behaviour that surrounds them, it is relevant.
Are you addressing to me your accusations of "wanton incivility" and failure to assume good faith? I'm uncertain of your meaning, but if I am "the editor" you refer to, I believe you have serious problems of attitude and should consider taking a rest from admin duties. If that really were your meaning, I would adviseyou to be rather more careful in expressing such aggressive accusations. You are expected to set an example to others (as required by the policy), and are duty-bound to discuss your admin actions when queried by an editor. Please read the policy page. However, if I have misinterpreted your intended meaning, I apologise for my assumptions.
I am perplexed by the subtitle of this section. My posts above did not directly concern the prospect of appealing the block; that is indeed up to Greg, and I think he accepts that he erred in baiting Ryan Postlethwaite with the image of himself blind-drunk that he chooses to post on his talk page.
By contrast, my focus is on what appears to be your breach of admin policy in failing to communicate properly, and possibly not to have considered the other aspects of blocking and admin policy (although that is hard to determine, since you didn't adequately communicate your justification). You seem more concerned to shift the focus onto other admins, but it is your behaviour that I have raised as an issue here, not theirs.
I totally reject your rebuke that "it's not ok to come barging onto someone's talk page [to discuss such a matter]". That you, like all admins, are bound by WP's WP:ADMIN policy is a matter for the community as a whole. I have to speak plainly in asserting that you are out of order in instructing me that I may not challenge your behaviour.
I'm surprised that you find it not within yourself to accept that you need to pay more attention to doing the "paperwork" involved in blocking someone, particularly a well-established editor—although the policy makes no distinction on that count. If you had responded more positively, I'd have shut up and thought ... That Gwen Gale is someone I can respect and trust as an admin. However, I'm left thinking that you have no intention of taking admin policy seriously in the future, at least WRT the matters I've raised here. That is my tip to you. Tony (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You're baiting. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I am criticising your failure to follow WP:ADMIN, however you want to try to wriggle out of it. I do not bait people, since that would be a waste of both your and my time. Your "expert" friend below adds nothing, I'm afraid: what is remarkable is how your associates come to offer support with absolutely no substantive reasoning. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes you are, your comments calling for her to relinquish her admin rights are clearly baiting.
Tony, do all of us a favor and either leave this place, or actually provide an argument in less than 500 words. Below, as you can see, Gwen clearly warned this user twice before she blocked him for obvious incivility. So your point above how you can't find the diffs. Well there they are, so again; stop crying admin abuse, your argument has been crushed, since it all hinged upon whether or not she warned him, and she obviously did warn him.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Lastly, yes, you were baiting her when you told her to step down from her admin duties. You're just like spotfixer, you just look for any excuse to issue ultimatiums. And don't deny this, the following sentence will be a direct quote from your paragraph above: I believe you have serious problems of attitude and should consider taking a rest from admin duties..

So far as I've seen, you're the one with the attitude; you come onto this page demanding that Gwen is abusing her admin power because she blocked a user you were friends with. If anything, you have a clear conflict of interest here, and should just leave, perhaps ask for a fourth comment, because, as we all know, so far three other uninvolved admins have agreed with the block.

But as I was saying, you come on here demanding diffs that what, I can find in less then ten seconds? Again, the only thing you could possibly be doing is looking for a fight, as I'm pretty sure that if you actually gave it say, a few seconds, you could find the diffs I cearly cited below.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:ADMIN that requires proper explanation of a blocking, and that blocking be used as a last resort. Like many editors, I am just keen to see that the policy is observed. It has nothing to how many seconds it took you to find a few diffs, and since the admin's comment made it clear that the incident was part of a history of incivility (words to that effect), I'd expect at the very least a diff to a previous warning or warnings. This is not just a courtesy to the blocked editor or to those who might need to scrutinise the justification, but an essential part of due process. I have little further time for responses here, but I suppose I will have to return if my good faith is again thrown into doubt. Adminship, may I remind you, is a privilege, and requires the trust of the community (a policy requirement). Tony (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, please step away from the horse carcass. If you still feel you have a complaint, please take it to the proper venue. This isn't productive to continue here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"disruptive waste of time"

As an expert in rhetorical analysis, I concur with the section title "How not to help someone," and this one. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. BTW, expertise is not required to see that a breach in the policy has occurred. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Diffs for Osomething and Tony

Here is the first diff, with Greg L deleting it with an attack, no less.

Here is the second diff, with Greg removing it again, basically noting he read it.

So, Tony, I found these diffs in less than a few seconds, yet you come to Gwen's page and cry abuse because you can't take the time yourself to find them? The user was warned against incivility, and was blocked for further incivility, period. There is no admin abuse, there is no baiting, except by you, and the other user whose username starts with an O.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go off and re-read WP:DICK, WP:POINT, and WP:IDONTGETIT (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting it, but was that in reference to my post, or?— Dædαlus Contribs 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(pretty sure it was obviously not about your post!) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus, I glark Bwilkins was dropping a hint elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I had to be sure, I don't always easily pick up on things.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
These last few comments have the semblance of some extremely childish games: we all know it's not a hint at all. That was a remarkably thinly veiled personal attack, if ever I saw one. By all means read WP:DICK, WP:POINT, and WP:IDONTGETIT again, wilkins - I'm always surprised what I learn when reading stuff, and I hope you find similar enlightenment. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

Do not refactor my comments, this is your last warning, as I'm assuming bad faith of you since you and this other user are doing nothing but disrupt with this call of admin abuse.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a little too threatening for my liking. You are bound by the admin policy to set an example in assuming good faith and refraining from personal attack. Milder language would have been appropriate. Please read WP:ADMIN. Tony (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Threatening? Oh please, back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one. Also, try actually researching a subject before you comment on it, I'm not an admin, I'm user. Get your facts straight, and stop thinking you're right, because you aren't. Several people have told this now, so unless you want to find yourself in a block for disruptive behavior, I suggest you stop, now.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not bound by admin policy because I am not an admin.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I may have said lastly, or some such, but I don't believe I'm quite finished just yet; Too threatening for your liking? Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page, I'm pretty sure others are as well, either way, it does not matter what you think here, as the behavior cited by this comment is not allowed, period. We have policy here at wikipedia against refactoring comments, I suggest you read it.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And yet more threatening; and now extremely abusive. I'll let your posts stand as a record. Please calm down. Tony (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

nobody likes being blocked

Resolved
 – fun fair is closed, nobody likes being blocked

Tony and Oconfucious, you're playing a game. Period. The admin appears to have actually done the exact opposite of your claims. They do not answer directly to you, and indeed, the fact that your comments have not been simply wiped out is a testament to their patience (and of course, evidence-gathering). An admin who has done no wrong is not simply going to "step down" because of 2 overly vociferous dead horse-beaters.

