User talk:Gwen Gale/archive11

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

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

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)

• Rather too late, I'm afraid. My point was that Gwen Gale failed to provide the required documentation at the time of the blocking. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 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)

• No more mister nice guy. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:13, 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)

• Wow, what a right old hornet's nest this has turned out to be... all these drones buzzing around, protecting the queen. That's right, BMW, the queen doesn't answer to us. She has the power to sting, so we had better watch out! ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:28, 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}}:

• Claude La Badarian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ep1997 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 Nobody^{My 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:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

“ A 'NONSENSE MISCATEG'RIZATION' ?
Patroller(s) beheld this relation:
"The Bible's a lie!"
A poke in the eye.
(A red-button instant cremation.) ”

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:

• Anthropologically, God is not Harvey the rabbit.
• No proof needed, see faith.
• God is not imagined to be, God is said to be (see the Bible).
• DSM does not characterize belief in God as a psychosis.
• rm good faith, unsourced assertion, likely original research.

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:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember this chap?

Since I see you blocked him in January, No. 1 and especially No. 2. Wow. I see you have his IP shut down for a month. I get a bad feeling about this. What do you think? Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I saw this come up again yesterday. Looking at it today, I'm rather close to blocking for personal attacks. I also see way too much OR in how he deals with the topic, though he would clearly disagree with anything I have to say about his behaviour, which makes it all even more worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re the above

Regarding your edit [41]. I fail to see how I am responsible for personal attacks when clearly the other editor has been making defamatory statements about my expertise in support of misinformation he has linked to on wikipedia. I consider it a thoroughly proven fact that the page http://www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html contains misinformation. No one can honestly claim that "four" is the same as "eight". Though after repeated warnings about the content of this page, Andrewa continued to reference this page and to defend it by claiming that saying "four" is the same as saying "eight" and that this is a non-issue. How convenient. I think your conduct in this matter is unfair (and you've evidently not looked thoroughly into the contents) as I am clearly the one who is defending verifiable facts as stated in music journals by the inventor of the modern 10-string guitar (my teacher's teacher), whereas Andrewa is falsely accusing me of attacking him (where is the evidence? on what grounds?) because I point out that he repeatedly, knowingly links to and defends misinformation.

If there is a case for personal attack, if you can PROVE that Andrewa did not link to false information (this is a contents issue), then do so. Otherwise, please stop making false accusations against me. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of attacks without any evidence and without considering the contents of the argument. If you continue to make accusations without proof this is nothing more than a personal attack on me.

See Andrewa's talk page. I have addressed his false accusations against me. These too are attacks against me, not vice versa. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

more on false allegations

There is no vendetta and no personal attacks, Andrewa says. Below is my response to his false allegations made against me (which arem indeed attacks on me and NOT vice versa):

On the contrary, here, under Sources, you make a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, you have falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music, with only the exception of a few things passed directly from Yepes to Fritz Buss to myself. (These autograph manuscripts are a valuable resource in themselves.) Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group (such as the yahoo one you yourself have linked to). So there also you have made a false accusation.

Thirdly, even if I had linked to the myspace page I maintain about the 10-string guitar and not www.tenstringguitar.info, this is still acceptable as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID as the fact of the matter is that I am a recognized authority on the 10-string guitar of Narciso Yepes. (If you question that - I've given you the contact details of my mentor Fritz Buss, who studied with Narciso Yepes from 1960-1986 and was considered by Yepes one of his top students and one of the top 3 guitar teachers in the world [42] - call Fritz Buss and ask him whether Viktor van Niekerk is an authority on the 10-string guitar or not.)

You also make the following defamatory attack on my authority by claiming "So she [Janet Marlow] is a more authoritative figure than Viktor, at this stage." [43] Your claim is based on nothing scholarly, only google hits and the fact that Marlow has self-published a method book. A method book, I might add, with proven misinformation contained therein. Among many errors in that book: In the front matter the author states falsely that "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar". That is, even though Yepes ubiquitously indicates eight (not four) missing resonances in various articles and interviews as referenced here as well as in his Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989: "The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in eight of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale."

Despite discussing this last issue with you numerous times, you still made the folowing statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [44] That is, even though eight clearly does not equal four and both sides are clearly not describing the same thing, you still defend your support of misinformation.

Even though I've explained this before, and my site explains it in detail, I will say it again:

The western musical scale has 12 notes per octave. On the guitar, Yepes observed, four of these when palyed on a treble string induced a unison resonance from a bass string. These four notes are E, A, B, and D. If any octave of any of these notes is played on a treble string, a bass string reproduces it in unison. If A5 is played, A5 is reproduced by resonance on a bass string. Yepes observed that the other eight notes do not have the same resonance. These are C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#. By adding four strings to the guitar tuned a singular way (C, A#, G#, F#), all twelve notes of the octave, played anywhere on the treble strings, now have unison resonances from bass strings. If C#4 is played C#4 is reproduced on string 10 (F#). If F#4 is palyed, F#4 is reproduced on strign 10 by resonance. If both C#4 and F#4 ar played, string 10 produces both the pitch of C#4 and the pitch of F#4 simultaneously. This is a proven fact of acoustics.

If Janet Marlow claims there are only "four missing resonances on the six string guitar" (and in her book even attributes this to "Narciso Yepes"), it is totally false. Yepes said eight missing resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#) not four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb). Marlow knows that because she has (in Soundboard magazine) referenced an interview with Yepes (Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: p. 26.) in which Yepes very clearly indicates which notes do and do not have resonance. Yet she has published at least twice the disinformation that Yepes added four strings (resonators) because four resonances were missing.

If you (Andrewa) still have a problem understanding this, I am happy to meet with you and illustrate it on an actual 10-string guitar, since you've never owned/played one. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Andrewa has also falsely accused me of "outing" him, even though his user page already gives his full name, so this is no secret. And he has falsely accused me of sock-puppetry even though I explained to him that sometimes it seems on my un-refreshed browser that I am still logged in even though I am not. And he is well aware of my IP, so I would have to be an idiot to try to use my IP as a sock-puppet. I will look up the links to these too, if necessary. But there is already evidence against Andrewa for making false allegations (in other worlds attacks) on me. Where is the evidence of my alleged recent "attacks" on him? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I think this is enough, and I hope you agree with me. I'm a little concerned about the last words added here. I can deal with it but I'd rather try to stay more neutral on the article talk page first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be concerned about. Andrewa and I simply live in the same city and he has attended one of my recitals before upon my invitation. He did not use the opportunity to ask me anything relevant except what make of guitar I played. So I am happy to extend an offer to him to illustrate Resonance rather than talking about it, if he insists he still does not understand the difference between talking about "four missing resonances" (MArlow, whom he has defended) and "eight missing resonances" (Yepes).

I'm wholly neutral. I don't see any cited sources in the above, only original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Gwen Gale, thank you for your comment. However, I have delivered proof (on my user talk page) that Andrewa was aware of the misinformation at least as early as 25 February and yet still defended it in a post on 2 March as not being inaccurate rather than simply removing the misinformative link, so I cannot assume good faith or a mistake. Claiming that 4=8 is not a mistake anyone with basic competency in maths or English is likely to make. Yet this is exactly what Andrewa claims by defending that saying there are "four missing resonances on the 6-string guitar" is the same as saying there are "eight missing resonances". I think the facts speak strongly for themselves as I have given ample proof of, if you care to follow up my leads. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources: Gwen, if you had taken the time to follow up my leads to sources, you would have known that this is based not on original research but on verifiable texts in journal articles. Narciso Yepes ubiquitously spoke of "eight missing resonances" (and listed them), not "four" (as stated in the disputed link that Andrewa has been defending). I've listed the paper sources for Narciso Yepes's statements on my page here [45]. Please do have a look at the Reference list there at least before you just go claiming that this is "original research". There is a huge difference between talking about "four missing resonances" (as Marlow does, in a link defended by Adrewa) and "eight missing resonances" (as Yepes does). 4 does not = 8. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up references before you cry "original research"

Gwen, please do make the effort to look up the sources of my claims, which come from music journals, not original research.

