User talk:Gwen Gale/archive5

Cbsite
has agreed to not repeat his behavior. I have provisionally unblocked him. Please email me if it starts up again. Fred Talk 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do (happy to see you're about now and then!) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SIAS
Hi Gwen. How are things in your neck of the woods? As you may have seen, the SIAS article is now in review for GA. The reviewer asked that a second introductory paragraph be written, which I did. Also the reviewer asked for various other changes, which I am working on. If you happen to have a chance to take a peek at the article and review process from time to time in this next week and help out in any tiny ways, that'd be really appreciated. I can do all the main work, but just if you have any feedback about the way the changes are going or if you wanted to tweak any writing changes I do, or anything like that,that'd be great. Thanks so much! Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heya! I have been watching the article and it looks wonderful. I'll likely have time tomorrow to look at it more (and oh, I understand about the commas ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

talk page archiving
It's too vague. I want YOU to tell me how to do it. Fclass (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you could say that only three minutes after I put the link on your talk page. Try reading it a bit more? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Mascot Metal Manufacturers page
Dear Gwen Many thanks for contributing your valuable time to the Mascot Metal Manufacturers page. I looked that it seems to you that the page contains advertising content, but I dont find the reason that which part should be deleted in order to look that it does not contain advertising. The webpages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlstrom and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University were taken as reference for creating the page.

Kindly advise.

Many thanks and regards Mayank --Mascotmayank (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I did go through the page to be read before posting the article, and have read the section advertising and the G11 as well, but could you please advise me what should not be included in the page so as to make it ad free, the metal finishes subarticle I think so is advertising, but that shows and tells wikipedia people that what types of metal finishes are there in metal industry etc. Kindly advise as i am new. Many thanks --Mascotmayank (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Those other companies likely meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please advise any other changes to the Mascot Metal Manufacturers article. Thanking you in anticipation. --Mascotmayank (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think changes to the article will help with this company's seeming lack of notability. Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Volunteer Committees of Art Museums
Dear Gwen

The Volunteer Committee of Art Museums is not a person or a company, nor is it spam. It a ethical group of volunteers that share information with groups of other volunteers from visual art museums here and in Canada. It holds regional conferences to both educate these groups and most importantly share their wonderful ideas with others.

I have been connected with them for 10 years and my authoring was to create only a "Wiki presense", not for any personal gain or anything underhand.

I hope you read this at least then I can accept the deletion knowing you had the facts.

Sincerely

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznm3v (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please have a look at this page, then ask me if you have further questions. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to practise your German
Gwen, I feel sorry for this, in view of this, but my German, which never advanced beyond elementary, has atrophied to almost nothing, so I'm powerless. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The German article's pith is, he had a successful career as a church organist in Westphalia. On the other hand, this is more or less the same way J.S. Bach was bein' remembered in the decades after he died. I'll see what I can do ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, between my crummy German and the way too clipped, bureaucratic-sounding German writing I was able to glean and translate something of a brief narrative. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done! -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jobacarlisle and Paulman Berg
Could you please help me explain to User:Jobacarlisle that Paulman Berg is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I am at a loss of how to explain to this user after receiving this message. Please help!!! Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a fictional marketing ploy which offers no assertion of importance, or any sources showing this topic meets the notability standards of WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tailsic
I noticed something else about this person that worries me a bit. That sounds like a threat of violence to me, maybe this person should just be blocked indefinitely. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, user doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, raised to indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ani
I have added a few more information on that ANI about the history of edits by Mareklug and where does my frustration come from. Also may I add that my:


 * Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect This objection does not address: edit request itself b) fixing broken link, removing of dated content or inclusion of updates it only opposes on grounds of Wikimedia map which is not used in this article -- it's a straw man issue. --Avala (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

was a copy of:


 * Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect This objection does not address: a) removal of OR, b) fixing broken link, c) adding date in February when Castro made his statement (and none since) and most of all, d) opposes because some other edit was opposed -- it's an ad hominen response based on who proposed the edit, and does not address the issues raised or fixes needed. Fidel Castro's retirement never came up -- it's a straw man issue. The editprotect removes OR, adds a contextual date, and adds a dated, germane statemenent from a neighboring MFA (verifiable evidence). It does nothing else. --Mareklug talk 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

and that he wasn't warned, actually he was the one to start ANI (I misunderstood thinking it was you, sorry) and even give orders to admins. He previously insulted me and other users, has a history of blocking edit requests but I have never went that far as starting an ANI. Maybe it's time to stop being a pacifist? I tried to draw some attention of admins to solve our problem before but his extremely long replies led to them being unwilling to read it all and get involved so it remained at nothing. --Avala (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Editprotect is no way to settle a content dispute. If, after trying, you can't build consensus on the article talk page, you may want to think about taking this to dispute resolution. I agree long replies make it very hard to get to the pith of things. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually it ends up to everyone agrees - Mareklug performs a sabotage by making an extremely long disagreement about everything but the edit request in question. If someone is making an ill intended objection and admins don't react what can we do. And dispute resolutions about an article that gets edit requests all the time is unfortunately not feasible. Article would be left unupdated for a longer time than we want an article called International reaction to...2008 to be. Article is locked for a very long time now which brings me to conclusion it is a permanent lock.--Avala (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's a consensus, the article shouldn't be locked. Moreover, no Wikipedia article should be fully protected for long. Would you like the article to be unprotected at this time? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not recommend unlocking. There is clearly and unequivocally no consensus on anything, and because of the nature of the article's topic (a current and ongoing event), there will not be a consensus for a forseeable amount of time.  Unprotecting will lead to the same contentiousness that you'll find on the talkpage, but instead it will be on the article, which will (I'll bet a paycheck here), lead to blocks instead of ani threads and editprotected requests.  Please read the talkpage (and it's 35 archives) before unprotecting Gwen.  Keeper   |  76   |   Disclaimer  21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'd like to say though, over two months of full protection isn't fixing anything. If some of the lack of stability is owing to editors who would be blocked if the article were unprotected, what are those editors doing here to begin with? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Article is locked broadly because it's controversial topic and many times there could be a dispute. I would first like this to be addressed then the article can be unlocked - Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence. But keep in mind that the article is about the collection of international reactions, statements about this event (Wikipedia has lots of such articles) and that therefore - Reaction =/= law; Reaction = statement (I guess you already know this but often it comes out as a problem over there). Statement given to the press especially if they are state owned and especially if it's backed up with photos and videos as in this case are 100% valid source even if 50 users from Kosovo make an edit "Oppose because it doesn't sound right" it mustn't be blocked. --Avala (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also one more thing in general - if some country decides to recognize Kosovo as an independent state only then it is required to adopt an official document (although we haven't pursued this requirement for a source here for poorly developed African states as they simply have no MFA websites to publish such document on) - Croatia gave a fine example by publishing the document online and it said "By XYZ123 law of Croatia, the Government has recognized Kosovo as an independent country" but apart from Romania and Serbia no country that decided not to recognize has adopted a document in parliament as they are simply not required to adopt a document if they themselves consider the situation legally unchanged. There is no requirement to reiterate anything. --Avala (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My humble take on this is, unprotect and ruthlessly source everything and anything. The article has been protected far too long, which is in itself (very accidently and in good faith) disruptive to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

please
Please don't say that I am disruptive. It is too easy to use that as an excuse to block someone. I asked a question and the good answer would have been "how can I help?". Instead, subtle and not so subtle attacks on me. Pachette (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you were disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LisaRaye
Hi Gwen Gale. I apologize for the consistent re-edits of the article. Fclass just kept attacking the article removing a part of her heritage, and keeps accusing me things. He has a issue with another heritage of anyone being mentioned who also has African American heritage. I told him a few times that all he has to do is find a reliable source stating that she is also African American. I've never been against it. Also is her myspace page usable?? She wrote it herself and I wasn't sure if that is ok or not. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite


 * Hey! No worries, I understood. Much more often than not, you'll find dodgy edits like that will get reverted by multiple editors soon enough (with no edit wars, no blocks). Neither her MySpace page nor her "official" website can be used at all as sources for any text in the article (they wouldn't be taken as independent or reliable). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice - Loremaster against Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia articles are meant to be a collaborative effort. At this moment in time, Loremaster owns several Wikipedia articles, Jesus bloodline, Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. If any other editor wishes to make an addition, deletion or alteration it has to meet the subjective criteria of Loremaster, and it very rarely does. Everything currently existing on Jesus bloodline, Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the sole ownership of Loremaster. He has written everything himself and re-written all additions to meet his subjective criteria and standards. Nobody is allowed to get a look-in to independently contribute to these articles without everything ultimately becoming revised by Loremaster. This is against Wikipedia Policy. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only way you can overcome this is to provide verifiable sources which have to do directly with each topic and assertion you wish to add. You seem to have more than enough knowledge and understanding of these topics to be able to find and cite these sources but as yet, you have not provided them. You cannot cite your own knowledge in these articles, you must use your knowledge to cite the published commentary of others. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * *sigh* As I have said before, accusations that I am possessive of some of the articles I have taken an interest into may have merit since I am only human. However, I have always explained my edits and reverts which were always guided by Wikipedia policy rather than personal whim. My "obsession" is that I want these articles to be well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet good article critirea and even featured article critirea. My track record proves that this exactly what I have been doing. I have proposed and accepted numerous compromises in order to settle disputes over the most trivial of issues. That being said, Wfgh66 seems to be among the minority of Wikipedia contributors who believe that the material they contribute should remain unedited for posterity. However, they should be reminded of a Wikipedia guideline which states: "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it." --Loremaster (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ridiculous
He has managed to block another edit. Despite the fact that Yang Jiechi and Pranab Mukherjee are sitting next to Sergei Lavrov while he is reading the joint statement (keep in mind that my edit request included the clean information about who was reading the joint statement) Mareklug is claiming that joint statements don't exist and that every minister must read it by himself (yeah right, have you ever seen a press statement where three persons read the same text in a row?). He also tried to imply that is fabrication of Russian media but another user gave a video of this meeting on which Mareklug reacted "I think you must be joking -- you want us to source our encyclopedia's Indian and Chinese official reactions to a YouTube video????". Well what kind of proof does he want? Obviously he is not looking for that but to block an edit request anyway possible. And an admin arrives and says "not done until you reach consensus" as he just saw bunch of text regarding opposition without evaluating if the opposition is sabotage or if it's valid. Because of that there never will be consensus, as this is not about consensus but about the article sabotage. Please unlock the article, I will add the information on India and China with solid sources and if he removes it it will fall under the first definition of vandalism (...Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary...). Thanks. --Avala (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not vandalism, maybe disruption. 3rr will apply. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale, this goes against the consensus. Hereby I request that you protect the page back immediately and apologize. Colchicum (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Over 2 months of full protection is way too long. Let's see what happens, the page can always be re-protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, Avala fails to get consensus at Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence for some controversial edits and privately requests unprotection, while there is a dispute right now on the talk page. Do you think this is ok? I don't think so. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed no consensus for his edits, then many editors will see to it that his edits are removed, by consensus, without edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my point. Some admins think it's something controversial just because one user created chaos on talk page and ANI and everywhere and they don't care to read further. Thanks Gwen Gale.--Avala (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least semi-protect it against anonymous edits, please. The parent article Kosovo is semi-protected. Colchicum (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may need to be semi-protected but I'd rather not be pre-emptive. If disruptive IPs show up, semi-protection is easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My new edit has 4 sources, two from state owned media, one is independent and one is the link for the meeting video. If more sources are needed let me know so I can find them. I am one of the strongest supporters of sourcing our edits here. Some users were attacking me for that before but I still think that the source (especially good situation is when it contains media files) is essential. Unsourced edits mustn't happen at all in such articles (at least my position).--Avala (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any unsourced edit in any article, if challenged, can be removed. Erm, please don't use anything from YouTube, audio tracks can be manipulated. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Beware though that there are known removers of content they dislike. Some Serbs dislike the fact that some country recognized Kosovo and go and delete that information or some Albanians dislike the fact that some countries hasn't recognized so they go ahead and remove such information regardless of the fact there were sources for that. It is inadmissible and should be severely controlled. Anyone can remove content based on their POV but not everyone can work hard to make sourced edits. --Avala (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because some users said that meeting never took place and that it is the fabrication. The channel is of Russia Today and is stable, video will stay on You Tube for sure. I don't add YouTube videos in sources but when you face users coming up with statements like that there is no other choice. --Avala (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If an editor removes sourced, verifiable content, that's disruption, which is blockable (it's not vandalism though, 3rr has sway there). As for YouTube, share the videos as you like but they can't be used as sources to support text in an article, ever, since YouTube puts no editorial control over what users upload. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean you, Avala, but you know, there are some other hot-tempered editors. And sourcing is not the only problem, because our sources are not always perfect. Do you see a difference between "Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo", period, and "Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo in the nearest future"? Yet we could source either of the statements. Colchicum (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Source them both! Let the sourced text show muddle in the world. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong here. The original source says "Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo in the nearest future", but some media outlets have reprinted it and omitted "in the nearest future". I think the original one takes precedence here. Colchicum (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I wrong? If you can offer a reliable, independent source to back your assertion that some media outlets abridged or otherwise misquoted something, put it in the article. Otherwise, simply present all the sources, with all their flaws. Readers are much smarter than we sometimes think. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. You may have noticed, I am trying to encourage Tiger contributions on my user page. If you are so inclined leave me a tiger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heya! What's a Tiger contrib? (i r clueless) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Magibon
Hi, Gwen. I'm inclined to agree that this article may not meet notability guidelines, but unfortunately it can't be PRODded as it has previously survived AfD. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for catching that. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was on the verge of seconding your PROD when I noticed it, and I probably only noticed it because I went to review it for updates following the weirdness at AN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Wainer
Ms. Gale,

We here at 13MUSIC have repeatedly attempted to create a wiki page for our artist, producer and industry phenom, Michael Wainer. Wiki has repeatedly deleted this entry. I have found numerous examples of musicians, actors and such with a fraction of Mr. Wainer's success undeleted and untagged on Wikipedia.

Mr. Wainer has not only co-written and produced 6 Billboard-charting musical compositions for artists from Foxy Brown to Sean "Diddy" Combs (many of which I am positive you have heard), but has also played an integral role in the digital development of MTV's URGE online music delivery system and is the co-founder and guitarist in the band 13. 13 is the first band to be signed to music icon, LL Cool J's, new production label. 13 will be releasing a full length, major-label release in 2008 followed by an international tour.

I am sure I do not have to tell you how significant any one of these achievements are individually, let alone all achieved by one 25 year old young man.

Wikipedia is an excellent and innovative tool and resource for our industry and our fan base and I implore you, on behalf of Mr. Wainer and his countless fans, to restore the page which our PR manager, Mr. Lust, uploaded today. We have provided references, links and a full bio yet still have had no success.

If we are doing something wrong please advise.

Warmly,

Julie Greenwald Mlwmusic (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Julie, did you read the link at the top of this page? Also, please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Denmark audio
Please block this user. It is a spam-only account. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No user or article by that name? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle Theft Protection Program
Hi Gwen, based on reviewing your reasons for a speedy deletion, I believe we can re-write our content and fulfill your standards. Would you be able to re-post our content (in draft form), so we can work on it?

Warnickj1 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)warnickj1 - Jeremy Warnick


 * Hi. You'll now find it in your user space, at User:Warnickj1/sandbox. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the SolaceRED page
i don't understand why you deleted the SolaceRED band page,  you said because it lacked the indication of it importance. it was just as important as any other band page on wiki. this band has done remixes of some popular songs that people would want to know about, who did them where to get them etc... just like any other band. they have released original songs that people wold want to know about just as much as any other band. just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. they are a real band with real songs and real fans. i you want to take it upon yourself to delete band pages that you feel are important than go ahead and delete every band you don't know or just plainly don't like. i mean they aren't important to you right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.201.64 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the link at the top of this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you blanked it so I guess you did. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

have you searched the band name? more than just its wiki page comes up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.201.64 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The page you blanked tells (and links to) everything you might need to know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

well do what you "have" to do. sorry to bother you, thanks for hearing me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.201.64 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Duquesa village
Duquesa Village is a community of owners of property in Duquesa Spain I have been advised by community members that it was set up so that members could exchange views and discuss problems. How do you regard this as advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.157.74 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Titus Andronicus (band)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Titus Andronicus (band), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Titus Andronicus (band). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Corvus cornix talk  17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I declined the speedy but don't think it meets WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like they do have some coverage after all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I was wondering if you think that this article User:ARBAY/Sandbox fulfills the notability guidelines yet ?

ARBAY TALKies   —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm afraid the draft doesn't show any evidence this topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards. It cites no independent coverage (listings on other charity sites don't count), makes no assertion of importance and reads like an advertisement for a charity organization. Also, have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

re: blocked
I am not a racist at all. He probably convinced you of thinking that about me. Please look at my edits to see if I am racist or not. I have not made a single racist edit. I have complained about the French people article because there is no article about the French ethnicity while there are articles on every other ethnicity (see German people, English people, etc). On the French people article they've turned into the nationality. There should be a seperate article for the ethnicity just as there is for all these other ethnic groups.

As for the article blond, again nothing I've edited there was racist. I did make one sarcastic comment on one of my edits saying "let's also cram this picture of this Native American girl to show fool the read into thinking non-Europeans have blondism as high as Europeans". I don't see how that is racist. On the contrary, that is exactly what they are trying to do. The reader is mislead to think for example that Africoid peoples actually do have Blondism when really it is extremely rare and only among the Vanutu people. (please don't accuse me for using the term Africoid peoples, we do afterall have an article on this classification)

Besides, my main complaint with that image was that they are cramming it into the article. They removed the picture of the Blond male. They shrunk they map. They removed other images, just to make space for this.