If you want action on this, then your clock is running out, so act fast. Go over to WP:ANI. In a concise, short manner, express your concerns, including diff's. Ask for a recommended course of action. There, at least a dozen separate admins will go through those diff's, the diff's of any "evidence" that Gwen Gale provides, and of course, will follow links that you never thought of. They will make a comment and recommendations (and possibly action if actually needed).

Right now, it's just the 2 of you, plus the admin, Daedelus, and now me (because I came here for another reason) wasting time that should be spent article-writing.

I will warn you: beware of Plaxico Syndrome. If you're not willing to have this entire discussion where a whack of admins will search in the dark corners with spotlights, then the discussion doesn't deserve to be had. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to "warn" you of anything, Bwilkins. I'm politer than that, and I don't indulge in attacks. "Done no wrong"? Um ... I think you should read my posts more carefully, then. I won't obey your instructions, issued very bluntly here. And I note your accusations and name-calling. Thank you and good-bye. Tony (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot more of us besides just Tony and Ohconfucius. You might also ask Malcolm Schosha, another target of Gwen Gale's heavy handed and vindictive admin behavior (her bad block of Malcolm was overturned). However, with thinly veiled threats such as BMW's above you can bet that editors are feeling more than just a bit intimidated. (BMW used to do great work on WP:WQA, and still does, but has also added an ugly side that he/she did not use to have: too bad.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Malcom's block log. I blocked him 24 hrs for 3rr, then a week for PAs while blocked. He then stayed blocked six days and had settled down some when DGG came along and without asking me about it, lifted the block a day early. I was ok with that. As for the 72 hour block for disruption a month and a half before, he had been blocked for two days when MZMcBride, also without contacting me as I recall, lifted the block a day early. I thought MZMcBride may have misunderstood what was happening. Gwen Gale (talk)

I do not understand who Gwen Gale blocked, or why; nor do I understand the reasons for this discussion. But her explanations of the reversals of two of her her blocks to me, is very different than my own views of the subject. For instance, the delay in time between the first of those two blocks, and its reversal, was due mostly to my waiting to request a review (I consider such requests futile), and also because of a fairly long wait for an administrator (MZMcBride) to get to it. True, I as lucky it was MZMcBride, a thoughtful administrator, who reviewed it. Most administrators simply do not take unblock requests seriously. Likewise with the second block that was reversed. DGG reversed it when he saw it, but that was toward the very end of the seven days. He went to the trouble of explaining his thinking at some length. (In fact, that block went the whole seven days, because Gwen Gale had blocked my IP number also, and I did not feel inclined to bother DGG about that.) Gwen Gale's justification for both those blocks, which can be read on my talk page, are absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest

[[6]] go well. Bali ultimate (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. By the way, when linking to a page by URL (external link), use single brackets like this...
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#How_to_link] - here's how it would/should look: [7]
...not double brackets as used for a wikilink...
  • [[WP:wikilink]] - here's how it looks, as you know: WP:wikilink
Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's another. I think this is the format? [8]

Best. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One more, I think (this one im 95% for certain on rather than 100%). [9]] Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Extra bracket there :) Truth be told, if you would wlink to the user names themselves (User:Claude La Badarian and User:Ep1997), it would be easier. Even easier, wrap them in {{checkuser|username}}:

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the first and one other, dunno about Ep1997 though. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've modified both tags to reflect the block status of the sockpuppets.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
And I've reverted my last edit, as the second sock has not yet been blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I do think we'd need to see a bit more from that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It was another socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I also stumbled upon (and blocked) User:JonJericoe yesterday. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the template to reflect the block, and added it to the talk page as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for takin' care of those. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DFW tragedy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) This diff is the clincher, with its overwrought i want to be hunter thompson language. [10] Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oy, don't get me started on Hunter Thompson/Jack Nicholson wannabee copycats :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, erm, quack and so on, another sleeper by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
CU got those and their little dog too (about 10 more). And here's a new one [11] thanks and best. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone did warn me there would be many, many ducks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
he must be off his meds this week. BillDeanCarter_is_the_man_is_the_man (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No such username (check spelling?) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Got it. BillDeanCarter is the man (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Inveigle