References Kozinn, A. 1980 "Narciso Yepes: Classical Master of the 10-String Guitar". Frets Magazine, February: pp. 39-42.

Kozinn, A. 1981. "Narciso Yepes and His 10-String Guitar". The New York Times, Nov. 22: p. D21-22.

Scheider, J. 1983. "Conversation with Narciso Yepes". Soundboard, Spring: pp. 66-68.

Sensier, P. 1975. "Narciso Yepes and the Ten-String Guitar". Guitar III(9): p. 27.

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.

Yepes, N. 1973. " The Ten-String Guitar". Trans. Lionel Salter. La Cantarela, July.

Yepes, N. 1989. "Ser Instrumento" {To Be an Instrument}. Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989. [Available to download in Spanish on www.narcisoyepes.org ]

And there is more. Would you also like the sources in Spanish?

These all ubiquitously quote Yepes as speaking of four present resonances on the 6-string guitar and 8 missing resonances. The link provided by Andrewa and defended by him spoke of only FOUR missing resonances (thus eight present ones). This is not original research nor is it hard to see the difference between 4 and eight. This is becoming tedious. Please look up these articles and cease falsely claiming "original research". Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote me some verbatim text, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

'The first reason is that the 6-string guitar is not a "balanced" instrument. On a normal guitar, when you play the notes E, A, B, or D, you always have overtones, and therefore, a resonance from harmonics caused by sympathetic vibration with these four notes. For example, if you play the first string E open, then stop it, you will hear the resonance of this note in the fifth and sixth strings. When you play A on the same string, it is the same. This is a well-known acoustical phenomenon; it's nothing new. Sympathetic vibration can be the reason why a musical note can cause a certain object in the room to rattle. Well, this vibration is produced basically by only four notes on the traditional 6-string guitar. But the other eight notes of the chromatic scale are without strong overtones, so there is hardly any resonance at all. The question in my mind was, "Why have only four notes which are very rich and beautiful and eight notes that sound very dry?" Then I had the idea that the guitar could sound not only louder but better with the additional strings. Also, if I have the resonance, I can always stop it, and when I stop it, you can hear the difference. But you hear me stop it only because I have it in the first place; if I don't have the resonance, I can't stop it.' (Yepes quoted in Snitzler 1978)

"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale."(Yepes quoted in Snitzler 1978)

"My idea in creating this guitar was to correct the guitar's lack of balance. The 6-string guitar has four harmonics: E, A, B, and D. If you play one of those notes on the first string, and then stop the string from sounding, you will notice that the note continues to sound, softly, because its vibrations have caused harmonics on the other strings. But if you play F, F#, G, G#, Bb, C, or C#, you will have no residual resonance at all. On the 10-string guitar, I have resonance on all 12 notes of the scale." (Yepes, quoted in Kozinn 1980) [Either the interviewer or Yepes forgot to mention D#, but this is implied by Yepes anyway as he says 4 are present - E, A, B and D - and eight are absent, though on his guitar the resonance for all 12 notes is present.]

"My reasons [for using the 10-string guitar] were purely musical, and the first of them was that the guitar was not properly balanced. There was no equilibrium, because of the 12 notes of the scale, only four - E, A, B, D - had any resonance. If you play one of those notes and then stop the string with your finger, you will hear the sound lingering. But if you play one of the other eight notes of the scale, the sound dies immediately. On the 10-string guitar, I have resonance on all 12 notes." (Yepes quoted in Kozinn 1981)

Sensier: "The first [reason why Yepes added the lower strings tuned C, Bb, Ab, Gb] is to do with resonance. On the six-string guitar only four notes of the scale have natural resonances or overtones, E, A, B, an D. If you play notes such as C, F, Bb or F# there are no resonances. With the ten-string guitar all notes have natural resonance which you can employ or not, as you wish." (Sensier 1975)

"In the first place, the four supplementary strings give it a balanced sound which the six-string guitar is far from having. In fact, at the moment of playing a note on one string, another begins to vibrate by sympathetic resonance. On the six-string guitar this phenomenon is produced only on four notes, while on mine the twelve notes of the scale each have their sympathetic resonance. Thus the lopsided sonority of the six-string guitar is transformed into a wider and equal sonority on a ten-string guitar. Secondly, I do not content myself with letting the extra strings vibrate passively in sympathy; I use them, I play them according to the demands of the music to be interpreted. I can control the volume of the resonances, or I can suppress them. I can damp one if it is inconvenient in a given passage, but if I can do this it is precisely because I have these resonances available. This allows me to modify at will not only the volume but also the tone-colours." (Yepes 1973)

"I have not added four strings to the guitar out of a whim, but out of necessity. The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in eight of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale." (Yepes 1989) (My translation of the Spanish in this last quote)

COMPARE:

Janet Marlow: www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html [46]

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument."

Janet Marlow: "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar". (Marlow, Janet. 2005. Playing the Ten-String Guitar: An Approach Guide for Guitarists. Litchfield, CT: Janet Marlow Music LLC.)

MArlow is the lady featured in this photo on Andrewa's site [47] and also the author of the link (quoted above) that Andrewa has been defending as saying the same thing as Yepes, despite the fact that I previously informed him that there is an undeniable difference between Yepes's verifiable, published statements and those made by Marlow. (Re the photo: Marlow must have the copyright of this as it appears on her site here, bottom left and above the THE logo: [48] .)

You cannot call this original research. It is plain for anyone who can count and read English to see that Marlow and Yepes are describing "four" and "eight" missing resonances respectively. Even if you don't admit my defence [49] of Yepes's statements (based not on original research but thoroughly proven facts of the science of acoustics), you cannot deny that Marlow and Yepes are saying different things. As such, the Marlow link is misinformative. It says FOUR missing resonances and not EIGHT. And Andrewa claims the four = eight, or that it makes no difference to say four resonances are missing or eight are missing.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Viktor. I'll go over this carefully this evening, when I have the time to do so.

Again, however, the word misinformative is not on here. An editor could be making a mistake, the source could be mistaken, or there could be different takes on word meanings and descriptions of resonances (single strings echoing more than one note through partials and so on). Carrying on with that word is a personal attack. Stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I am now rewriting the ten-string articles. This is a slow and meticulous process. I have all the hard copies of documents to go through to reference as I write. If I had not done so in the very old, original Ten-string guitar it was simply because I did not know how to write the code to reference on wikipedia. I now do.

As for the above. I will refrain from using this word again, anew. However, in response to the above, yes, a single string (say 10=F2#) can resonate with two pitches played on the higher strings and actually produce both pitches (say, F4# AND C4#) simultaneously through the phenomenon of resonance. This still does not change the matter, but only supports what Yepes claimed. Yepes said that the 6-string guitar has 4 resonances (E, A, B and D), the E's from the octave harmonics of 6=E2 and the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 5=A2; the A's from the octave harmonics of 5=A2 and the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 4=D3; the B's from the the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 6=E2; and the D's from the octave harmonics of 4=D3. Yepes furthermore said that his tuning of the 10-string guitar added the other eight resonances: 1 C, 2 C#, 3 D#, 4 F, 5 F#, 6 G, 7 G#, 8 A#. So if you play A4#, F4 and A3# simultaneously on strings 1, 2 and 3, then string 8=A2# will resonate and actually reproduce all three notes. But on the 6-string guitar, four notes of the scale consistently have this resonance (E, A, B, and D) and the other eight notes do not. On the guitar Yepes invented, with the tuning C2, A2#, G2#, F2# in the basses, all the 12 notes of the chromatic scale (in all octaves) of the treble strings have this resonance.