Please take a look at the article and you will see what I mean.

So am I the one that's racist or am I just trying to stop POVs and keep articles neutral? CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For a while I will stay away from that article, but please look at if for yourself in more detail and you'll see what's going on. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked you for edit warring, then extended the block for doing so with some kind of a racist slant or pith. Don't edit war, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You also accused me of being racist and threatened to ban me for it and extended my block to one week for because Rewinn managed to convince you I'm racist. Please give me a warning first if you think I am racist and I will prove I'm not. Sometimes a user can convince an admin of something that is not true. I will not edit war again. Thanks.


 * Rewinn didn't convince me of anything, I've never had any exchanges with him at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

People from WikiProject African Diaspora have started many articles with titles that aren't even in use. For example, Afro-Polish, this term does not exist. Both inside Poland and outside. So why is this article allowed to have a title that isn't even in use? I've moved several of these to neutral titles like "Africans in Poland", but Rewinn is reverting them claiming I'm racist. When I request citation or a source that these terms are used, he rv's me again. He is really frustrating me and again I will have to leave it alone otherwise you will accuse me of being racist and ban me. But I will go ahead and request for citation. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care. Don't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only edit warred once. Yet, you blocked me for 1 week and you blocked him for 12 hours just because he manipulated you into believing I'm racist. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They keep reverting my name changes claiming I'm racist. But if you look at other diaspora articles you will see I'm trying to maintain consistency. For example, I change Afro-Germans to Africans in Germany, to be consistent with Turks in Germany, Greeks in Germany, etc. Yet they claim I'm racist for doing this and then tell you I'm racist and you block me for one week and nearly banned me. So you see I'm not racist, I'm maintaining consistency and trying to keep things neutral, that's how Wikipedia should be after all. Can you please give me some backup on these articles? Otherwise they will keep reverting the name change. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to dipute resolution. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. But one more thing, I think it was really unfair of you to be block me for one week based on Rewinn's lies about me. Can you at least update my block log back to 12 hours? Because a 1 week block log makes me look real bad. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I was going easy on you. If you'd like your block reviewed, take it to WP:ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How did you think you were going easy on me? Were you really going to ban me based on a user's lie and manipulation? CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't ban you. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Then were you going to block me for a month on the basis of Rewinn's lies? What exactly did he tell you make you believe that? Take a look at my contribs please, I have never made a single racist edit. I really now don't like Rewinn for the way he lied to you and manipulated you. I don't know what his problem is. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewinn did nothing of the kind, now begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you block me for 1 week and threaten to block for longer? To be honest with you, I do not find it fair that you did that. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Wainer :: Julie Greenwald
Gwen,

I read and understand the information posted but it doesn't explain why "Jimmy Justice", the guy who videotapes traffic cops parking in illegal spaces, has a page and Mr. Wainer, someone of actual importance to popular culture, is denied.

How do I make a page for an established recording artist that you will not delete?

I see producer "Just Blaze" is listed. Mr. Wainer's music has sold more units that Mr. Blaze.

Please advise, Clearly myself and my entire staff are missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.185.227 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I learn that "Jimmy Justice" has twice been on the MSNBC infotainment network. I'm unimpressed, but others here think that this kind of "exposure" is a big deal. You're right: the article on "Just Blaze" is poor. Time for deletion? In its most recent form (I didn't look at the others), the article on Wainer didn't cite any independent source; are there any?


 * Anyway, why not leave creation of an article on Wainer to somebody who's not connected to him? -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Truth be told Wikipedia's notability standards for bands aren't that tight. If he has "actual importance to popular culture" independent and reliable coverage to support that assertion will likely show up very soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:CanuckAnthropologist
Can you take a look at his edits? He seems to be moving pages related to Afro-European communities again, the same as before your block. I've undone many of his page moves for now, but I think admin attention is again required, unfortunately. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like an "after block" spree. Let's see if he settles down. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's still edit warring, redoing the same page moves and adding more. I won't revert him anymore, but I'd appreciate if you can take another look at his recent contributions. I see the same pattern as before.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a month this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for everything, but one last thing: would it be possible to roll back CA's edits of today? Please let me know.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you can feel free to undo and put back (as it was) anything having to do with this, pls don't use rollback but note in the edit summaries that you're undoing disruption (not vandalism) and/or edit warring by a blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The image you deleted
Hello. You deleted image because of copyright violation. Could you please restore the image so i could replace that image? Because it's sad a whole image gets deleted because one of the images in it violates the rules, it's better simply to replace it. It had 6 people, i would simply replace those who cause problems.

We want the whole Russian diasspore category articles to be complete, including images, thats why it's really important. Leave your response on my talk page. Log in, log out (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Patchwork images like that are fraught with worries. It's safer to use cats or galleries to do this. Meanwhile I'm sorry, but I can't restore a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I will check it all and create a license page for each and every image there. Most ethnic articles have images of that type. Please restore it amd leave it on my talk page, and i will fix all there. In the worst case you will delete it again. It's hard work so instead of me doing what he did all over i'll simply fix the problems and that would be much easier. Log in, log out (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do want to help and wholly understand how nettlesome this can be but I can't restore copyvios. As for other articles having images like that one, if they're copyvios too they should be deleted (WP:WAX). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Whats a copyvio? 2. Can you sent it to me by mail? The imge any the description page as a word document or whatever? In the deletion log it's seen that East restored it once. Restore it for 5 minuted it will be enough to download it to my computer. Log in, log out (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even 2 minuted will be enough. Log in, log out (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going roght now to see the match of Euro 2008, so if you cant live it for more then two minuted please upload it in 50-55 minutes. It's 19:35 Wikipedian time i think. Log in, log out (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm here, if your here to please leave a messege so we could do something about that image. Log in, log out (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored it, likely should not have done though. There must be a clear and wholly acceptable licensing/source statement for each and every image. As I said before, these patchwork images are very hard to handle/verfiy as truly free and I strongly recommend against using them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry, but could you point out for me the problem? I went thru all the links and all are free images from Wikipedia. Near the names, where the license types are? There are the links. I've entered every link and... who is the problematic one? It seems all images used there are really free. Your right that that type of images could be dangerous, if not checked, but when specific images are checked, this one at least seems fine to me. Maybe you would be better in finding the problem, because if it doesn't violate the rules of Wikipedia it could be here. Most ethnic group articles youth one-piece images. The only way to check there are no problems is to go thru the images. Most dont create a discription page, while this one has, so i think this one should be taken as an example for how a discription page should be (License+reference), and not deleted. Log in, log out (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I went thru all of them again. Still this image seems perfect when it comes to license things. Log in, log out (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think every one of those images is clearly free/pd. I don't think it's safe. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You dont think :-)? Your a wonderful administrator. It's seen on your talk page, and you worl hard. Really. BUT, "i dont think..." is not an argument for deleting an image. You need to be shure. I went thru every image and i can tell you: Everything is just fine. Before i restore it to the article, do you want me to write you here a few lines about each and every image here? It's not easy, but if it will make you feel shure about it, i'll do it. Log in, log out (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand (and image copyright issues are not easy to grok) is that if we're not sure about the licensing of an image, it can't be on Wikipedia, hence, saying I'm not sure is indeed enough. The sources and licensing of several of the images in that patchwork are not at all clearly free. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there we go.


 * Zworykin. An image released in the US before 1923. Legal, completely. The exact year is 1920. I have a book about him by the way and it has this image but it claims it's from 1919. But that doesn't metter.
 * A US picture from 1918. It's Rachmaninoff first comming to the USA when immigrating there. Before 1923, USA, public domain.
 * Starvinskys image was released by D. J. Culver (previous owner of the George Grantham Bain collection). This applies worldwide.
 * Sikorsky's image is from the US Air Force image. Since thats a federal government, it's a public domain.
 * Turchaninov. Taken in the, listen to it, American Civil War. Thats not only before 1923, thats before 100 years ago.
 * Yourkevitch taken 70 years ago, another type of Public Domain.
 * Ryazanov. Drawn at the 19th century. More then a 100 years ago.
 * Prokofiev De Seversky. Have you noriced that he's in Russian WW1 military uniform? Thats 1914-1917. Russia released all images before 1954 to public domain, America 1923. That fits all categories. Log in, log out (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, be shure, they are all clearly free. If youre not shure, the only way to be shure is to check it yourself. I did it a few times now. I created all this for you so you would see there is no place for doubts, and the previous administrator who deleted it restored it because of that reason. Log in, log out (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll return here tomorrow. I'm tired right now. Anyway, there is only one way to improve the image. instead of the Yourkevitch image which is taken 70 years ago, which might cause problems in some countries, like the US, i found a Russian image of him before 1917, and i remind you that Russian images are public domain when they are released before 1954. Tommorow i'll upload the new version here, and then the image will be really perfect. Log in, log out (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope so! Mind, another copyright scannin' editor may have a fit over it though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support it. The better the image is, the better it is for Wikipedia. It's so easy replacing images there, you can do it in high quality in Paint. Really! Log in, log out (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I use the Gimp meself ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A little problem
I created the new image, but it turned out i need to have an account 4 days before i can upload anything, and i barley have it 24 hours. Do you have an Email i could sent it to you so you could upload it there? If you want privacy you could sent it to me to my mail. As you could see, i already did the discription page update so all is left is to upload the new image. Log in, log out (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may please ask, what happened to your other account? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What other? I have only this account, i signed in yesterdey morning. I wasnt the original creator of the image. I edited on Wikipedia once but never had account. I've opened one because of:
 * 1. Russia at Euro 2008. The article on Euro 2008 is semi-protected so i need an account to work there.
 * 2. I have seen there are problems on Russia-related articles, like Russian Americans and Russians. Log in, log out (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please wait the 3 more days and upload it. If the image page is deleted in that time I'll restore the latest updated version for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. perfect. Cam i restore the old currect version to the article right now? Log in, log out (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need my permission to do that. Mind, any editor can challenge the licensing. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem, so for now i'll restore that image in the article and in 3 days i'll upload the new improved version :-) Thank you! Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A much belated congrats
Didn't get that there is a new Gwen Gale out there acting as an admin?! Jest keedin...' Good on 'ya. I like this new side of you, it's quite becoming! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Deletion error...
Hi there, my name is Toby Jeg and I am the owner of Red Scare, a record label with 12 bands. I've had a Wiki page for a long time but someone has deleted it. I am guessing this has something to do with some silly music scene politics or something along those lines, but I would like to see it returned or at least know who is behind it's deletion. Thanks!