Might I inveigle you to look at Fascism where there is a major attempt by "The Four Deuces" and "Spylab" to remove all material which does not fit their personal political views despite being fully sourced? This is ongoing, and may be related to other problems I am having with Mattnad and his possible sock, and Inclusionist/Ikip/prior socks (sigh). The style of wikilinking every single word is reminiscent of someone, to be sure. Merci! Collect (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Eek! These high profile humanities articles about politics are canny tough, given the sources themselves are often flawed and wholly good faith editors might not know how to give them fitting weight. If you can give me some diffs, tell me what you think is worrisome about each and let me know if you think there are socks about, I can likely help. Otherwise, there may not be much I can do. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I know the feeling <g>. Try [12] where fully sourced material is deleted, [13] where he wikilinks every word he can find <g>, [14] and more deletion. All in a sequence this morning. Yesterday [15] deletion of sourced quote, and on 17 Feb to insist on using his own OR and SYN [16] without the pretext of a cite for it <g>. And a bunch of stuff prior, of course. Lots of fun to be sure dealing with such. Again, thanks! Collect (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the first diff indeed shows a deletion of sourced content, which is mostly not allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, if the source in any way can be taken as reliable. Scattered, sourced PoVs are more than ok, they're helpful, the more the merrier. The second, wanton wikilinking, looks pointy to me. The third does not look to me like a deletion of content but rather, he's put a quote into the inline reference. As to the fourth diff, he likely shouldn't be removing those OR tags (moreover since it does look like he's spanning). Have you tried talking to him about it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Does a cat like milk? <g> Sorry for one bad diff. If you look at Talk -- he even claims that the word "disagreement" is wrong <g>. [17] which I found a bit outre. (no accent on this keyboard -- I had one person complain even <g>). So much for really discussing with him. Collect (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, ayant parlé les deux en famille quand j'étais une petite gamine, je crois que c'est plus facile si on ne fait pas la mélange (sauf Franglais entre-copines ou quoi, mais c'est une autre histoire, vache! :) Anyway, only for starters, try finding a word other than disagreement for the text (like "there are sundry takes...") and let me know what happens. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I may try -- meanhile I added Art Buchwald's "Le Grande Thanksgiving" as a footnote for the Franglais article <g>. I trust you will enjoy it. Collect (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, hardy eald Kilometres Deboutish, some foggy twinge tells me I've read that before. Buchwald spent time in Paris when he was young, I think in the late 40s, early 50s, a canny fit time to be an American in Paris, I've been told. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Originally written for the NY Herald Tribune in 1952 -- [18] -- he stayed there until 1962. Collect (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
They owned the International Herald Tribune in Paris for which he worked for awhile and which still lurks on newstands this side of the pond but I don't know anyone who reads it other than older American blokes who may only dimly grok it can be had for free on the web, not that it's a bargain at that price or anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this since i'm watching your page. The next-to-last iteration of the IHT was great. It was jointly owned by the New York Times and the Washington Post, and in practice this mean the best of both papers with a smattering of the IHT's own reporting. A few years ago the New York Times bought out the Post, and now it's just an inferior version of the Times (I suspect those old americans are actually buying it for an intelligent reason; the NYT crossword. The English crosswords are very hard for us, and I suspect vice versa).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
When I was little, I'd spread the IHT out on my lap and read like mad. As for crosswords, when I was into them, I did a few in the Times. I've heard that one's gone downhill lately...? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Could never do the London Times' one; too culturally specific (or rather, perhaps, I was too parochial). When i was younger and interested in crosswords clues like "number of teeth on Nobby Stiles upper jaw" were over my head). By the way, CU in case you're interested [19] Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobby? He had he's got not a one! Everybody knows that! Saw it, BTW. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes along the lines of "what color was George Washington's white horse?" But if you didn't know, pre-internet you weren't going to easily find out.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Looked at Nobby's article, oops, I thought he was dead! Wasn't GW's horse named Trigger? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are now noted as a Heinlein fan. GW had a number of horses, but apparently "Old Nelson" was one. Trigger was Roy Rogers. Champion was Gene Autry and Topper was Hopalong Cassidy. I neer heard of Nobby Stiles. For two points, who was the best educated sidekick in old westerns? Collect (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew about trigger, I was only kiddin' :D ...My knowledge of Tom Mix is kinda strong (long, twisted tale as to why) but otherwise, I don't know much about old American westerns, <rant> other than that they've always bored me to tears, but maybe for the horses I guess, although, if I'm in the unwonted mood, I like big swaths of Once Upon a Time in the West and For a Few Dollars More but those are hardly American.</rant> Ok so, who was the best educated sidekick in old westerns? Oh! Oh! I forgot, I've always liked High Noon, but for when they "sling lead" towards the end :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Gabby Hayes was well educated -- and retired until the crash of 1929 when he had to go back to work. Apparently a quite extraordinary man who gave Fred Rogers one of his first jobs. Are you following l'affaire Ikip at all? His page at User:Ikip/guests has some unusual and blunt advice (which is, IMHO, beyond the Pale) for acting on WP. Collect (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Gabby Hayes, oh, yes, I've heard about him. Character actor. Took Roy's advice and bought a bit of Southern California real estate.
I don't see any personal attacks on Ikip's bloggy sub-page. Although letting all those thoughts flap about on one's sleeve might seem a bit untowards, it looks to me like he's at about "level 3" or whatever of sorting out for himself how and why things happen here as they do. If he gets stuck on that take, he'll find unhappiness as an editor, but it looks to me as though his thoughts on the topic might grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You missed the bit about how and when to deliberately use a sock puppet? Considering he has been caught using one in the past, I would have thought he would avoid any hint of such. Collect (talk)
I missed that and I didn't know he'd been caught socking. Truth be told, I skimmed because my eyes started glazin' over, but I didn't want to ask you for diffs. If you think there's a worry though and you have a few minutes, diffs'll help. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MEGO? [20] contains: Make controversial edits such as page deletions with socks accounts, but always make sure to never edit the page as an anon, and when using your anon account always use spell check to avoid detection (Firefox has the feature automatically).
Every few months the edit cache is dumped so there will be no IP evidence that you were a sock after a few months. A more elaborate scheme is to get an IP anonymizer and create several accounts, editing different articles in different themes that you are interested in (For example, have a politics account, a movie account, a favorite books account, your home city and/or state account). But make sure to follow How to become and admin which each different account. To throw off suspicion, make sure to talk to yourself on talk pages occasionally. After a couple of months, as those editors are elected by yourself to be admins, you are now free to build consensus on Wikipedia as you please.< !--As wikipedia becomes more established and main stream, organizations and people will do this tactic. I bet a million dollars several people and organizations already do-- > and some more rather WP-unfriendly material. Collect (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I did see that and thought it was the same, mossy old, "my un-stained eyes have been opened and woe is me in my anger" parody of socking I've seen on a dozen user pages before. Given you say he's been caught socking, which I didn't know, do you truly think he's writing a How to Chavel Wikipedia in 10 E-Z Steps thingy? Or rather, is he spilling his untowards deeds for the world to hear, that he might soar forth in renewed worthiness? Or is he only being lame? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I did wonder a bit -- he is one of the only people who asked to be blocked indefinitely I can think of -- he is definitely "interesting" if you look at his record. Right now the canvassing he has done/is doing seems to be occupying his time, but I wonder just how long things will go before some sort of explosion. Collect (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
See youtube.com/watch?v=O4KMk6T5mQU Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New message