Regardless of the scientific defence of Yepes's claims, we have a problem when Yepes has ubiquitously stated 4 present resonances on the 6-string guitar and 8 missing ones, and then other authors/editors state this the wrong way around as 4 missing resonances (and the implied 8 present resonances). Another bit of information to consider is that in a 1980 article (Marlow, Janet. 1980. “Notes on the Ten-String Guitar”. Soundboard 7(4): pp. 151-154) Marlow cites (on pp. 151 & 154) a 1978 interview with Narciso Yepes, conducted by Larry Snitzler, wherein Yepes unequivocally indicates that there are “eight notes of the chromatic scale” that lack sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar (Guitar Player 12, p. 26). Yet after putting it in writing that Marlow has read this interview stating eight missing resonances, after citing it, she claims multiple times, both in her book and on the site quoted earlier/above that Yepes heard four missing resonances. And this is the author whose photo appears on Andrewa's website and whose work Andrewa defends as being more authoritative than my attempts at referencing Yepes's actual statements. Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing a POV or conflict of interest here. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PoV is ok, conflict of interest is allowed, but WP:V always has sway. So far, it looks highly likely to me that there is a way through this (what seems to be a disagreement in the sources but what may be a different take on terminologies within the sources).

I hope you're beginning to understand that the most helpful thing you can do is assume good faith in other editors and don't speak of them in ways that could be taken as claims they're willfully harming the project.

I'll look at the quotes you've given much more deeply tonight. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

my take

Viktor, I think there are two ways to read this. Marlow may have muddled the notions of "only four... had any resonance" with "four supplementary strings" and came up with "Narciso Yepes[...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain..."

Or, Marlow may be hinting she thought she could hear resonance on C#, D#, B and F (along with E, A, B, D). So she wrote, rather fuzzily, that only four notes (C, Bb, Ab and Gb) had "less sustain." Marlow is saying there is some resonance to be heard on all 12 notes. Meanwhile Yepes said "you will have no residual resonance at all" on eight notes in the 12 note even tempered scale. This is a docking big disagreement between these two.

My take is, there is some likelihood Marlow thought she heard resonance on 8 notes (4 + 4 more), very little on 4 others, wanted bring up what Yepes had to do with the history of the instrument but didn't want to get into (or was unsteady about) her disagreement on the number of acoustically dead notes, so glossed over the topic, hence the disagreement in the sources (Yepes and Marlow).

Both Yepes and Marlow are writing/speaking as musicians, not acoustical technicians or scientists. I think Yepes is a highly reliable source as an authority on how his thinking and hearing swayed the birth of the instrument. However, I know enough about acoustics and the overtone series to say there are many more than four meaningful resonating partials to be had on the bottom three strings of a six string guitar.

Hence, I think the article should carry both sources, carefully attributing the narrative to each as needed and not asserting any authority as to how many notes "in truth" resonate on a guitar: This is likely not quite the same from instrument to instrument (string to string, body to body) and eardrum to eardrum and clearly not the same as to the loudness of each sympathetic partial on a single instrument as heard by a single person.

Lastly, though, whatever Marlow heard or thought about this, writing "Narciso Yepes[...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain..." seems very sloppy in more ways than one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint Regarding Gwen Gale's Conduct in Deleting the Alex Jones Criticism Section

This is a complaint relating to the conduct of Administrator Gwen Gale with specific reference to her summary deletion of the section labelled “Criticism” in the Alex Jones Talk Show Host page on 15 March 2009.

The text deleted read as follows :

Criticism  	 

- In July 2000, a group of ACAC (Austin Community Access Center) programmers alleged that their freedom -- specifically, their right to free speech and to disagree with Jones -- was threatened, by what they called Jones' heavy-handed tactics. The programmers' allegations -- which they made public by both broadcasting them on ACAC shows and posting them on Web pages -- were that Jones used both ACAC policy and legal maneuvers to intimidate them or get them thrown off the air. - - Tensions between Jones and others active in the local public access broadcasting scene culminated in an incident that occurred in the parking lot of the broadcasting center. Jones' account - that he was attacked by four thugs one of whom was wielding a knife - has been challenged as untruthful by others who claim that Jones himself initiated the incident by challenging someone who had insulted him to a fight which subsequently took place in the parking lot, resulting in Jones being soundly beaten by his opponent.

Her most substantive comments relating to the summary deletion were as follows : “single source cited says it's not clear what even happened” I've removed it following WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, given the single cited source says it's not even clear what happened, it's nothing but a non-notable, second-hand anecdote about what may or may not have been a parking lot brawl. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The grounds (as you put it) are WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The complaint is based on five points : 1/ Gwen Gale failed to follow proper policy with regard to deleting biographical material on living persons, viz. discussing it beforehand. The section had existed for some time, had been discussed and commented on extensively, and had been edited by several persons. As far as I am aware, Gwen Gale had no prior involvement in the page or the section concerned. Certainly, I had never seen her name in any of the page history. Unless it constituted a grave breach of some other policy, which not even Gwen Gale has claimed, any possible deletion should have been discussed beforehand and not executed summarily. To quote the BLP policy : “Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.”

No complaint about the nature of the material was made beforehand; no opportunity for improvement or rectification was offered.

2/ Having failed to discuss it properly beforehand, Gwen Gale also failed to discuss it properly afterwards. She made a few general remarks, using terms which, as will be discussed later, do not form part of any Wikipedia policy, viz. “single sourced, anecdotal”, and breezily referred those who wanted to discuss the matter with her to general Wikipedia policy documents, such as Biography of Living Persons or Verifiability. As will be shown in what follows the text did not violate either of these policy documents. Gwen Gale refused multiple specific requests to quote the exact passages of the Biography on Living Persons or Verifiability policies which she claimed had been violated. This refusal to properly discuss a summary deletion is against Wikipedia conduct guidelines and not acceptable behaviour in an Administator.

3/ Gwen Gale’s comments on the summary deletion reveal that she does not understand the core Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

4/ Gwen Gale’s comments indicate that she does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on Verifiability.

5/ Gwen Gale’s comments reveal that she does not understand Wikipedia’s Biography on Living Persons policy.

The only serious grounds on which deletion of the deleted text could be justified is Weight. This is not the ground on which Gwen Gale chose to defend it. She repeatedly cited BLP and V as the core defence of her actions, demonstrating that her judgement is massively flawed and that her administrative powers should be revoked. The core issue here is not the content. The core issue is Gwen Gale’s conduct and judgement. The Weight issue will, however, be discussed at the end.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of the Wikipedia’s Guidelines on Reliable Sourcing

It is clear that Gwen Gale does not understand Wikipedia’s policy on sourcing. In stating that the claims embodied in the deleted text were “anecdotal”, she is effectively second-guessing the judgement of the original reliable source, viz. The Austin Chronicle. She is implicitly expressing the view that the Austin Chronicle’s assembled journalists, editors, sub-editors and lawyers made an error in judgement in publishing the article in the first place. This is completely unacceptable and represents a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN JUDGEMENT. It is in no way appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make their own subjective judgements about the editorial standards of highly reputable and professional publications. It is the equivalent of an editor disputing a reference to a professional academic journal on the basis that “the author is only a professor at a low-grade university, therefore his opinion doesn’t count for much.” Those judgements must be made by the editorial staff of the publication concerned; anything else opens up a veritable Pandora’s box of subjectivity. The only basis on which such a contentious judgement could be made would be one which included an impeachment of the general quality of the source publication, The Austin Chronicle, and the assertion of a claim that it should no longer be regarded as a reputable high-quality source. No one, including Gwen Gale, has seriously advanced that claim. In any case, the article makes it clear that the journalist author of the article consulted numerous sources in compiling it. Therefore the dismissal of it as merely “anecdotal” is not justified as a matter of fact. That, however, is beside the point, as it is not Gwen Gale’s job to be making those judgements about reliable source publications.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

In using the term “single source” in her explanation of her summary deletion, she betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy. The notion of single sourcing does not form any part of this policy. This is a pseudo-journalistic notion. It is employed by journalists when writing stories. Wikipedia hinges on the concept of “reliable sources”. In general, as long as a source is reliable, it makes no difference whether the claim is also repeated elsewhere. This is a grave error in judgement on Gwen Gale’s part.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Proper Scope of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

It is also clear that Gwen Gale does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. Gwen Gale made the comment that “even the single cited source says it’s unclear what happened”. Every claim made in the deleted text was verifiable, however. The text described an incident about which there was a dispute; varying accounts of exactly what had happened existed and the scope and nature of those varying accounts was significant. The existence of the incident and its essential nature was not in dispute, however. The deleted text properly represented the scope and nature of the uncertainty from a neutral point of view. Insofar as the deleted text made factual assertions, it only made factual assertions which were verifiably true, backed up by the article in the reliable source, and agreed by all concerned.