Toby@redscare.net


 * See this. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jobacarlisle and Paulman Berg
Hi, Gwen. I mentioned User:Jobacarlisle and their band to you several days ago in this thread. You responded saying it was a "marketing ploy." I agree with you, but I would like you to help me explain to this user that their band is not notable. I've explained several times already, but they just aren't listening. My explanation to this user is located here. Please step in and provide me with some assistance as I don't know how to get the message across that this user's band doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to do my bit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help!!! Cunard (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sleigh says he's been hit by an IP block that you placed
Hello Gwen. I have no luck whatever at figuring out autoblocks, but here's a hapless user who claims to be collateral damage from a block that you placed. Autoblock #964881. See User talk:Sleigh I saw this while I was idly perusing Category:Requests for unblock. Possibly you believe the claim and do know how to fix it. If so, good! If not, consider posting to unblock-en-l. Or ask anybody except me :-) EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like there are indeed multiple users on this IP, I've lifted the autoblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to write to you for help the next time I can't fix an autoblock! EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do! Meanwhile, it's not so hard, go to Special:IPBlockList, search for the IP block# (expanding the list to 500 helps) and click on unblock. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio
20:22, 6 June 2008 Gwen Gale (Talk | contribs) deleted "Humanity in Action" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

Is there any other reason to keep this deleted? Spammy/unencyclopedic, not notable, not verifiable...? If not, you may be asked to undelete it shortly as there is permission confirmation in OTRS. If so, please let me know soon so I can respond to this person. Thanks. – Mike .lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * G11 blatant advertising (give-me-a-grant.org spam, with a "mission statement" and everything), A7 no assertion of importance, no hint of notability... Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assumed so, thanks. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ngati Kuri Te Hiku o Te Ika
Hi. Did you read my points and references before deleting? On what evidence did you decide that this was a hoax? Ngati Kuri is a recognised iwi affiliation in the New Zealand census (number 21 at . I had just asked a New Zealand-based admin to review the CSD and was continuing to improve the article - probably renaming it to Ngāti Kuri, which is a redlink at List of Māori iwi. CCould you please reverse the deletion or place the content in my user directory.dramatic (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please understand, over half the article was a text dump (entitled Whakapapa) of transliterated (and illiterated), incomprehensible dialect which was so out of context, it indeed seemed to be a hoax. Moreover, the shred of unsourced English text did little to help. I have userfied it at User:Dramatic/sandbox, please feel free to recreate but with sources, encyclopedic text and no dialect text dump. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It turns out that there was an existing article at the fully macronised name Ngāti Kurī. I will reinstate the deleted title as a redirect there. I still think this deletion violates Don't bite the newbies and is culturally insensitive. We risk losing a new editor rather than educating them. Māori are severely underrepresented among New Zealand editors on EN, and mi.wikipedia.org is also crying out for participants. In Māori culture, if you are going to say something significant, you must first explain who you are and where you come from by the act of mihi - reciting your whakapapa. I am about to start a discussion at Wikiproject NZ on how tribal whakapapa can be presented in the relevant article (provided they can be sourced), and I was in the middle of formatting it with a translation (partial, because my te reo māori is very limited) in parallel and links explaining the significance -  when you deleted. (I've seen tha format work on another article). dramatic (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry this happened and do understand what you're saying. Truth be told, I don't think the deletion under CSD was culturally insensitive. Half the article was in a very rarely seen language which, rendered without the diacriticals, brought forth rather reasonable worries. Moreover, while I have great respect for the editor who created this article, Wikipedia's article policy doesn't support a recitation of whakapapa (or any other credentials) in the article text by a creating editor, nor are most Wikipedia editors prepared to see such a recitation. Nonethless, I'm thrilled to do what I can to get this content on en.Wikipedia and bits of culture clash here and there will more often than not lead to a bit of learning for everyone :) All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Barry Young
You might as well delete his wife, Kim Komando, then because he is at least as important as she is - if not more so.

Bil Munsil EoGuy wmunsil@cox.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoGuy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete Barry Young (which has been deleted five times), although I did delete Barry young. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Spreadtrum Communications
Have you ever realized you didn't follow the formal procedure to delete a small stub?Add a speedel tag and post a warning para in my talk page.Please restore it--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No matter how you feel to act the proper action,it's obviously essential to put a tag and wait other to react--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with feelings at all, User:PMDrive1061 tagged it CSD A1 and I followed up by deleting the one-sentence article. Moreover, PMDrive1061 has already asked you not to remove CSD (speedy deletion) tags from articles you have created and to leave more than one sentence stubs as articles about these many Chinese companies, which may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for businesses. Please take time to thoroughly read the link at the top of this page, thanks. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please,it's not the same article.he or she asked the article named SmartNX Mobile but not this one.Your admin are meant to follow the right procedure right?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore,the notablity doesno't rely on whether it is or was heard by you,because of the limitation of your location and culture,you cann't fully understand the importance to a non-british company.And it seems that China is the second or third economic entity,to write one important chinese company,which is also listed in NASDAQ are very legitimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't create single sentence, unsourced stubs about any businesses anywhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a single sentences,unsourced stub.I hope you could examine your decision carefully.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a single sentence with two spacing errors, a conjugation error and an agreement error with no sources (only the company website). Please read this page. If you don't agree, take this to deletion review. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Spreadtrum Communications
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spreadtrum Communications. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sportsheets
Is a rather well known product, and the article seemed descriptive to me, at least descriptive enough to not be a speedy. Please undelete.I know I can just do it myself, but I prefer to ask. DGG (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I'm happy to restore this if you think it can be saved, but I must say, this was tagged as blatant advertising by another editor almost a month ago and deleted by me because it read like an advertisement, made no assertion of importance and was unsourced. I know you'll make the text more encyclopedic and hopefully dig up some sources. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New Avengers
Shouldn't the above be a redirect instead of an outright deletion? Just curious really as I have it on my watchlist and the watchlist just says deleted. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The G6 tag said it was for a pending page move: The page to be moved to this name is New Avengers (comics). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ngati Kuri Te Hiku o Te Ika (2)
I read your info re: your deletion of my article. But I'm still not sure how to correct it. Rozita

Ngati Kuri (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another editor has redirected it to Ngāti Kurī and left a note on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Wainer
Ok... thanks!!