Please check your email.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to have got you involved in the whole Thunderbird/Fgnaton mess ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the other user, but no worries, that's what I'm here for. As often happens in those tangles, all "sides" were doing stuff maybe they shouldn't have been doing. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of M.I.High Characters AfD

Hello, you are an uninvolved administrator and have been recommended to me by User:Bwilkins per this discussion. Please read over it and see what you could do to reopen the AfD and have it closed in the traditional manner. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do look at my explanation on my talk, and if you have questions let me know. I did recommend that Themfromspace contact you as they're reasonably non-confrontational :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Given I think, taken altogether, each keep comment tends to have more sway than each one for delete, I don't think there's any way this AfD could have closed as a delete. Either a no-consensus or a keep close would have been ok, with the sundry takes of editors, this kind of thing can overlap. If this had been closed by an admin I'd say forget it or if you must, take it to WP:DRV, where the outcome would very likely be the same. Since it's a non-admin close there's a wee bit more wiggle room on this one for wondering by some editors, maybe. I think you two might talk it over once more, as to whether it might be a keep or an NC but it ran for 5 days and it's not a delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought they were non-confrontational. Guess I'd better go through RfA soon. LOL. Thanks for your input again (you must hate me by now) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Now and then, someone unhappy about a close may try to find a weakness to wedge upon. Hopefully, sooner or later, they read WP:POINT. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Gwen Gale. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1. Thank you. Sorry, I almost forgot you. --— Dædαlus Contribs 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A. Hyatt Mayor

This article was flagged for notability. I believe I've added enough sources etc to justify; could you take a look and, if you agree, remove the flag? I can't since I created the article. If you think it still needs work, please let me know. Thanks! --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Three reliable-looking sources cited, one's the NYT, text asserts notable career in his field, could use more sources but tag removed. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by Thunderbird2

Regarding your earlier warnings to Thunderbird2 about claiming harassment. I made some comments about Thunderbird2's use of harassment. I started with a general comment which got removed without reply [21]. I then made a more forceful warning about removing the uncivil content which again got removed without comment. Looking at the page it contains things like declined reasons for Thunderbird2's unblock, comments by the blocking admin and miscellaneous comments that are not harassment. It seems to be the case Thunderbird2 refuses to remove the claimed harassment page User talk:Thunderbird2/Harassment by Fnagaton and Greg L despite its URL misrepresenting others which I think is WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA. This behaviour has the effect of continuing to make claims of harassment for content that is not harassment which is against your earlier warnings. What to do? I think miscellany for deletion is OK, what about you? WorkingBeaver (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget it and forget T-bird. If you don't want to forget, try MfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Abbarocks

[22] revert marked as "minor" (note that he does not use the Talk page at all) 1:14 27 Feb

[23] 14:58 26 Feb

[24] 1:28 26 Feb

[25] 14:25 25 Feb

[26] 19:08 24 Feb

[27] 2:48 24 Feb

[28] 21:53 23 Feb

[29] 22:47 22 Feb

[30] 15:34 22 Feb

[31] 21:15 21 Feb

ad nauseam ... every one is a simple revert without a word on the Talk page at all. [32] is sufficient to show his particular agendum. He makes exactly 2 reverts every single day, and never gives a reason for them, just reverts. He now, by the way, is accusing me of following him! Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Although he's not using the talk page, the worry here is I can't warn him about edit warring without warning you. Crooked banks cozying up with crooked governments are a hot topic in the world now (worthily so). Try another wording or cut it down a bit? What do you think? Am I missing something? I may be. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
He is a SPA sock of someone - I suspect Ikip as he is now threatening THF with an RfC for editing in concert with me - which is not only ludicrous, it fits in exactly with what he proposed on the "guests" page. Collect (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Abbarocks about this. Oh... Abba. :D Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! BusterD (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
;) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you only need to look at Collect's choice of words in his unfounded and definitive accusation of "SPA sock" above to see what the real problem is. He expresses all of his opinions as if they are undisputable fact and just keeps repeating those same opinions in his edits. He is having similar problems with C S as shown hereand withFactchecker atyourservice as shown here. You can also see that I have had no such problems with anyone else. The 3 of us are in additon to his more obvious conflict with Ikip. I simply do not have the time to engage in repetitive discourse with Collect on matters which seem to me to fit into the area of Patent Nonsense (for example his insistence that any brief reference to Thyssen in an article about Union Banking Corporation "opens the door" (his words) to dumping in unlimited quantities of information about Thyssen into that article [33]"once Thyssen is raised as an issue, the topic is open". I don't know what the solution is but you can see from opur early edit exchange that I have spent a lot of time trying to discuss his points and it seems he wants me to go through the same discourse over and over again. I hope you can give me some ideas as to how I can deal with Collect because I admit I am pretty close to giving up on it and just letting him have his way with the issues we disagree on. Abbarocks (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me your thoughts on this. As I said on the article talk page, while I'd be highly wary of calling any good faith and thoughtful edit, however mistaken, patent nonsense, this looks to me like something having to do with WP:WEIGHT, I don't think any of the edits I've seen handle it as one would hope. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, I suppose the problem for me now is that he has now made a serious allegation against me and stated it as a fact (not "might be" or "may be" a Spa sock but is a Spa sock") which imo is insulting and a communication stopper. I think he should apologise for that right away. I also suggest that we stay away from each other's article interests. Is that a possibility? That whatever article he edited first I avoid and vice versa? Abbarocks (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me you both want to get away from any kerfuffle, which is cool. I agree that calling an account an SPA sock shuts down all hope. If there are worries, a neutral CU should be filed, no admin will block without either a CU hit or diffs showing overwhelming, spot on likelihood that such a block would never need to be lifted owing to a mistake. Staying away from each other may be the way to go, I'd let other editors handle any article you share, for now. Nobody has "first dibs" to articles (WP:OWN and so on). I do think all the edits I've seen, either way, stray from WP:WEIGHT, which is not easy for some good faith editors to fit when there is a strong PoV on the sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What is a neutral CU ? link to it? Abbarocks (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance, it's not long and very helpfully written. Please don't miss Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(ourdent) User had been combative in Skull and Bones, Prescott Bush, and Union Banking Corporation. Has suddenly appeared doing reverts in Business Plot and William Timmons. I think he might be following at this point, all things considered. Collect (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: User accuses me of "following", User never edited Skull and Bones even once before he got combative with me. Abbarocks (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This Straight Dope cite is a retelling of an opinion. I think you two have an editing/PoV clash. I don't see anything for an admin to do here yet, other than to say try not to fight over it and find some middle way. Meanwhile, without diffs any talk about sockpuppetry will only stir things up more. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed,I'm determined to try to work out consensus results with Collect. Abbarocks (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's helpful. Also, please keep in mind that articles must be built with reliable sources, which means one can't put in one's own original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary reference source, so verifiability is the goal, which on some topics may not be at all the same as an editor's take on truth (and every editor here has to deal with this one way or another). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer

Why did you protect this? It is the main page Featured article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's semi-protected owing to too much vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I know, and per precedent, the Main page TFA should not be semi-protected. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say that. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reset the sp to lift in an hour. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It says this: "The Main Page featured article is rarely semi-protected." and "For other articles, semi-protection can be introduced for a limited amount of time under certain circumstances, for example - when a range of dynamic IP addresses are being used to vandalise the featured article page in quick succession; where personal information or potentially distressing content is being repeatedly placed onto the article; or where a few minutes of protection are needed to remove harmful vandalism from a page." I don't see any evidence that the vandalism is near the extreme. I know of only two instances in which the main page TFA has been protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I do understand ;) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone put the s-prot back on, owing to the renewed flurry of vandalism. Guess I'd rather not have lifted it, but not a big thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

another take

Thanks for your input at the WQA, I think perhaps you might apprise the ones who think this should go up to Arbcom with some more details? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles ad banner

Hey User:Gwen Gale, over at Skittles (confectionery) we're hoping to take the {{advertisement}} banner down, and, as you have put it up a couple times, I was hoping for your input as to what you believe needs cleaning up. Because the page is suddenly the subject of some attention in the Web 2.0 world, we're hoping to move relatively quickly here. Thanks!

I removed some of the verbiage in the lede -- the entire article needs pruning shears and not a taffy-puller. Collect (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect sees the worry, the product description section should be skived into a few encyclopedic paragraphs with a sourced overview of the product and its history. Every little flavour, package and colour they've had a go at over the years is not notable, but the notion that they have made so many variations is likely notable. This brings us to reliable, independent sources, which the article is almost wholly lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First prune <g> then get the refs which I am sure the company can provide, no? Eas my trim of the lede ok? Collect (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it was ok. The worry was always the "big list" and I still think there's COI there (mind WP:COI is allowed, but WP:NPOV and other policies must be steadfastly followed). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Honeymoon

Hi. Thanks for salvaging something there. It was your stub that made me decide it might be worth watching, and I quite enjoyed the film. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you'd done something fit with it! Ta! I always thought the sources straightforwardly showed there was something to that little movie. Haven't seen it yet, I should! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It was good. :) I didn't find it as funny as the professional reviewers have, but I'm all onboard with the acting. Even with a predictable story arc, they managed to make you care. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there must be plenty of dark humour, I should see it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Gwen, please don't confuse an allegation of edit-warring with actual edit-warring. I have not violated 1RR on that article once (I've made a grand total of three edits in mainspace since the content dispute began), but Ikip has falsely accused me of edit-warring over and over and over to discredit me (including templating me twice), and it seems to be working unfortunately -- I'm being slimed, and his bad conduct is being dismissed as a "all editors are muddy" issue. THF (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries THF, I was only talking about the overall flow of edits. It's so easy to get "slimed" in this kind of spat, which is why answering back strongly, as an involved editor from another PoV, to this kind of incivility and talk page loading is about the worst thing one can do (it's not even a wiki thing, I've seen batches of 18th century pamphlets printed in London whose authors fell into the same trap). Mind, 1rr can still be edit warring if it's 1rr/day for many days. For what it's worth, although I understand why you brought up the "all editors are muddy" notion, I don't see all the editors as slathered in the same depth of mud. However, even a few splatters on one's arm (so to speak), can make it seem one has been wallowing, if you get my drift. It's daunting and no fun, which is why it's been brought to editors like me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

5,000

Hi, milady. Just dropping by to say I've reached 5,000 edits ... Dropping dead now. lol

To celebrate, am happily jousting with two admins over an article (No, an article: "a" "an" "the") ... semi-kidding. :) Tomorrow, I will contact the OED and see if there is some price I could pay them to have the word "consensus" removed from the dictionary.

Most "fun" recent patrol event was dealing with someone insisting on categorizing the Bible as a Fiction novel > Fictional novel > Fantasy novel (took them three tries) ... and as a result ended up formulating a "complex ideology" (a/k/a bottom-covering rationalization) for why a huggle patroller would click the "vandalism" button for that. (First patroller should have handled it manually, but didn't.) KEYWORD: provocation :)

NEXT (a first article): I've been sitting on that picture you helped me with ... I've got all the sources ... and now facing the prospect of composing that thing called a lede (lead, introduction) ... which is so much harder than it ought to be. Perhaps I'll put it in sonnet form and then de-rhyme it. :)

I'm sure you'll excuse this noise on your talk page. The only place I could think of to throw a 5,000 party. ^-^ (just noise, no need to reply, many thanks!) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the Bible as fantasy, give it more or less any broad category you can think of and the Bible's got some of that, from any outlook, given it's an anthology dating back thousands of years. Fiction, non-fiction, self-help, science, science fiction, cookbook, marriage guide, poetry, war tales, biology, genealogy, history, maybe even some electrical engineering, children's fables, I could go on and on. Hmm, would I have rv'd a "fantasy" cat as vandalism? That would sway on whether I thought the edit was in good faith (and undo), though if an editor took it as bad faith I'd understand. Meanwhile it's ok to rhyme if you've got the time and I'm the kind who always signs, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Turned into one of my little "case studies." lol (at the "little") But don't waste time looking at anything other than the "expanse" of it, :) ... thanks to your incorrigible encouragement ;) perhaps I'll compress it to a sonnet, Milady ...(which therein the gentle reader will find made manifest the wisdom of the choice of words "nonsense miscategorization" ) lol Proofreader77 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Uh oh, "nonsense miscategorization" is not iambic ... But perhaps an elision will render a limerick. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