The policy on verifiability relates only to specific factual assertions made by the text. Whether those specific factual assertions happen to describe states of uncertainty or dispute is not relevant. The notion of verifiability should not be extended from a strict concern with the factual assertions made to the nature of the topic itself.

To illustrate, this policy on something being “unclear” having to be omitted from Wikipedia would be a massive constraint in relation to biographical material. To give a few examples : it would be impossible to mention the fact that some people believe OJ actually did kill his wife; it would be impossible to mention the claims that Clinton had affairs with Gennifer Flowers et al.

All of these possibilities are, to some extent, “unclear”. The controversies and uncertainties surrounding them are significant, however. Omitting any mention of them is not the right approach and not the approach advocated by Wikipedia policies. Properly and neutrally describing the controversial claims, and delimiting the scope of the uncertainty in each case, is the correct approach. It is also the approach which was followed in the deleted text.

Failing to understand the nature of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy, and failing to understand its proper scope, are grave errors in judgement. If the misjudgement made in this instance were to be rigorously applied across all of Wikipedia’s content, a significant percentage of it would be eradicated.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Biographies of Living Persons Policy Gwen Gale repeatedly cited the BLP in defence of her action, without specifying which clauses she believed had been violated. The BLP’s section “critisicism” reads as follows : Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The deleted text did not violate a single one of the guidelines quoted above. The section was written in a neutral tone and was fully backed up by a reliable source. Moreover, all of the assertions made by the text were completely undisputed. All parties quoted in the source article admitted that an altercation had taken place in the parking lot and that Jones had made complaints about those he had been having a dispute with, getting them into trouble with the authorities.

In conclusion, it should be overwhelmingly clear that Gwen Gale lacks both the humility and the judgement required to be an administrator on Wikipedia. She blunders into subject areas she does not understand, summarily deletes material which has been carefully refined by groups of people over extended periods, refuses to properly discuss her judgements before or afterwards, and betrays a grievous misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s core policies. A power-happy person with flawed judgement should not be wielding administrative powers.

Addendum :

As has been demonstrated, there are no grounds whatsoever for justifying the summary deletion on the basis of Verifiability or Biography of Living Persons policies. The only grounds on which the matter could even be seriously debated is Weight. It is not clear to what, if any, extent Gwen Gale is knowledgeable about the Alex Jones and the sub-culture of conspiracising of which he is a part. Anyone acquainted with this subculture knows that the Parking Lot Incident is deemed to be highly significant. Jones’ critics feel that some essential truths about Jones – his honesty, his tendency to fantasise conspiracies, and his possible unusually intimate connections with law enforcement authorities – are revealed by it. A simple Google search on “Alex Jones Parking Lot Incident” reveals this to be true.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=alex+jones+parking+lot+incident&meta=

There is extensive discussion of the incident on other websites, blogs and forums. Jones has achievement fame for his strongly anti-establishment opinions; his claims that the government and its various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, are responsible for all kinds of nefarious actions; and his defence of free speech. The fact that Jones himself has attempted to set the forces of officialdom upon his critics (as he himself admits in the cited source) in an attempt to suppress their free speech is clearly of direct relevance to his notability in that it reveals possibly grave hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I didn't wield the admin bit on that. Second, Sloane put it all back in a few hours later and I haven't done a thing since (maybe you missed that and think it's still gone, he did restore it to a different section, it's been back for days). I still think the content strays from WP:BLP (both reliable sourcing and weight) but I was thinking then and still think now, given that stirring folks up is what Mr Jones is known for, more editor input was the way to go. Third, I also still think you could do with learning more about Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a rant for a single edit. Can I have one too?

90.213, that section was also a copyright violation from the source it cites. It quotes phrases exactly. We can't do that here. Gwen was right to remove it. I have removed it again as a copyright violation. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

my little blurb for today

See the two threads above. Much more often than before, on many pages, I'm seeing such long and weakly put/sourced rants as a way of handling content disagreements. Wontedly, straight off there is a claim of abuse or other attack, followed by kilobytes of openly PoV text which shows little or no understanding of en.Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones Discussion

It strikes me as improper that you deleted this discussion. The point in posting something on a Talk page is surely to receive responses from the person concerned and the others on the topic of discussion. That, inevitably, takes time. You have simply deleted the whole section without leaving time for it to be properly discussed. However, it should be clear to anyone that I tried to raise concerns in the proper way. My concerns can now be taken to the next stage.

You say the section was restored anyway. That's quite beside the point. It's not tremendously important whether that section exists on the Alex Jones page one way or the other. The point is that someone endowed within administrative powers clearly is casually violating Wikipedia conduct guidelines and, as I demonstrated, clearly fails to understand its core policies. In your little response, you ignored those allegations entirely.

Incidentally it is both arrogant and impertinent to make the smug remark that someone needs to learn more about Wikipedia without saying exactly what that is. As I pointed out in detail, you, too, have a lot more to learn about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, simply reading the text of Wikipedia policy pages will not do much good if the judgement which applies them is fundamentally flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely shameful and shocking that you are simply deleting any critique of you which someone attempts to make on the page specifically dedicated for that purpose. No clearer demonstration of your unfitness to be an administrator could exist. You seem to think of your Talk page as if it was your personal MySpace page, rather than something that is supposed to serve a serious purpose. You simply ignore any critique of you no matter how well-founded, no matter how much care someone has taken over it, failing to respond to any of the points made and brushing your critics aside as if they were unworthy peons unfit to be taking up the time of a member of the magisterial elite. You represent the death of Wikipedia. If people like you succeed in seizing the reins of power within this website, treating the website's users with arrogance and contempt and retaining their position within a powerful and self-supporting clique, it will eventually lead to the withering away of this website's potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Sperry

RC NOTE: Someone just provided the name of the female participant in the "founding" Mile High Club anecdote ... referencing the website.

• This is at least semi-"common knowlege" (note elsewhere in Wikipedia, and see book reference )
• MY QUESTION: In the case of biographical information (especially like that), shouldn't the name come from some source other than like the one in this case (Mile High Club website)?

--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this isn't a WP:BLP worry, the sourcing doesn't need to be as steadfast and thorough. However, I wouldn't put much faith in what a humorous (or cheeky) website says about something like that unless they've given some strong citations themselves. I'd take it out, it could easily be anecdotal and worthless, or a joke name. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to that book reference (that I found searching, not currently referenced in article) ... can/should we treat that as a reliable source (fact checking could be lazy, etc:) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the name is only given in passing, in parenthesis, it's not much of a source. Moreover, a few other websites I've glanced at said that when it happened in 1916, her husband was off fighting World War 1, but the states didn't enter that one until the spring of 1917. Some Americans did enlist in commonwealth armies before then, but not many. Looks unlikelier and unlikelier to me, other than as funny folklore. Moreover, I have a snare with believing nobody had a bash at that until 1916 (although I guess even the Wikipedia article more or less says it's all a joke anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (Clearly, if I'm going to waste our time on trivial matters, the universe demands it be on matters of a silly prurient nature :) Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, I've made it into a clean stub. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen

Hi Gwen, Just wanted to request a deleted page, if you have time... Sonia Ahmed for President of miss pakistan world... please advise. --Sonisona 04:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What page? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Page Sonia Ahmed - remember,, you did the Miss Pakistan World and I had earlier requested you to do the page::Sonia Ahmed:: But you had said that you had no time..

--Sonisona 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Ahmed. Unless new sources have shown up showing notability, I don't see much to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

a word from an admin might help?