JG

ps...dont delete Just's pg...he's an amazing producer! =)

Wonder Woman
Hello, I noticed that you deleted the previous revisions for Wonder Woman (film). I was wondering if you moved the revisions elsewhere to preserve them per GFDL standards. If not, would it be possible for you to place them at Wonder Woman (2009 film) and redirect to Wonder Woman? 2009 is the estimated release year by IMDB (by no means accurate, but can serve as a temporary location that can be later moved). Also, I think it would be good to move all pre-June 23, 2008 talk page discussions to Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film). There is some discussion at Talk:Wonder Woman (film) regarding this, so please chip in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the revisions to Wonder Woman (film). They'll follow along with any later page move. Please let me know if I can help further, cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to request a splitting of page history for both Wonder Woman (film) and Talk:Wonder Woman (film). I would like all revisions for Wonder Woman (film) dating October 30, 2007 and beforehand to be moved to Wonder Woman (2009 film).  When this is done, I would like Wonder Woman (2009 film) to point to Wonder Woman.  I would also like revisions at Talk:Wonder Woman (film) dating August 9, 2007 and beforehand to be moved to Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film).  When this is done, Talk:Wonder Woman (film)/Archive 1 can be moved to Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film)/Archive 1.  Can this be done? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be done but is there consensus for it? (only asking) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much resistance for the move, but then again, there may not be much attention. I'll raise the issue at WT:FILM to solidify the consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pickled Leek Pie
Gwen, I know this is four months late, but thanks for removing "pickled leek pie" from the leek page. I'd made a note on the talk page, but then didn't follow through. Rojomoke (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)-


 * :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jones International
Hi, just wondering why you declined to speedily delete the above. As far as I can see it does not indicate any importance or significance. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, this article about a 40 year old "global company" which sold off a noted radio network a few years ago makes an assertion of importance. I sent it to proposed deletion instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Understand your view, I guess we have different interpretations of what "important" means! Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, there are tens of thousands of these borderline companies which can (and do) go either way in good faith, a lot may depend not only on how the article text is written, but as you say, an editor's take on the guidelines. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts content
Would you mind e-mailing me the content of Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts? I didn't hear about it until it had already been deleted, and I think it'd be a blast to read. Thanks. -- lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought even the AfD was much more fun reading. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya' know, it kinda' is. Thanks anyway, I know some people that'd probably get a kick out of it at least.  Happy editing.  -- lifebaka  (Talk - Contribs) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, Note from Tom Davy about PMOI page, etc
Gwen, please have a look at my comments about PMOI for User:Dchall1. (Note for Chris regarding PMOI). (Tom davy (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. WP:Reliable sources has sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fred Noonan - Crompton
Hi Gwen, Forgive me if I am not using Wiki properly. I'm very much a newbie. You asked about Compton or Crompton. It is Crompton. I also corrected the age he was first on it. This was age 17, although he gives his age as 18 on the manifest. His first ship was actually the Hecla.

I added a few more details about the places of Birth of his parents.

I am writing his biography and have uncovered some stuff in the archives in Miami regarding the alledged drinking. This is on my blog if you are interested. www.fredjnoonan.blogspot.com.

I'm not sure how much I am allowed to edit or add? Should I produce a citation for every edit?

Keep up the good work! Jackie Ferrari (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Please edit as much as you like, but it is highly likely your edits will only stick if they are sourced. Please don't cite your own blog, but rather, the reliable sources you have used there. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read your blog, I think you can cite the PAA transcript as a primary source, quoting from it directly. Your own interpretation, though (following Wikipedia policy), would be original research until that interpretation has been published by an independent and reliable source other than yourself. For example, if TIGHAR published your interpretation on its website that would likely be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

publishing on websites
Thanks for the advice Gwen. I've cited the transcript only. If anyone wants to contact me they can see the whole thing.Jackie Ferrari (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I undid your latest edit because it doesn't quote the transcript, but seems to give your interpretation of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

transcript
Gale, do I quote it in the refs or the body of the text? Jackie Ferrari (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please quote it directly in the text, thanks. In the citation, mention the title of the document and its date along with the location where and date when you found it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (9th nomination)
Please re-read WP:OR before using it at WP:AFD.
 * 1) OR applies to articles.
 * 2) The fact at hand was generated by a bot resident on the WM tool server.
 * If you disagree that public interest is irrelevant to an articles inclusion I respect that - it's a valid point. But get your facts straight before accusing me of breaking a policy when I haven't, and furthermore note that I can bring facts to the table that are not mine.  M♠ssing Ace  22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on the AfD page, your interpretation of the raw statistic is original research, albeit in good faith. I do not think you have broken policy, nor did I say you have broken policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I made some poor comments on the AFD and have removed them. However, WP:OR surely refers to articles? I can't see how I have interpreted these statistics. They are facts that I have stated. Simple facts as generated. Where is my interpretation?  M♠ssing Ace  22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at this as a friendly AfD discussion, it's very ok that we disagree on whether to keep the article, that's what AfDs are for :) As for the raw hit stats, you're drawing meaning from them, which is synthesis, which is original research as discussed in WP:OR. Because it's OR, it can't carry any meaningful weight in the AfD discussion, which is the only reason why I brought it up (to poke big holes in your good faith argument). All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that we deliver what the reader wants, rather than what we decide to give them. However I agree that this AFD is, of course a discussion, and we have both given our input and others can decide. My personal prefernce is that I'd sooner it deleted given the subject matter, but personal preference has nothing to do with it of course. Noting that you are an administrator I'll probably now leave the debate alone!  M♠ssing Ace  23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh heh, change your vote, cuz I'm an admin and I say so! :P No way. I'm participating in the AfD only as another editor and I had something to say about OR. If you think the article should be kept, please feel free to carry on bringing up any reasons you can think of. As for me, I think it's worth an entry in a list and no more. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Gwen. Nice to meet a WP:ADMIN who helps not hinders and brings forth sound advice and help.  M♠ssing Ace  23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that! Meanwhile when I first saw that title, I thought of a paddle steamer on the River Ouse (or maybe Lake Erie), I truly did. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of which would be far more pleasent articles to research and expand - to say the least! :)  M♠ssing Ace  23:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinkin' too ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re Transcript
Thanks Gwen for allowing the edit. However would I be able to rephrase the bit about 'John Leslie claims'? All JL did was interview Vic Wright for his History of PAA. The statement was Vic Wright's.Jackie Ferrari (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it Wright being interviewed, or Leslie? If Leslie was being interviewed and then during that interview quoted Wright, this would be a claim by Leslie, not a verfied quote of something Wright said. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Leslie was interviewing Wright and it was Wright who claimed that Fred had a drink problem and was fired for it. Jackie Ferrari (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the text, thanks so much Jackie for catching this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I'm off to see if I can figure out the Discussion page now. I managed it a year or so ago but have forgotten. Senior moment I fear!Jackie Ferrari (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bracing
That sweet aroma of freshly (re)fried spam! -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ew. Could be a G11 speedy but in the hopes of stopping all this recreation, I've sent it to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphics Artists Guild
FYI, a page has been recreated for an AFD you moderated. It's been nominated for deletion --Work permit (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * CSD G4'd, salted, thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Pop Culture References in the Dresden Files
Given that all the quotations were brief, especially when considered against the total length of each novel, I'm not sure why this could have been a G12. If it were for notability or other reasons, I would have liked to have seen a warning or explanation of some sort first. Although I was not the originator of the page, I have been (most likely) the major contributor.

I have been scrupulous about proper quoting technique, and have even tried to devise an understandable method for logging hardcover vs. paperback editions of the books. The quotations are short enough I feel all fall within fair use guidelines under US copyright law. Please advise if there are other concerns.