GOD as Imaginary friend

Just curious. What is the perfect response to this edit. lol Other than the capitalization for emphasis (poke poke:), and being an uncited commentary (but such is common), etc etc :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Take the one you like most, from sundry outlooks:

Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(I see why you have all those stars ... a cool book ... and, upon reading "original research," laughing and seconding that extra new star.) I.E., Perfect. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

question

Hi Gwen, I saw a statement and wondered what it meant. What is a branded overlay? thanks — Ched ~ (yes?) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ahhh ... html layers ... kinda like that little pop-out Jimbo head. Gotcha! Thanks ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ew that head Oo Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MS

Here [34] and here [35]. I can't roll back these edits myself (intervening edit happened). Thanks and best.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct2Drive

I saw the Direct2Drive was deleted a while back for not asserting its significance. I haven't seen the original article but I was wondering if you could undelete it so I can at least see what used to be there. Direct2Drive is certainly significant now, with over 1.4 million hits on google and a major competitor of Steam. It also sits unlinked in Template:Digital_distribution_platforms. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put the deleted text at User:Odie5533/sandbox. Looks like it may more or less need to be done over from scratch. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Polanski - the Chinatown fan is back.

An IP just went to 4th revert for the day, restoring the cuts to Chinatown, including silly gossip and sharply positive wp:PoV. Don't know if you are still interested in the article.sinneed (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Yep and someone got there before me. If he crops up again pls feel free to let me know. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

Gwen, you've dealt with this individual before, and maybe you can help out. Ludwigs has place a number of warnings on my page, including this one, which is really bordering on harassment. Another senior editor has warned him off, but I think he needs to hear from you. I'm starting to feel very uneasy about his continued harassment. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DWYG

Hi Gwen, i now have references for the article DWYG, can we recreate it now? here is it and our website, you can also search for "lips106 manila" in google.com so you can verify it....

No. Those aren't references, you didn't sign this post and the IP you're editing from has lately been vandalising. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

More MS

Art's Mei Mei (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Sorry, and thanks. Bali ultimate (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

L

I recently drafted a proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hi Gwen Gale this user (User talk:216.241.250.30) keeps changing the birthdate of Kerry Washington. Her birthdate is clearly cited from a very reliable source, but this unregistered user keeps changing it. I think this is like the 5th time in the past 2 or 3 days. I was thinking have the person blocked for a certain amount of time. Have a good a day.Mcelite (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

May not be you-know-who but please feel free to keep me up on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

picture requests?

Hullo. I wondered whether there was somewhere I could 'request' images for an article? Is that something that happens on Wikipedia? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. See Wikipedia:Image_requests. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankee. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Poetic jousting for milady's amusement :)

(...) -- (Queen's knight/patroller) aka Proofreader77 (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See besom :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a more powerful prophylactic than necessary against evil at the level of "dinnae pu' ya brother's hair, ya wee besom" :) ... but how I loved the page. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
PS VERSE: The besom, as muse, inspired a much improved closing couplet. As always, my thanks milady. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't help thinking, if this were a video game she'd be about to lop off his head :( Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS (follow-up) God as Imaginary friend

Before I could get back to the page and revert with one of your elegant suggestions, someone else had reverted with an edit summary "(Sounds like Atheist weasel words)", which is certainly amusing, but the revertee was not quite satisfied with that explanation. :)

NOTE: Interesting 2nd response ... cleverly referencing the hymn "What a Friend We Have in Jesus." lol Good one. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. If someone wants to link/muddle these two notions in a sentence, they need only source it (not an easy task, I think, I can't recall ever stumbling across a halfway reliable source in any field which does this, as I hinted earlier). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I smiled (but regretfully) at the ip editor's edit summary. I had planned to use your option about "original research" in my reversion edit summary. (I thought about undoing the ip-editor's and replacing it with mine, but hesitated for some reason (etiquette of some kind, I suppose).
IN ANY CASE, didn't mean to cause you spending time there. Excuse me, and thank you. :) BIG PICTURE: Another one of those "small" things, which struck me as "worth pondering awhile." re: "license" to revert Proofreader77 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
BROAD ISSUE: reverting correct removals with inappropriate edit summaries

Just noting that I didn't have a "policy" for this. (Hence my reversion, then undoing myself, asking opinion, etc.) New edit, not that one. lol

My "policy" is now ...

  • to revert edits (even if correct action) if they have an "inappropriate" edit summary.
  • THEN restore the removal with an appropriate edit summary.

Does that sound right to you? Proofreader77 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ok to do that if the edit summary is truly untowards, but maybe not worth your time. Now and then I've undone/reverted an edit which might have been ok had not the edit summary shown the thinking behind it (without putting it back). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(Stopping myself before getting into a long philosophical discussion. lol) Thanks, again. (And special bristles for Besom:) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
They still wield twig besoms on the streets where I live, nothing beats 'em for sweepin' stuff off concrete :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please block this person: Jimintheatl

The user Jimintheatl keeps reverting my edit on the Article for Sean Hannity. If you check the history, this person keeps replacing my edit with a version that contains quotes of left-wing media marring Mr. Hannity. There are no quotes from right-wing media to balance it. Encyclopedias are supposed to be unbiased, and the version that Jimintheatl keeps posting is clearly biased. I have a feeling that this person has the article on his watchlist and will continue to revert my balancing effort. I just undid his revisions, but I am sure that it will be reverted soon. I apologize for my lack of wikiformating, because it is difficult for me to remember all of the different tags.

Thank you, JRH95 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced, so it can stay. For what it's worth, the New York Times and LA Times have so little sway in their political coverage anymore and are so widely understood to be wholly partisan, I wouldn't give it much heed. Both papers are on the edge of bankruptcy and may not be long for the world (at least, as they are today). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

strange new interaction

At Talk:Joe the Plumber a new entrant has been making strange attacks on me and has now entered my own talk page with stuff like [36]. I have apprised you in the past about some people and this edit history matches some others I fear. I fear paranoia on my part or his <g>. Collect (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly! He has an odd edit history -- his JtP edit was --- removing an irrel tag. Odd edits elsewhere as well. Collect (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Meat Loaf discography

In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).