User:Viriditas/Medical cannabis lists "SPI"s which might possibly be in violation of some guidelines, especially since he has not apparently reported these accounts, but lists them with the accusation on his own page? I am trying to help "Zombie president" who actually appears, to me, to be a new user, and the accusation by this editor seems unwarranted. Is he supposed to make such a charge on his userpage and not bring it to an admin otherwise? Viriditas has been around a long time to be sure. Merci. Collect (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since one doesn't know yet if these are all SPs, it's a bit on the edge to keep a list like that on-wiki, could be taken as a smear. I mean, this is not like a list of straightforward vandal accounts, confirmed socks or the like. However, have you (or yet more helpfully, has Zombie president) asked Viriditas about this? If not, someone should, straight off. If Zombie does the asking, they can ask that their username be rm'd from the list as a personal attack ("I know you're only trying to help the project, but please take my name off the list or request an SPI, thank you very much for your understanding..."). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombie denied it directly to Vir (quite strongly) -- and now has decided to just go away. Seems a bit of a shame, really. Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Without diffs I won't know enough about this to say anything more. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Brooks update

I recently asked for your opinion of the article about Joe Brooks which you described as "Borderline speedy" and "doesn't meet WP:MUSIC at all though, wouldn't make it through an AfD." with which I concurred. Alas it has made it through an AfD due to a lack of consensus. So... if the requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability and you are in Wikipedia you are, by default, notable? Should the notability template remain on the article until actual notability is established? Lame Name (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Naw, as you know, Wikipedia is meant to echo notability, not confer it, there is a blurry line onto which many BLPs do fall but, I still think this one doesn't even waft onto the blurry line.

That's one of the weakest, most stagnant AfDs I ever saw. I don't agree with the close, the keep arguments have aught to do with policy. This is a fluke (but then MySpace... where almost anyone willing to spend a month or two fulltime spamming friend requests, or paying a stay-at-home a small amount to do so, can gather 100,000-200,000 friends... is a fluke). I guess wait another month or two then AfD it again. Meantime, keep the notability tag up and try a WP:PROD, anything, knocking on wood, throwing salt over your shoulder, kissing someone you like under a mistletoe, whatever, there is always hope. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for T-Wayne

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T-Wayne. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. As the deleting admin I've closed the DRV as "no longer WP:CRYSTAL" and begun the article anew by putting the draft into the mainspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ingrown toenail

That is MY research. Not from the link.

You can ban me if you want. You could learn some english too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock

If you still care (and since you're clued in) Captain Porter (talk · contribs). Thanks and go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I guess he's got time on his hands again or something Both Fortunato and Claude (talk · contribs)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Or something. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again,m Veteran sailor (talk · contribs)

Moreover I've semi-protected William Monahan. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why? I've seen that too. The page is old now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.149.119 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And again... Jarmancooper (talk · contribs) Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Such bad faith, thinking a new editor couldn't find DRV, make wlinks and use wacronyms all on their very first edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Strasberg

Thanks for the kind words - they are appreciated! :) - Fastily (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why did you erase my Question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.149.119 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What are your plans here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No plans. I'm a bit shocked by what happened in a few hours so I asked a question. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

OMG. You erased my question again??? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Nope, someone else undid it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What the bloody hell's the purpose? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Your posts always have words like shit, dammit, OMG, bloody hell. I find that boring, you're not fooling anyone. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rahhh... sorry. It wasn't to you. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

It says you protected it. I think you did it the wrong way. It looks like the page is from years ago. I had fixed it a day ago and then I came back and it was copletely different. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

my deleted user page.

Hi you deleted my user page Leighmason2003. Sorry i did not read any of the previous messages you sent me, I know why it was deleted but can I please have the source for it as soon as possible please.

Thank You

Leighmason2003 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Email me (menu at left) and I'll send it to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool's Day

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG		Port-a-Potty!!!
		Fastily (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!! Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Happy April Fool's!!! :) - Fastily (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, how did you find my TARDIS? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for adminship. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. LEETSDLEIFFEHS^TALK 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Please unblock me. I want to be good. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

---

Decline reason: "not until you get a doctor's note to prove you're ill Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Ok, Doctor Who has sent my note, but because of some dodgy time warp it won't show up in the edit history for like, 10 billion years or whatever. Please see the above thread for more background on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

---

Decline reason: "If you are declaring your intent to cross your own timeline for personal gain in defiance of the Shadow Proclamation, I fear that you are violating Wikipedia's temporal COI policy Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

Ok, I give up and will wait it out. The way these fictional time warps work, I glark it'll loop back onto itself and go poof in a sparkling cloud of fossil light soon enough. Thanks for your input. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Following my upgrading I will be forced to delete you unless you agree to a compulsory upgrade. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I've been very happy as a Mark I. What did you have in mind? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you are an enemy, I have blocked myself due to warring with you Fritzpoll (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No no no. I have unblocked you. Without warring, this website would go canny dark in a fortnight. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look...

...at this MfD. Also check my deletion log; the page was deleted three times under three different names. I am soliciting the opinion of others as well. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to delete it but someone got there before me. Calling the police over it would seem way over the edge, but editors can do as they please. Meanwhile it's gone, as it should be. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put my thoughts there, thanks for asking! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I recall being given a CD-ROM copy of Encarta when I was in HS. I was thrilled, until I read a few articles :P Even at that age, I thought Encarta was way lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarmancooper

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

---

• Bolded text has shown up in this thread so I'm closing it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked this account, and that it was tagged by another editor as a "suspected sockpuppet". I wish to inquire as to what checkuser evidence showed the account as a puppet? And if no checkuser was used, how is anyone able to determine or assume by the account's one edit that it is a puppet of any one specific person or determine just who that person must be? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See the duck test. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From one edit? Sorry, and with respects, I think wiki Wikipedia would need to see a few just a couple more feathers to presume it is a quacker from one specific individual. That the comment will be disregarded as being from a SPA is all but assured... but to decide from one edit alone that it could only belong to one specific individual from out of the thousands that have been blocked or banned over the years is perhaps a bit of a stretch. If the user who made that one edit were to ask for an unblock, I'd be inclined to encourage unblocking unless a checkuser could affirm that it was indeed Manhattan Samurai or some other blocked user. Thank you for your response. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This website is not called wiki, it's called Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael, you're likely unaware there's a lot of background behind that block. It has nothing to do with your good faith outlook at the DRV for Alan Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked... and MS most certainly went sock happy... and he has a definitely acrimonious history with several editors, including Bali Ultimate. If Jarmancooper IS a sock of MS, then the block should stand without question. Please accept that I do not mean this negatively and assume absolute good faith in your block... but without a checkuser to confirm, blocking because of one solitary edit is perhaps putting blame on the blameless. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... and Jarmancooper stays blocked. But all I've seen are the knowns: A SPA came straight to DRV and made a comment that showed knowledge about the subject and about wiki procedures that newcomers simply do not have. The acceptable implication is that the user is a sock of someone... either of a current editor who does not wish to involve him or herslef under their cutrrent name, or of a blocked or banned editor. In either case, yes... a bad thing. It just seems that blaming this on only MS, based upon just that one edit seems a bit iffy... even when feel that MS is the only person whom Jarmancooper might be the sock of. Look at it this way.. if someone else is actually the puppetmaster, I'd like to know... so the proper person might then be dealt with. Opinion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you're asking, I don't think you'd be nearly so worried about this if User:Jarmancooper had disagreed with you, rather than agreed with you (more or less), at DRV. He hasn't appealed his block, he seldom does anymore. He has sent taunting emails about how he can open new accounts from many and sundry IPs and has had many sleeper accounts too. Someone mistakenly blocked as a sock would be overwhelmingly likely to make an unblock request. Meanwhile any editor is welcome to ask for CU at WP:SPI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, whether blocked or not, that account is clearly an SPA and any closing editor would be extremely likely to ignore the opinion offered. Bongomatic 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A SPA... and one whose comments will be disregarded as such. However, I am in no way convinced of whose sock it is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And he is now block evading: [50]. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed he/she is. And THAT is a reason for blocking.... now. I have recommended thay stop and use the proper procedures to request a lifting of the block. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Would schmidt like to explain, in all "good faith", what he thinks is most plausible here? That a brand new user finds his way to DRV, and spews lots of inside jargon about wikipedia within his first few edits (see his latest sock)? Or that it is in fact that marginally crazy, highly abusive manhattan samurai who has dozens of CU confirmed socks already? Would schmidt then like to explain how he feels about abetting further disruption by this guy, who i assure you is very much enjoying the additional drama he's causing with Schmidt's help?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith says that someone knowledgable about wikipedia who does not wish to be indentified, or someone who is blocked, is making use of a puppet account. I have seen no evidence that indicates who this other user is, and an uninclined to point to a finger at anyone without proof. I further deplore use of charged rhetoric (ie: "marginally crazy, highly abusive") in attacking someone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If these two are not MS, it's someone more or less closely linked with MS off-wiki. The sock tags do say suspected. Either way they're sockies having to do with MS. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not convinced in any way that it is Manhattan Samurai, but am convinced that it IS a sock of someone. The account had not proven abusive by making the one single edit, though immediately under scrutiny simply as a SPA account... whose opinion and comments could and would be disregarded. Then the second such arrived... and if the same editor is now abuse. I have advised the user to look to proper procedures in seeking redress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CU has been declined, quacks were loud enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Declined for lack of evidence would be understandable. Personally, I find the essay "Duck Test" as one encouraging an assumption of bad faith and as an essay often used as a club rather than a scalpel... subject to its own abuse. But let it be clear, I am certain here that BU, GG, and Bongo are all acting in the very best of good faith in trying to determine just whose sock this is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, here's another one Newsgoal (talk · contribs). Thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sleeper. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