As I am using a different computer today, my IP address will not show the same as on most of my edits. As such, please feel free to contact me at my home email rcross (at) sbcglobal dot net 64.219.130.173 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted an invalid redirect page called List of The Dresden Files Pop Culture References. I do see that User:DragonflySixtyseven had earlier deleted List of The Dresden Files pop culture references (which carried only a long list of quotations) as "not an article," which is not a CSD category. However, given it was not an article, it could have been taken as a G12 (copyright infringement). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't do Barnstars
However, I would like to comment that I knew you would be a good sysop two RfA's ago - but I have to say you have surpassed my expectations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. You're a great, hardworking admin not afraid to tackle controversial areas. Keep it up! Kelly  hi! 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks y'all :) I'm still learning things every day. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Block on User:Southerndata
I don't doubt they were being disruptive and you may well have been right to block but you are a regular editor of the article and were involved in reverting Southerndata. That makes you involved and the block questionable. For the sake of fairness I stromgly urge you to undo the block and refer the case to AN3 for a neutral admin to review. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had only now left you a message saying rather much the same thing. Thanks. It was straightforward blanking but after the block, I edited the article and given this, was not happy with having been the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *cough* unblock notice? Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I was leaving you a note first, I'm doin' it, give me a tick :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :o Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A day later, User:Southerndata was blocked 48 hours by User:Acroterion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explosiva reina
Although I agree the article qualified for deletion, you may not have noticed that it was already AfD'd under Articles for deletion/Explosiva reina. A comment there would have been more appropriate, I think. Plvekamp (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TenPoundHammer closed that AfD three minutes before you posted the above. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did. My point is that you should have closed it yourself with comment. I don't think you realized there was an AfD listing when you speedied it. Please don't take this comment negatively - it's not meant that way. I'm just trying to point out something you may have overlooked. Plvekamp (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iamthe7DeadlySins
He's asking for an unblock, basically he's been getting whacked each time for evasion of the original block that you put on User talk:GENIUS(4th power). It's your call. – xeno cidic ( talk ) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Commune Ango
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Commune Ango. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (posted after edit conflict) Davewild beat me to it.--Oakshade (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've commented there, sometimes I do wish folks wouldn't go so hastily by quick Google searches :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * to be totally honest, there have been so many places that are controversial that regardless of a discussion that may or may not have been seen by many (I can't imagine I'm the only one who doesn't read VPT), this should have been allowed to be discussed. Even if, at the end of five days, the outcome is delete, the extra days won't kill anyone. BLP issues cause harm, articles on existing places won't. Not speaking specifically against any one person here, but the housekeeping label should not be used for anything that isn't.TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and never mind that, commented before I saw the orange bar of your comment to me. I think we're on the same page ;) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (crossing messages - pay no heed to this) I agree! Meanwhile I'm still very startled editors don't understand these are neither communities nor villages. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, which was why I commented rather than voted at the AfD. On googling I come up with this, and while not a reliable source in and of itself, it shows a local airport to Commune Angoand apparently you can fly there from NYC. Would they have an airport where there was no air traffic? While this indicates its populated, it could be an old farm station. While Notability (Places and transportation) seems to say it wouldn't be notable, AfDs in practice turn out otherwise, see: Articles for deletion/Blathur for example. It's sticky and I don't think we need articles on each of these, but small discussions or fiat from a French admin aren't going to succeed I don't think. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The pith is, those links are the litter of flawed data dumps which were later scraped up here. These are neither villages nor towns. As for Commune Ango, it's overwhelmingly likely to be the name (or mailing address) of 2 or 3 houses near the airport. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And does that make it not a village? I'm not disagreeing with you, I hear very much what you're saying and agree that it's not a village per US/UK (?I think that's where you are) standards but is it a village by Reunion standards? My personal theory on map dots is why have an article if people are extremely unlikely to ever use it, but then again that would cover a lot of other things here as well. The issue I had with the VP discussion was... a) we take that guy for his word that he lived there and they were nothing more than 2-3 houses but he could easily have been lying. I don't think he is, but I think it would set a bad precedent. Anyway. we're on the same page. I'm happy to continue discussing but must get back to packing. WIll be back online later :) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not know, in France Metropolitan, rather than a street address, individual houses and farms often have names which sound like a village or town. Happy packing! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, I have limited experience with French geography as most of my time in Europe has been spent in Spain and the Czech Republic. Packing=ick, want to come help? Too hot :) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, packing... eeek! It's hot here too :O Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Coeur Saignant et al.
Hello, I'm not certain that the discussion at the village pump was conclusive enough to warrant the early close of those in the AfD. I'd ask that you reopen them and let them go for 5 days. Given that the only !votes were for keep (and as many as in the pump discussion I think), 5 days seems like a good idea. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The prods were already expired. I'm watching the DRV and will be happy to re-open the AfDs if consensus swings that way but truth be told, it is all a waste of time, based on a heedless data dump picked up years ago by some external source (maybe MS Encarta) and scraped up here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear how you know that other than "visual inspection" by someone, but perhaps I'm missing something obvious. In any case I do think these were closed out of process and should be remopened.  The DRV seems to cover these too (I hadn't seen it as it was under a different name than I'd expected).   Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By far the easiest thing to do here is to let the editors who are interested in doing so comment in the AfDs, which I am happily reopening now. Cheers! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the AfDs:


 * Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant
 * Articles for deletion/Commune Ango
 * Articles for deletion/Girofle

What has been missed throughout this is that none of these sites are communities or villages at all. See Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am finding all this insane and way too much bureaucratic. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too :( Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

O Dalriadan Land needs to be speedied and salted
The creator has proved that he'll readd the content continually, when it's a completely non-notable song, and makes on claim of notability. I tried to be kind and redirect it to the school it's the song of, but he's proved he won't allow that to happen. A speedy (with salting) is the only viable option, in my view. I see you're active in deletions, so I thought I'd drop you a note. S. Dean Jameson 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A song article can't be speedied for lack of notability, but an article stub which is otherwise nothing more than a WP:Coatrack for some song lyrics can be speedied as a copyright violation, with salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lesson! :) I wasn't aware of the notability thing with song articles, as I'm still very new to the whole speedy delete nomination thing. Thanks for educating me about it. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explosiva reina (2)
I saw that you deleted Explosiva reina under A2; however, A2 is for foreign language content that exists on another project. Which project is this article from? --- RockMFR 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want the article restored? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

notability of Tracy Cloherty
hello Gwen,

my article on "Tracy Cloherty" was deleted although i placed a "hangon" tag on the article. some information about her notability was created on the article's "talk" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tracy_Cloherty

Is this information adequate to satisfy notability requirement?

thanks

Nitron (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Nitron


 * Hey, it's enough to get by speedy deletion. :) Please cite as many independent sources as you can. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing
You should be removed from Wiki as a Sysops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.225.40 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * seems to have forgotten to log in. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when was being a cyclops against Wikipedia policy?! Pinkville (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Gwen -- I just commented on my talk page. More to follow.  By the way, I'm particularly impressed that you undid your own block once you noticed your own edits:  there's a lot of admins who unfortunately don't hold themselves to as high a standard.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What a fitting quote! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The rundown (radio show)
Can you go into more detail about why my entry was deleted?

QUBobcatQUBobcat (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

template question
you're up early or late! quick question as I don't normally watch your talk but did so for our commentversation today. How did you set this up? I don't link to my page much but it seems as if it would be a good shortcut. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * woohoo, that was easy. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! That's what I thought when I stumbled on to the notion of doin it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Help... >_<'

 * Sweeney todd rewrite: 2008

Hi :)

I noticed that the page on the Sweeney Todd Rewrite was deleted. I'm really sorry - I removed all the text because the person who actually wrote the work did not know I had made a page about it - and I was scared that someone would copy their work and it would be all my fault... =_=' I've told the author about it now and she didn't mind anyway - but could I put the article back up again once I've improved it a little, please?

Thank you, Miss Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Todd (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. I've userfied what you wrote (and then blanked) at User:Miss Todd/sandbox. I cannot tell if this is about an historical event or fiction and moreover, there are no sources. I would suggest you work on this more before trying to recreate the article, because it would likely be deleted again. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to rewrite a deleted page please
Hello Gwen

I would like to take another crack at writing an article for SAWA Global that is less "advertisement like". Can you please provide access to the page you deleted so I can try and write a more objective and informative page?

Thanks Gayle Moss Sawaglobal (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Sawaglobal SAWA Global


 * Hi! First we have to fix your username, I've left a note on your talk page. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree
I've been editing that article and archiving there for nearly a year, I think I know what I'm doing. New arrivals to that article with challenges and proposals that are out of alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies -WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR- are wasting their time and that of others if they continue to ignore content policy. So here's the time-honored drill there, used by admins and regular editors there alike for several years: Those making objections and suggestions ignore content policies should expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is *not* a form of rudeness, but meant to help. To respect their own time and that of others they should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. Those who have been pointed to policy and yet continue to argue the same matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy can expect to not get the response they are looking for and have their discussions prematurely archived. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating. There's no Wikipedia policy that allows for endless raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy and there is one against doing that, WP:DE, and it's better for all if things don't get to that point. That's why we archive discussions that ignore or are ignorant of content policy. Odd nature (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we only have a disagreement on how to get to the same goal. If a user can't follow sourcing policies, that's indeed disruption, which is very blockable. Let me know if you need help, I'm wholly uninvolved with ID. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

southern datum
Well, it was only a matter of time, obviously... You were admirably restrained, I thought. Pinkville (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Agree with that block, and I was also impressed with your restraint. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Noam awaits you...
If you have a moment, please have a gander at this Jovian moon's recent edits. Thanks. Pinkville (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Methinks I see OR (never mind that editor's no linguist). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * that editor's no linguist You noticed that, too? heh heh. I'm sure the 50+ year-old edifice of modern linguistics will tumble to the ground if this fellow just blows. Pinkville (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Wonder Woman
Hello, I was wondering if you could go through with this since my suggestion appears unopposed and there was an invitation to discussion without result. Please let me know if there are any issues! —<font face="Palatino Linotype">Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't think lack of commentary can be taken as a consensus. Moreover, it could be nobody spoke up because there almost has to be a simpler way to handle this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." :) It could have been handled simply in the past, but there is the page history of a previous film article preceding a current film's page history.  I'm just asking for the appropriate splitting so if the live-action Wonder Woman film ever takes off, it will have the relevant revisions from the past.  Is my request too tricky for whatever reason? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see worries here. First, the live action film may indeed never be made (or not made for years) and when/if this happens, it is highly unlikely the film'll simply be called Wonder Woman if the animated film has already been released under that same title. Second, neither of these films has even been released yet. Third, splitting up page histories like this can get messy, fast. If the live action film ever does happen and content from either of the existing articles is ever used in its article, I think the opening edit summaries could much more easily explain where the content came from. Hence, I'd say set up any redirects as you see fit, but leave the articles as they are for now, which will leave a much clearer trail (never mind WP:Crystal ball). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you quite follow what I'm asking. We have the animated film that will be coming out soon, and we have a live-action film that is in development hell (the latter possibly not having its own article ever).  Yes, either may not be called Wonder Woman (Iron Man's animated counterpart was The Invincible Iron Man), but isn't this a good reason to separate the live-action film revisions of Wonder Woman (film) from the later animated film revisions?  When they are separated, they would then have the flexibility of being moved to wherever necessary, based on the release years or actual titles. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ID request
Gwen,