Sunset2007b (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly enough going on there for semi-protection but you can let me or another admin know if it stirs up more. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blast from the past?

Should I never mind the Sollogs? -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Sollog was one thing, this is something else but yeah, on the shy edge of notability. I'm ok with either outcome. Not thrilled at all about this writer, but it's true most high traffic political articles on en.Wikipedia have such flawed weightings of sources as to be misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Slightly rattled by my belated discovery of this insult [emoticon] to a potentially worthwhile article, I thereupon expanded that to its present state, have derived this from a bot-generated atrocity, and have beefed up this article too. Although I'd rush to concede that not one of these articles actually indicates what it is about the respective photographer/artist's works that makes them worth a look, I think I've demonstrated notability. Meanwhile, Klein appears to be a blogger who once got thrown out of an office. I must be missing something. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He's had some republished articles (I stumbled on the one about Wikipedia wholly by happenstance and off-wiki when it came out). As I said, not my cuppa, but truth be told, the "media" is going broke and decentralizing fast so we'll see more of these. I don't think he's WP:N yet but it's not a Sollogish stretch and I think the article was likely AfDed because some editors got into a kerfuffle about "criticism" of Wikipedia, which is wonted and I think, needless but whatev.
Skived the N tag, wonderful editing by you, many en.Wikipedia editors think they grok Japan but know aught and I glark, wholly forget they can't read sources in Japanese. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Er, that's as may be; meanwhile, what the French Connection? -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, I muddled a diff with the current revision :( This is what I get for doing something else whilst glancing at my watchlist. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good, that's reassuring. Though I have to say that a little voice in my head was saying, "That's vandalism! Block her! Mwahahaha."
I have to say, this kind of stuff is a female dog to create. A major problem is that no Japanese newspaper or news service does what the NYT, Guardian and others do: posts everything and leaves it there. Instead, what little there is goes really fast. A second is that institutions have only very recently begun to leave up old announcements. (Until very recently, the great Japanese public had a deep distrust of any alternative to diskettes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that until recently museums and the like insisted that their websites should not expand beyond the point where they were backable-uppable onto diskettes.) A third is that stuff that's at all bloggy -- say, the closest Japanese equivalent to "salon.com" -- looks very bloggy indeed (often with "blog" in its title) and so is unusable. So there's very little to work with. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I've always thought of you with a two walls full of Japanese books about photography :) Internet? What Internet? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator

G, after a very serious incident occurred that originated due to this article, it appears that the scenario is again being played out as evidenced by a recent edit. Can you protect this page from anon attacks? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

I've s-protected it for now, can you give me diffs for the other "serious incident occurred that originated due to this article"? By the bye, I mostly like that movie but have always thought Leo was very miscast :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It was a pretty messy affair, see: Legal threat. H, As you say, he was miscast, but it was his personal vanity project as much as Scorsese's. Leo was too young for the role with the over-the-top, "look at me, I'm acting" scenes in the lapse into phobia period being particularly off-setting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
Yeah, still looks to me like someone who builds aircraft models for films is not happy with the text.
Howard went daft but, as you strongly hint, his was a much quieter, slower, more or less life-long slide. When I watch the film, I have to "overlay" my own notion of an actor doing Howard and I don't like the "here I am, I'm crazy" scenes, from everything I've ever heard, they get it wrong. Meanwhile I think they should have given it to Johnny Depp, don't know the tale behind that though (didn't know Leo had enough sway in the deal for it to be a vanity thing for him, but I guess that would have been about the only way it could have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Leo brought not only clout but also personal investment in the project; he prepared relentlessly for the role by researching Hughes until he was a walking encyclopedia. Howard Hughes had undergone a protracted slide into madness which was evident from his teen years on, but The Aviator accentuated the stages of paranoia that marked his life. As to the authenticity of the film, Leo could carry off parts of the film well but only the eras where his physical presence and age matched that of Howard Hughes. In watching newsreel footage of Hughes, it is apparent that this is a tortured genius. I once toured the "Spruce Goose" and was able to walk inside its cavernous cabin. As I came upon the cockpit, I winced when I saw that a realistic mannequin depicting Howard at the controls, much like he had been on the day of the first and only flight of the behemoth, was staring back at me. The eyes on the mannequin were piercing and revealing; Leo had an enormous burden to try to replicate such complexity... FWiW (don't let me ramble, I do carry on...) Bzuk (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
It's true, when I watch LdC in that role, I think of all the talent he brings to not bringing a believable spin to HH, almost, now and then, but not. To put it way too over broadly I guess, Howard was keen on three things, airplanes, Hollywood and smart, fetching women, had the money to spend on them and I agree, he had lots of talent. I've rarely heard a tale of someone who could be so unimaginative yet make up for that with sheer technical understanding and foresight. His movies haven't made it through the hackles of time, his aircraft designs were often stunning but wontedly flawed, yet southern California still echoes with the wide swath he cut there. Oh, by the bye... the actor playing Louis B. Mayer is way too old for the late 1920s :) I was also sad to learn they cut at least one scene about Amelia but then, it might have been so missed I'd have loathed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The scenes with Jane Lynch as Amelia Earhart were lopped off (see: Jane Lynch) mainly because the film had grown unwieldy and had to be severely edited to bring it down to manageable proportions. You may be interested that Amy Adams (see: Amy Adams in the upcoming Night at the Museum 2: Escape from the Smithsonian (aargh... it needed a 2?!) and Hilary Swank in a true biopic, Amelia (see: Hilary almost gets the gap-toothed smile right play Amelia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
Wow, the Swank snaps look ok! Hope they don't make her out to be a Gordo Cooper amazing pilot, she was many wonderful, startling, awesome things, but not that. Oh and the Amy Adams pics look dumb, ew. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
At least Hilary will provide a measured performance, although Amy Adams is certainly capable of delivering, but her material is definitely kiddiefare. As an aside, a lot of the Amelia filming for the first Atlantic flight took place up here in the backwoods of Canada last summer. They used some very realistic full-scale movie aircraft "props" (oh, oh, now that harkens back to the contretemps over The Aviator?! LOL). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
Truth be told, I spotted some of the models in Aviator straight off (sigh... all that luverly money spent on such lameness) but... only here and there, it's uneven. However, I like the Hughes_XF-11 bits, even if they made it look way more cool (like a hummingbird) than it was (a bloody death trap). For me, way more than nine out of ten movies suck and are unwatchable, so I don't have much hope for the Amelia flick but yes, I want to be wrong! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The use of a flying, full-scale Hughes H-1 replica was going to be the highlight of The Aviator which was precluded by the tragic death of Jim Wright, its builder and pilot, shortly before principal photography was to take place. The replica was totally destroyed in the crash that took the life of its builder/pilot. The use of scale models was the only alternative left although at least two authentic aircraft were used including a Sikorsky flying boat and a modified Vultee Vengeance that filled in for the H-1 replica. Leo was in the rear cockpit of the aircraft to recreate flying scenes. That must have been a fairly shakey do, as the Brits are wont to say, since our erstwhile hero was not a pilot and was thrown around the sky with some alacrity. All the rest of the aerial footage was completed with the use of scale models, with very few CGI scenes added to the mix. FWiW, as to Amelia. as long as it's better than the previous attempts, with Diane Keaton and Susan Clark taking turns at trying to get a handle on the elusive nature of Earhart. Clark wasn't bad but Keaton came off as hysterical in the last scenes when the flight is doomed. Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
Not for tourists. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny thing, I very much liked the H1-winding-up-in-the-beet-field scene even though it was clearly cobbled together (and never mind LcD was in it). I like Diane Keaton but she did lasting harm to how folks recall Earhart... Looking for Mr Noobar... shrill :/ Hey, I forgot I've got vanilla ice cream in the freezer! Bye for now! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I've gotta say, one of the movie's fittest bits is when Rufus Wainright sings the Gerswhin tune on a set meant to be the Cocoanut_Grove_(Los_Angeles)... that's filmmaking! Too bad it's so short. I also like the fake Multicolor a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A favor