How do I determine if a link is regarded as a RS?

I have a blog link that someone wants to use as a citation. I know blogs are generally frowned upon but I think this is a blog in name only, it's just using the "blog" designation to present it's TV articles so that people read them. In any case where would I go to illicit input regarding the appropriateness of using the link as an RS? Padillah (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant elicit = get ...? Now and then a blog is ok if the author is an otherwise published, reliable source on the topic. You can get more input on a source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you'd think after being born here and talking for forty years I could speak the language. Go figure. And thinks for pointing me in the right direction. Padillah (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the sway of Latin in English over the last 1000 years has brought us more bane than boon (let folks speak how they please though and all the Latin cognates have at least helped make English much easier as a second language for 100s of millions worldwide) but, I'm weird :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

deleting research data

Gwen, the play off final results you marked for deletion is part of a useful research tool for me. They are useful for cross referencing statistics and removal hinders the encylopaedic nature of the football pages. The event is noteworthy as it attracts the largest viewing figure for any championship match and the winner benefits by up to 50 million pounds in revenue, and is played at Wembley, so cross referencing features such as who captained a team at wembley etc. is a useful place to begin specific research. I have not edited any of these particular pages, so speak in terms of their usefulness as a statistician. Thanks a lot. Paul haynes (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Without an article name I can't even begin to answer this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnLease

Thanks for resolving the legal threat. I can't remember: do we now replace his user page with one of those this-user-has-been-indefinitely-blocked tags? Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but after giving him maybe 3-7 days to take it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ericg33

• Ericg33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.154.214.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The user that you just blocked is now IP socking in order to evade his block, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the IP because it strayed off his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is socking again, see

69.155.107.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Hornsby

This deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hornsby with the explanation of " 04:26, 26 October 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "Dan Hornsby" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person) " seems pretty harsh.

Facts are that Dan Hornsby was noteworthy throughout Americana Musical History in the 20's & 30s (Columbia Recordings D series found a long list of his 78 recordings on http://www.patswayne/nikki/dan.html)singing the first recording noted of "Oh Susanna" "Arkansa Traveler" etc.

He was a singer songwriter musician recording artists with enough creditability to be installed in the Atlanta Music Hall of Fame in 1986 and mentioned on other Americana musician recording artists bios and different print publications from a North Caroline newspaper writers article to Bluegrass publications magazines in reference. This man lived in the Southern States of the USA working in the new music industry even the first radio shows of the South like WSB Radio and died in the late 50s. He is burried in Atlanta GA USA.

Dan Hornsby was alive working before the times of the internet & fast media buzz. He was alive back when newspapers [www.patswayne/nikki/dan.html like shown on this web site] with proper references of page, authors, & dates were accepted and also researched before printing.

At those times truth in reporting facts in print were challenged for authenticity by the editors or the writer or critics. This was done regarding anyone or that writer/editor may be no longer contacted to report or edit facts or would loose his job in reporting untruths because of the law.

People online today may rediscover an outstanding artists with verified documents but is not able to find them even mentioned on this Wiki website.

Would you mind if some ones research contribution where to add this noteworthy significant REAL person who died in a lifelong musical career once again to Wikipedia sources of facts named DAN HORNSBY? There are actual audio clips of his singing voice that can be obtained.

Would you be able to do some research with Columbia 5000 series recordings from 1923-29 to find the data needed online?

Or you especially with your talents in writing / research as an editor maybe could write a short bio for him too?

This is how we honor others of the past and we are honored with more of the future in return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.244.102 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the same person. The deleted content had to do with someone born in the 1980s. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Palin

Per your request, I was seeking to have the Palin article track two reliable sources.

According to Reuters (September 1, 2008), the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge: "The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005."[51] The New York Times and Associated Press (September 23, 2007) said the same: "Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina Islands. Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark...."[52]

Ferrylodge (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those cited sources support the assertion, "...the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge... The New York Times and Associated Press (September 23, 2007) said the same..." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They seem to support the article edit that I was suggesting. The two sources discuss an earmark for the Gravina bridge, but not for the Knik Arm Bridge. And the amount of the earmark is 200 mil instead of 400 mil.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't in any way support your assertions as to dollar amounts or structure of the earmark. Your interpretation of the sources draws an original conclusion, which is original research and isn't allowed. The sources don't even agree with each other and look sloppy (or at least lacking, but this isn't startling, given that journalists are wontedly clueless about detail) and the article text indeed seems flawed, but it can't be fixed with the edit and sourcing you've shown me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I really appreciate your efforts here, and in no way should this be taken as requesting you stop - indeed, please do continue - but perhaps there is a little confusion. Unfortunately, the problem (which led to the 1 week article ban) with those edits wasn't that the edits were bad or not correctly sourced or any of that, but that he made them in a section which everyone was (gentleman's honor) refraining from editing until a core content dispute was settled. The edits were made, then when I requested Ferrylodge also honor the No Edit Zone so as not to do the virtual equivilant of a smack in the face to the editors observing the restriction, he took them to the talk page rather than wait until the core dispute was resolved as I requested. The edits he had made were about something other than the discussion all the other editors were working on, and distracted attention and effort from the core issue to this sideshow. I asked FL to wait, and he bombarded the talk page with arguments for these edits and accusations against me, and ignored the main issue - that they have nothing to do with, and were derailing, the core dispute. As other editors weighed in and objected to the edits, he expanded his tendentiousness to repeating himself and attacking them. Sorry to butt in, just wanted to make sure you were aware of that! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Had it been a truly helpful edit, it's likely he'd have been allowed to make it anyway, but it was original research, which makes it all even worse. Ferrylodge, I think you've been rather heedless (not saying you meant to be), both as to sourcing and getting along with others on a very high traffic and PoV drenched article. KC set the ban to settle you down. I think you got off lightly, you could have been blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, if it had been a non-contentious edit I would have said nothing, of course - but the mere making of them wasn't what led to the ban. that's the point I was trying to make. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, your opinion is duly noted. Your notion that I ever put original research into the article is manifestly incorrect, and is totally different from any rationale that KC ever provided. Thanks for your time.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, all I've done is dig up yet one more underlying worry. Not only did you barge forth into a swath of a sanctioned article which everyone had been asked to stay away from for a tick, but you did so with an your own interpretation of two sources, which is straightforward original research. The sources do not say there were separate earmarks. The sources do not clearly match up and put forth the amount of any earmark. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was never asked to stay away from the article prior to my edit. Subsequently, I reverted my edit upon request.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Gwen, you disagree. That's fine. I reverted all of the article edits, and brought the discussion to the article talk page, as requested by the admin. But then I was banned for talking about it at the talk page.