I've been trying to be very careful to have a fair discussion on ID, even to the point of specifying that I will not continue it past two or three days, and that it can be archived after that. however, Hrfan keeps refactoring part of the discussion. I realize that your sympathies lie more with Hrfan than with me, but in the interests of calm, intelligent discussion, could you please ask him to stop and let me restore the argument for the brief period it will take to finish the discussion? -- Ludwigs 2 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My "sympathies" lie with WP:OR and WP:RS. Talk pages are meant for the discussion of reliable sources, not lengthy outpourings of original thought (however well-meant) and this goes thrice for controversial topics. Although I tend to dislike seeing any kind of non-linear refactoring of talk page threads and don't think closing threads with hat tags is the most helpful way to go here, until you start citing your comments with reliable, published sources which have to do directly with ID, there is almost nothing I can do to help. Moreover, if you carry on with this behaviour, you could be blocked, so please start citing some sources about ID, or stop. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Wandsworth Parks Police
Hi Gwen, I've noticed you closing quite a few AFDs today - excellent work - that backlog is neverending...sigh. Anywho, I noticed your "closing statement" on the top of this one, and some excellent advice that I got from another prolific closer was to keep your opinion out of the closing statement. If you have a strong, personal belief that the article should be deleted, you should've simply participated in the debate instead of actually closing it. I tend to skip over the ones that I either feel strongly about on a topical level, or feel that consensus is "getting it wrong". Just some friendly advice - I'd hate to see your close get dragged through the mud simply because of your statement. Cheers, and thanks for your mopwork! <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks. I was happy to close it as a keep because I even more strongly believed that's what should have been done, never mind my own thoughts otherwise on the topic. Although I did think the consensus "got it wrong" I believe consensus is the only way through these borderline topics and it can always be re-nominated someday if policies become clearer. However, I'll add something to my closing statement since you brought it up. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was coming here on this one, I'm curious as to why it's a keep when the keeps even said it needed refs (there are none) and mutters of inherent notability. More vague comments then anything policy based. I think if anything it's a merge, but don't worry I have no intentions of taking it to DRV. I'll happily !vote delete and nominate them when they come up but I don't care enough to take it to DRV. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. They shouldn't have bolded those week keeps then ;) Oh but you reminded of something I should have added to my closing statement! By the bye, I've never thought AfD was a fit place to talk about merges. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get the bolding. I think merge comes out of AfD at times, but like I said, my give a damn is busted. I'm going back to the backlog. My brain hurts. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoulda said, "they shouldn't have said." :) Don't mind my ramblings about merges and AfDs, it was a keep either way oh and mine does too. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Long weekend needs to be here now. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're edit summary (is it Friday?) made me laugh out loud, considering the police centered nature of the topic. No, TC, it's not Friday. :-) <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! all about the good old shows. My Facebook status is "Moving on up! To the East Side!" and only one person got it :-/ TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mildly related, are you using a script to close? I am a technophobe, but I have recently begun using an incredibly easy script specifically for closing afds. Go here, and add this script to your monobook. When you are in an AFD, and hit "edit this page", you'll get too new tabs next to move, delete, etc. One of them is "close" and the other is "relist". Click whatever you're doing, and it adds the at and ab to the debate automagically. Saves a bunch of typering. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Caspian blue & my RFA
Just leave his after-the-fact comments in there. It doesn't bother me to have just the one, but I'd prefer if any lasting confrontations take place elsewhere. Also:

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA
Thank you, Gwen Gale, for your support !vote at my RFA. -- lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wandsworth Parks Police
I've listed Wandsworth Parks Police for merging with London Borough of Wandsworth. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about disambiguation pages
I have seen a disambiguation page for people with the same name and notes on other pages of people with similar names. Such as, “This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same personal name. If an article link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.” or “This article is about the musician. For the wrestler, see Johnny Smith (wrestler).” How do you do this? Should I add this to the following articles all with the same/similer names. Eliot Frankel, Elliot Frankl and Elliott Frankl--News&amp;More (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For these, use a dablink at the top of the article(s):

Which would look like:

Also have a look at WP:DAB for sundry ways to handle naming conflicts. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

School for sawbones
Never mind the Sollogs, is what I say. Feel very free to disagree with me: it seems that most experienced editors (let alone others) do! -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Myungbaksanseong
The result is NOT delete, but no consensus. Coatrack that you refer is not also a policy but just an essay. You're a new admin and I dont' really think that you're doing well on this. You need to explain your deletion reason concisely. I also want the content in my talk page. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Such kind words! Since there is no way I can be neutral about this after that outburst (which came only seconds after I closed the discussion), please take it to WP:DRV, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my intention. Still, you fail to give your closing rationale at all. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can take the lack of a closing rationale as the closing admin's agreement with the nomination statement. I'm sorry you're unhappy about this, I do suggest you take it to WP:DRV and all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1. Then, you would know that the nominator's rationale is not true regarding that "This word has been expired in Korea.". Two days ago, one of the tree big television networks in South Korea featured the term, 'myungbaksanseong' as a closing comment and not to mention of other medias as well. I will look forward to your input at WP:DRV. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Ouch. Gwen may be relatively new as an admin, but your opinion of her performance puts you in a distinct minority. To the contrary, the project would benefit greatly from more admins like her.
 * I didn't participate (or even see) that AfD when it was active, but I just reviewed it, and I agree with Gwen's conclusion. Regardless of the number of !votes, there were more reasons put forth to delete than to keep, and the arguments advanced for deletion were stronger (being rooted in policies). Possibly her summary would have benefitted from mentioning WP:NOT and WP:NEO, but the close itself was perfectly valid. Of course you can always try DRV if you disagree. after the edit conflict, I see you have done just that. Doc  Tropics  17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

With over 1500 admins at Wikipedia, some of these AfDs still wind up in backlogs for many days because they're often not easy to close and most admins don't like getting talk page messages like the above. Truth be told I think the term may be a bit too new for encyclopedic notability. Let time tell. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I narrow down the mention of her ability as an admin to just this case, because the first one stemmed from my immediate sentiment toward her closing without proper rationale. Even though I did not participate in her two RFA, I read through the pages and acknowledge her contributions before her becoming an admin. Well, I'm not sure that I'm a member of such the minor group, and your (Doc Tropics) post-analysis would affect my thought on this. Anyway, feel free to express your thought and interpretation on related policies at WP:DRV. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Five editors have now endorsed the deletion of this article, with one asking that the AfD be relisted. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How contradictory!
I notified User:WJBscribe about your and my revert. I am wondering as to why you left your accusative comments after the due time past unlike your proclaim and why you insist that my vote is from revengeful intention as you practice a revenge for yourself against my object to your closing AFD. I consider your comments at the RFA are personal attacks. Clearly, you're not playing fair. I already cast my vote due to his comment at WP:DRV, so there is no need for you to repeat it. Your last-minute commentary is very administrative action and ethical. What a good judgment of you. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose. He always makes thoughtful and considered contributions there based on a good knowledge of policy., I am not convinced of that per my latest contact with him/her input at WP:DRV. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I very humbly ask the closing bureaucrat to disregard the above last-minute commentary as simple revenge for this. Please also see this thread on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that the above comment was posted ten minutes after this RfA's scheduled close of 18:41. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment of Gwen Gale is not only very inappropriate but also retaliating. Thus you're not like any ordinary administrator. Your last-minute commentary after my leaving comment at here to revenge for my object to your AFD closing without providing proper rationale and failure to give your reason. Well, I now would think that my initial comment on you should be restored. The vote here is MY RIGHT of whatever I want to express my thought on Lifebaka. I've seen his activities, but got no distictive impression until the DR. You should refrain from degrading me in such the manner. I've seen many RFA closed even 3 hours or more past their due times and closing breuraucrats always counted all votes regardless of the scheduled time. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you withdraw your vote (which was also made after the due-to-expire time but before the discussion was closed) I'll withdraw my comments. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my interpretation of events (as followed by various links and diffs supplied in the immediate time prior to the closure of the RfA). I see it that Caspian blue (CB) initially opposed the RfA of lifebaka, something you believe is directly relevant to a recent DRV experience (in fact very recently, today was it?), this then preceeded to an argument between the both of you, which in fact impeded on the fact that the RfA was now closed. I see where you are coming from Gwen Gale, I know from experience (albeit it rather brief) you rarely make unfounded accusations and this oppose was rather sudden, I admit that. However, we have to make sure that we can't make accusations to resolve another. If possible, I'd prefer if you removed the comments, but then that would probably involve needing the opposition to be removed too. What's your take on this? Rudget   ( logs ) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it's any of my business or anything, but just drop it, people. I don't mind having the oppose up, but I'm not gonna' be happy if people argue on my closed RFA.  Keep it here, at my talk page, or at DRV.  -- lifebaka  (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lifebaka :) Cheers on your adminship! There was never, ever any worry of an argument on your closed RfA, it's closed.