I know, i never do anything for you. At any rate, Blades43 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sock of MS. The last 5 MS socks, for context, have all been CU confirmed as his socks [37] and have all been fiddling with the same AfD; this brand new user has done likewise. Since I see you around, would you do him a kindness? Thanks and best.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least he kept his word (I swiped the scythe at it). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New messages

I haven't checked my email today, but have you?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No offers to launder embezzled Nigerian oil money yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SluggoOne: reply

Hi, Gwen. You may not believe it, but I have no interest in butting heads with anybody. I do the things I do on here because I, like most users, want to improve WP. Based on your comment/warning to me, I think you may not be entirely aware of my side of this.

Collect told me he had "no doubt that you were here under a different name in the past." [38] He has provided nothing but a few vague explanations for this...well, whatever word is just shy of "blatant accusation of sockpuppetry." He cannot provide concrete evidence that created his lack of doubt, because none exists. (For an example of a typically not-explanatory explanation, see what he just told you. Contrary to his "no doubt," he tells you my "edit history matches some others I fear.") This lack of doubt that I am a sockpuppet goes to my integrity and can have a real effect on my efforts to improve WP. The lack of doubt is quite serious, since I have never edited WP under any identity except this one. Short of a real explanation, does Collect's behavior seriously not count as harassment? Have you read everything he said?

I simply would like an honest explanation for this lack of doubt on Collect's part. Since this is not possible, Collect has made a potentially devastating error and he owes me an apology. I don't believe I have stepped out of line nearly as much as he has, let alone enough to warn me and not him. I didn't call him out like this because I don't like him or his politics. (I didn't actually call him out at all. [39] Nothing I originally said was to him. Nothing I said was designed to provoke him. If he hadn't bothered saying a word, that would have been fine.) I mentioned him by name because he specifically is the reason the page for Joe the Plumber is such a wreck; admin Tanthalas39 has said as much. [40] Tan39 knows all too well the things I have said, but I fear, since he recently lost his mind, he'll stay away while another admin begins to manage Joe the Plumber's page without knowing what havoc Collect will almost certainly cause.

If I get nothing I have asked for, I won't worry as long as my original comment regarding Collect's notoriety stands. Any worthwhile admins who might come along and try to sort out Joe the Plumber's page will see it, check Collect's history as a confrontational, snide, partisan aggressor, and make a decision regarding his fate that will come as no surprise to JtP's regular editors and watchers. I am not threatening anyone. I am laying bare for the uninitiated that this person needs to be watched closely. (Watch me closely for all I care; my edits to actual articles almost never upset anyone.) I hope, if the left-wing editor Mattnad returns, he will be closely watched, too, since he is yang to Collect's yin. The best ending here is, once the page is unlocked, a zero-tolerance policy won't affect Collect at all because he either won't edit or his edits will stop being so problematic.

Again, I wonder how much further you looked into this back-and-forth. That Collect's notoriety, which has gotten him a few outright bans, seems not to have come to your attention is alarming. Literally every single thing this person says that might be remotely contentious should be thoroughly checked out, and I don't think you bothered. SluggoOne (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop and think. Comment on content and sources, not on other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

MySpace Notability

Hi Gwen, could you cast an eye over the Joe Brooks article? The main claim to fame seems to be popularity on Myspace. Is this notable enough? There are local radio/press promotional interviews but that seems to be all. His own YouTube page describes him as "Just another bedroom musician" which does not bode well. Previous attempts at articles - Joe Brooks (Singer) and Joe Brooks (Pop singer) have been deleted. The current article moved the existing article to Joe Brooks (actor) to make way for this "more relevant" piece. Is it notable? Salvageable? Speedy deletable? Lame Name (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Borderline speedy (bit hard for an admin to deal with but there are some who would speedy this), doesn't meet WP:MUSIC at all though, wouldn't make it through an AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive11&oldid=1191893359"