Regarding the dollar amounts, I suggested changing 442 million to 223 million in the article. That seems consistent with the two reliable sources that I quoted above: “$223 million earmark in 2005" (Reuters); “more than $200 million” (NY Times, Associated Press). Even if you disagree for some reason, why ban an editor who wishes to track NY Times, Reuters, and AP?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's rather more than disagreement. Neither source says there were two earmarks and hence your interpretation that there were two earmarks is a synthesis, original research (please read this if you haven't), never mind the sources have nothing meaningful to say about the structure of the earmark and the dollar amounts don't match up. Carrying on with trying to put original research into a high traffic article which is already under sanctions can get one swiftly banned, which is what happened to you. Drop that one, it'll never make it into the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The article edit that I was suggesting did not say there were two earmarks. So I was not putting OR into the article, or even suggesting to put OR into the article was I Gwen?

Moreover, KC is incorrect that the edits I had made were about something other than the discussion all the other editors were working on. Here's what KC said during that discussion at the article talk page:

GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge….It appears the primary argument for [inclusion of KAB in the article] is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing.

Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"...the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge..." means "two earmarks," you indeed said there were two earmarks. Moreover you're giving me different diffs with different content as if they're all the same single edit you wanted to make. If this is how you wontedly deal with stuff on talk pages I can see how you got yourself banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, you can go look at the article history if you like. I never suggested editing the article to say there were two different earmarks. And even if I had, that would have been a reasonble inference from the cited sources; it was hardly an inappropriate talk page remark. Your stance now is quite clear, and I again thank you for devoting your time to expressing your feelings about this matter, and your condemnation of what I have done. Have a nice day.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, which part of "this section is offtopic for the main current discussion, please wait until that's resolved" don't you understand? Nothing wrong with you preparing and dscussing proposed improvements on the talk pages of editors who have the time and patience, as here, but you've been given good reason for a brief ban on editing the article itself and the article talk page to enable progress by others without your distractions. . dave souza, talk 17:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Dave. Have a pleasant afternoon.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Blech

Perte (talk · contribs). Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You said it Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotica (Pickup Guru)

10:54, 3 February 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "Hypnotica (Pickup Guru)" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Not sure why this was deleted or how well it was written but as hypnotica (aka Rasputin in The Game by Neil Strauss) is a performing hypnotist who produces Audio material available on CD, and mentioned prominently in "The Game by Neil Strauss" I would have thought it significant enough to be included in wikipedia.

I would request a new article but I have unable to figure out how to do this from reading the request page.

link title

--Dh015488 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to create the draft of a good article in your own "sandbox" and, when you're confident that it merits inclusion -- or at least demonstrates notability via citation of reliable sources -- then post another message here alerting Gwen to its existence. If you convince her, she'll give you the go-ahead to post it as a regular article.

Incidentally, there's no reason to capitalize "Pickup Guru"; "pickup guru" would be better. But "pickup guru" seems bizarre: "pickup" is specific, while "guru" these days means next to nothing. Better rethink the title, probably aligning it with the titles of articles on similar people. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the two cited articles about Wikipedia, the content spun up by the project has lots of flaws but even so, other than the high traffic humanities articles, many of which are so skewed as to be unhelpful, it's a very handy first step towards getting a quick take on and finding sources for a topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Kutner

Seeing that you are the admin that protected the page, can you make a smalled edit an the end of the intro? Could you please add {{fact}}. Thanks, --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the intro {{fact}} should not be needed as the external links on the bottom of the page for the obituary for the character reads that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Thus, the information is shown as correct. Or am I missing something? -Pparazorback (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get this edition either. Why would you need a {{fact}}-tag when the source is the episode itself? Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there was some question as to whether the character was truly shown having killed himself, or if it was a scripting trick. Either way, there's no harm in asking for sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, Gwen. Although it was treated as a suicide, he wasn't shown to have actually done it conclusively. House said at one point he thought he was murdered, but it remains to be seen if there's any truth to that. No harm in asking. Dayewalker (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Y'all, it's time for me to plug the Internet Archive. DOA awaits. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Sorry, I guess what I meant was to add a citation to that line (i.e. the obit.). --MikemoralSock (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --MikemoralSock (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A tough one

Knowliege (talk · contribs) This one isn't as blaringly obvious. I saw it because it's 15th edit ever was to the sandbox of another user linking to another wikipedia article he'd just created. Edit summaries very similiar. This one may need a CU, though.

It's someone's sock, I'd wait and see if the edits become truly worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this section after reading (although deleting it first might be a good idea...)

It. was. a. joke. Sock + ingrowing toenail editor... = ha! ha! ha! (YES IT DOES!!). I bet you wished you had deleted first, now! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! I don't want to delete this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

my jaw drops

While you're watching. It will give your jaw something to do besides drop. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My jaw drops. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And now the revert war.Lame Name (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be the first time Mr Shankbone and I have agreed on something :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good time to point out that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not the truth. Lame Name (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only one truth, but we'll never know it. Meanwhile, verifiability here on en.Wikipedia is often in the PoV eye of the beholder. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Sanger himself is edit warring on Wales' talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...and today, warned by Jehochman about making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Sanger says he wants Wales thrown off the WmF board. Thanks for the popcorn KC, it's comin' in handy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jumping Juicy Jeezus on a palomino! See, this is why I don't really want to know the people whose projects I work on. Everybody's disappointing... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another legal threat...

A week ago you blocked User:JohnLease indefinitely for making me a legal threat on my talk page. Just today, I reverted vandalism to Clarksville, Iowa by IP 192.104.107.130, who responded by placing a similar threat on the talk page of my archive navbox! Obviously a block is warranted; but do you think we should ask for a CheckUser on JohnLease to see if it's the same person? JohnLease consistently edited Iowa geography articles, which is what this IP has done (its only edits are the two to Clarksville today and the notice on my navbox talk page), and the writing style of the warning is similar — although admittedly the IP may have seen that and decided to copy it somewhat. If a CheckUser request is inappropriate, would you please block the IP for an appropriate length? I don't know what would be right for an IP making a legal threat. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quack. Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; but what do you mean by "quack"? I must say, this whole thing has made me laugh in one way: I never imagined (although I'm not surprised by it) that I had a talk page for my archive template...talk about an obscure place to leave a threat! Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK (sneaky duck). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Hi. I think given that Bristol and Levi have given interviews on major news sources and there are 1/2 dozen press releases the article Bristol Palin should be unprotected. jbolden1517^Talk 16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think, only by consensus at Talk:Sarah Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to keep pushing this, but will all due respect. To have a page be permanently protected requires consensus, unprotection just requires some objection. You could make a case in September there were news worth items involving her before, but that is not the case now. She has received extensive mainstream coverage from RS. I think it would require a consensus to maintain the protection. jbolden1517^Talk 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your outlook is ok, I'm neutral on this, but following WP:BLP and other meaningful worries having to do with the utterly blameless children of widely known people I'll not be the one to unprotect Bristol Palin without a straightforward consensus to do so. By all means, please do bring it up at Talk:Sarah Palin and see what others have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but I disagree that unprotection takes consensus. I understand your WP:BLP concerns but I see that as the role of the people editing that page, not blocking the problem from arising in advance. I posted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Bristol_Palin is you would like to comment. jbolden1517^Talk 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to forum shop like that. Whatever you think about this, for any unprotection to last it will need consensus. I gave you my thoughts on this and asked you to bring it up at Talk:Sarah Palin, which you have not done. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy for unprotection is to notify the protecting admin (you) and then if that fails post to RPP. Involving 3rd party articles is not appropriate, though I have no objection the Sarah Palin people being notified. I'm not proposing a change to the Sarah Palin article. I don't propose changes to George H. W. Bush before making them on George W. Bush jbolden1517^Talk 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They're her underage children and so far as I know, none have been elected president of the US lately. As I said, there are WP:BLP and other worries here. Meanwhile WP:PROTECT has plenty to say about consensus. If you don't care about consensus now, I can only say it will likely come up on its own soon enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Sarah_Palin/Article_probation#Notifications KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if he didn't know about it already, he should. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen (and Gwen talk page stalkers) would you keep an eye on Sarah Palin? I'm going to be away for a bit, almost certainly all day and possibly thru the weekend. You should be aware of User_talk:KillerChihuahua#A_Bridge_TOO_Far and Talk:Sarah_Palin#Bristol_Palin - thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

re wales.

hello gwen. why are you reverting my edit ..when jim has asked for all this to be taken away from there? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Not the same topic, for starters. QG is asking about an overall ban from Wales' talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes it is ..thats what its about .it's all about co ..pilot/founder.take it somewhere else ..jim has requested ..away from his talk page and that he doesn't want to talk about it. many people edit his talk page and I feel the edit I made was and is in good faith (Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I know it was in good faith, but edit warring isn't allowed, even in good faith. You're mistaken as to the topic, QG is very likely worried he'll be banned from ever posting anything on any topic at all to Wales' talk page. No worries, if he tries to use this as a wedge to post there again on the founder thing, he'll be banned, maybe even blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you (Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

thanks back. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wales has told QG to stay away from his user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh

Rollback misclick? :D Acalamari 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

At least it shows you watch my talk page. ;) Acalamari 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:D Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" in Berghof (residence)

"Political book" is an unecessarily bland and somewhat misleading description of this volume. A "testament" is "a profession of belief"[53], which is a perfectly accurate and appropriate desciption of Mein Kampf. It is neither POV nor either inflammatory or celebratory, and should remain. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it too PoV, understanding that some readers would not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While there are a number of terms which could be applied to the book that would be both accurate and POV (i.e "screed", "harangue" etc.), "testament" – which is after all related to "testimony" – is really not one of them, it's just straightforwardly descriptive of the contents, and should be acceptable to people who hold all different opinions about the book. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of testament is Latin testamentum, spot on with Anglo-Saxon witness. Calling Mein Kampf a witnessing is PoV, it's still only a political book written by yet another budding and ruthless politician who wanted to stir folks up into falling for his scams, whatever they were. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Testimony" and "testament" are related, not cognates. As I said, a "testament" is "a profession of beliefs", and that's precisely what the book is. That doesn't in any way address Hitler's purpose in writing the book, which was, indeed, to stir people up and to pave the way for his entry into legitimate German politics so that he could grab power through that means as opposed to trying to overthrow the state via a putsch. If you can think of another word which accurately describes the book without alarming your POV-detector, I'm all for it, but "Hitler's political book" is simply too bland.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you might think that "testament" has connotations of acceptance and inherent value – maybe because of the Old and New Testaments of The Bible –, but that's really not the case. The word is neutral and descriptive and not inany way laudatory.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Political manifesto would be ok with me. As an aside, one should be wary about calling anything AH said politically, a "belief." Even his "belief" in German nationalism spun out to be rather hollow when he found himself cornered in that bunker and ordered that Germany be laid to ashes for having failed its calling (which is to say, for having failed him). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Manifesto" works for me.

I take your point about Hitler's "beliefs" being mutable, especially when it came to his desire for power, but I don't think his wanting Germany to die is necessarily an indication that he wasn't a nationalist - he just had very skewed ideas about the meaning of concepts like "honor". I suppose to him, wanting Germany to die was a parallel with his taking his own life. That's bizarre thinking for those of us who regard love of country, and wanting what's best for it to thrive within the world community, as the height of nationalism, but it's not very much out of line with what nationalism has meant historically. Fortunately, at the end, there were those who ignored his "scorched earth" decrees (Speer and Himmler among them) and prevent the worst of it. Unfortunately, none of the generals were of similar temperment, or a lot of unnecessary bloodshed would have been prevented in the endgame. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speer. Meanwhile, if we were chatting somewhere else I'd want to tell you a thing or two about my thoughts on "nationalism" and "world community" but I shan't here. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

May I offer a comment? If not, don't read the rest of this statement. Simply describing the book as a "testament" (aside from the question of this specific article) seems reasonable to me: we speak of a "last will and testament", the latter of which is simply a personal statement about what one wants to speak, generall yabout the world as the author sees it. In the same way, Mein Kampf is in large part a statement about how the world was as Hitler saw it. That being said, "manifesto" is surely a good description also. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my first post to this thread, I find it too PoV, understanding that some readers would not. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(aside: rhetorical theory analysis and other b.s.)

• (Let it first be noted that I never disagree with Gwen Gale unless she gives explicit permission to, which she has, so I will, theoretically :)
• Kenneth Burke, in his 1939 piece "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle" (See: The Philosophy of Literary Form, p 191) refers to Mein Kampf thusly:

“ Here is the testament of a man who swung a great people into his wake. Let us watch it carefully; and let us watch it, not merely to discover some grounds for prophesying what political move is to follow Munich, and what move is to follow that move, etc.; let us try also to discover what kind of "medicine" this medicine-man has concocted, that we may know, with greater accuracy, exactly what to guard against, if we are to forestall the concocting of similar medicine in America. ”

COMMENT:

• NOTE: The (dictated) "book" ... was a (successful) "move" (... in the power game of German politics).

• NOTE: A "political book" almost universally refers to mere commentary by impotent kibitzers, i.e., non-players. I.E., Framing Mein Kampf as such ... is very close (if not completely) a category error.

• NOTE: It was offered (the title frames it as such) ... and publicly accepted at the time (unfortunately) ... as a (dictated) passionate personal assertion of political belief (note note: whether the player actually believes any of it, is of no consequence in our analysis political rhetoric).
• I.E., "political testament" is sounding good to me.

• manifesto? — has implications of a carefully "written" document ... persuasive by its thoughtfully arranged coherence.

COMMENT: Mein Kampf does not seem to be a manifesto. :)

• Hitler was an evil orator, not an evil philosopher. Our modern education system trains us to be little philosophers, and therefore tend to miscategorize what orators are doing — which is (rarely) logical argument, but rather (in the case of true orators, word flows improvised in the moment based on the current field of information and perceptions with the goal of shaping that field of information as perceived by those addressed) rhetorical moves.
• NOW: Is "testament", a good descriptor of a (profoundly successful in the most awful way) rhetorical move? Hmmmm.

• NOTE: Kenneth Burke thought so in 1939.
• NOTE: Kenneth Burke is God. :)

• I think that covers it. lol

(LASTLY NOTE: This commentary is completely rhetorical and therefore immune to logical response. It is also to be considered humorous. And if you don't know, Gwen Gale is never wrong either. So leave it to her and God. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Can't go along with "Our modern education system trains us to be little philosophers..." since in truth it is meant to (and mostly does) train children to be clueless, heedfully programmed serfs. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. ...

NOW ... thinking of serfs and education ... and the bicentennial of Tennyson ... and the upcoming art film (May 2009) of "The Lady of Shalott" :) ... here's some high school students who have managed some sweet (visio-musio:) rhetorical flourishes ... amidst the Pythonated and helium-intoxicated sins of youth. :) (A one and only posting of YouTube link on your talk page ... because of the grace of the lady on your user page ... which made me stop here the first time) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Watched it at last, fun with helium and copyright violations :) I wonder if whoever did it understands that the pith of LOTR is the telling of Anglo-Saxon tales and that Monty Python had a knack for blending those into later British music hall bits. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether their teacher has the breadth of insight of one of these with the grace of one of those

(And I'm glad I kept talking until the magic appears ... as it always does in this realm.) Such elegant concision ... Hear hear, milady. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)