Rudget, ok, since you've so kindly asked about this, please see this thread (above) first. Not long before his RfA was about to close unanimously, Lifebaka endorsed my AfD closure at the DRV Caspian blue had filed. An hour later, Caspian blue made the only oppose vote in the RfA, 10 minutes after it was scheduled to end. I shared what I thought about that and BJScribe closed the RfA. After this, Caspian blue posted more comments to the RfA, I reverted them, Caspian blue reverted me then BJScribe reverted Caspian blue. Meanwhile I wouldn't say I've been arguing with Caspian blue, but he is clearly very angry with me about both the AfD closure and the comments I made at the RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was angry at you because you did not give a good closing rationale for the RFA. I know that once the page is deleted, overturning the result is very hard per my experience at Wiki (though, that file is my first DRV experience). Besides, how do you guess that I'm so aptly ran into the impending RFA? Because I frequently cast my opinion to RFA whenever any people whom I've known, or watched do RFA campaign. I acknowledge Lifebaka's RFA, but had no experience with him, so deferred it until today. That is my right regardless of your feeling. I kindly ask you to retract your comment about me at RFA. However, well, I don't know the closing admin would take my opposing vote to be null. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. Two other editors have endorsed my closure of that AfD. There is a chance that if you ask BJScribe politely, he would be willing to withdraw both your vote and my following comments from that RfA. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BJScribe already said that he would not mind if you retract your comment even thought the RFA is closed. So I kindly ask you to remove your comment. If you do, I would appreciate your effort to resolve the dispute. On the other hand, why are you so caring about my vote? Lifebaka past his RFA successfully regardless of me and your concern.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What dispute are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My labeling of the dispute is an euphemistic way of your comments against me at the RFA.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for telling me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwen Gale, that sounds like a version of events I can identify with (i.e. I knew it was something along those lines). Removing opposes (or supports even) is not something that is recommended, and has led to some RfAs being protected later on. I don't wish for that to happen, and its clear that both of you are pretty intelligent people. This 'dispute' is probably over now, but I'd like to express my thanks at the fact that it appears differences have been resolved. There isn't much point to discussing this further since the RfA has already passed successfully. Perhaps an idea for Gwen Gale would be to take this incident into consideration (and CB would have to recognise this, and work towards proving Gwen Gale wrong, no matter whether it was right or wrong (I don't know, you could have been considering that oppose all week, who knows?)) and perhaps GG could possibly try to remedy this problem by seeing whether this was a one-off or a trend (the former being the most likely in my opinion) and in which case, she could hopefully realise that this was a mistake and integrate that into a view of CBs standing. Rudget   ( logs ) 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Rudget :) The only further edits to the RfA I would ever have supported, or will support, would be made by the closing bureaucrat (maybe at the request of CB, it won't be by me), who should do as he thinks fit. Yes, I think CB made a one-off mistake in anger over Lifebaka's endorsement of the AfD closing but that's only my take. Meanwhile, as you know, there is nothing untowards about making a comment to an oppose vote in an RfA. Was CB further upset because WJBScribe closed the RfA before CB could get in a last word? I think so and can understand that but this is what he opened himself up to by making the sole oppose vote in an RfA an hour before it was meant to close. I'm willing to let this drop and I suggest that CB might think about doing likewise: He said what he had to say, I said what I had to say and it's over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We can talk about other mistakes at another time. Any such disagreement here can easily be accessed by clicking history and the top of the page. Note: the bureaucrat is called WJBscribe :) Rudget   ( logs ) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks :O ... I was typin too fast! I guess the thing to keep in mind here is, on Wikipedia, if one's going to say something strongly worded about another editor, one should be more than ready to hear something strongly worded back. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudget, thanks for your delegation and effort to meditate in such the small dispute. You're such a friendly guy. Gwen, however, I don't agree with your view point as degrading my action to the RFA. Unlike your wish, my opposition is not a mistake at all. I already explained my stance to Lifebaka, and only left my opposing statement half at RFA. You would know what the other reason is at his talk page. He is in fact more generous that I thought which is a good finding for me. Unlike another your guessing, I did not know the schedule time was 10 minutes past. My vote has its validity regardless of your objection. However, your wiki-following comment against me is I believe that personal attacks. Therefore, I rebutted to it and still consider your comment being there is inappropriate. I politely asked you to retract it, but you attempted to deal with me to make me more ridiculous. (To keep my dignity, I have to make a show to remove my own vote? That is more insulting) I consider that your quietness after my last comment is no sign to reconcile with me.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're unhappy with how I closed Articles for deletion/Myungbaksanseong. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is the initial motivation of how you improperly made attacks against me at Lifebaka's RFA. I'm much more unhappy about your behaviors there than the closure of the AFD.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If more thorough sources supporting the term Myungbaksanseong do show up, please feel free to re-create the article. I do wish you all the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're making nonsense as evading the main subject. This thread is about your improper action as a revenge to me. The matter regarding Myeongbaksanseon is thankfully by your help, being cared at WP:DRV. However, I'm keeping saying your un-adminitrative behavior.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems we haven't been able to agree on much of anything lately. I hope this helps you out. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It really relieves me a lot. I appreciate your effort and hope if we meet other places, and we face a different point of view from each other again, things can be resolved by talk. As for Myeongbaksanseong, well overturning is hard in many cases, so that is at least what I can do for the article. Have a good day. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential sock puppetry
I suspect that Ludwig2 is editing logged out in order to continue raising OR content challenges at Talk:Intelligent design. After ignoring your warning and ones from FM and KillerChihuahua, he finally stopped but 66.96.243.12 immediately appeared picking up where he left off. Not too sure what to do about it, but it's a problem whether or not they are the same editor. Odd nature (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Four points:


 * 1. I am not Ludwig2


 * 2. Ludwig 2 is still editing at virtually the same time as me so ON's point that Ludwig has stopped is false.


 * 3. It is obvious nonsense that I am advancing an OR argument since I have been citing sources left, right and centre and arguing that, rather than using the OR based argument that we can't say "theory", we go with the actual sources and use it.


 * 4. The problem (one problem) is ON's refusal to accept that the title "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory" includes the word "theory".66.96.243.12 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say about sockpuppetry here. When PoVs get this far away from each other even an agreement on terms can get tricky. In science, a theory is (more or less) a highly developed model which is falsifiable or testable. ID is not a theory, but a belief system which, in scientific terms, is not widely held as being at all falsifiable. Editors shouldn't blow off citations from sources which mistakenly call ID a theory, but the article narrative can (and should) clearly note the conflict in terms. Meanwhile, any assertion which cannot be directly and wholly attributed to a reliable source can be removed as original research. I hope this helps. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been following these discussions silently, but I have to jump in here. Gwen, 66.96 has shown that the term "theory" is used in the title of an article from an AAAS publication.  I don't think it's likely that the publishers of Science made a "mistake" in choosing that title.  I believe the argument is over whether our article on ID can describe it as a bad, invalid, unscientific theory (as did the AAAS), or whether the legitimizing connotations of "theory" make the word too confusing to use in the article.  (I think the latter position is overcautious, but that argument is too involved for this space.)  Ludwig and 66.96 have explained themselves rather articulately on this point and others, but have been met with derision, accusations that they don't "get" our policies (they clearly do), and outright censorship through refactoring and even removing their suggestions for editing the article.  It's all there at Talk:Intelligent design, at least for now.  Gnixon (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the refactoring of talk threads at ID. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the word theory, science journalists/writers don't always pick the most helpful ways to word things. ID is not a theory, but many folks call it a theory. The article need only describe this, doing so by citing reliable sources, which can be quoted directly for both clarity and keeping the editor-written text as neutral as can be. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, Ludwig just doesn't seem to get it, even though I've advised him personally. I'll very much appreciate it if you can keep an eye on the situation and take whatever action you think appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Ludwig 55 hours for disruption and explained why it's disruption on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwen, I've asked some questions at Ludwig's page. If you prefer, we could continue that discussion here.  Gnixon (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a serious problem with Ludwigs2 in that he is everything you've stated. But is a 55 hour block appropriate for a first one?  Maybe 24 hours?  Anyways just a thought.  Let's hope he understands the seriousness of this.   Orange  Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The disruption has been so overwhelming and he has been warned so many times that I felt a 55 hour block was neither to long nor too short. If he is willing to promise not to disrupt the talk page with unsourced/synthesized assertions, I'll be more than happy to unblock him straight away. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwen, I've only seen him "warned" by those he was disagreeing with at the talk page. Am I missing stuff?  Can you please answer some of the questions I've asked at Ludwig's page?  Gnixon (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The pith is, I warned him twice. I've put a more lengthy answer to all this on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

←Gwen, yup, after reading your diffs, 55 sounds perfect. And he can be warned for disruption by those who disagree with his POV, especially when one of those warnings comes from one of the most polite editors, dave souza, who has been subject of personal attacks lately by several editors. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gopala Swami
Regarding Articles for deletion/Gopala Swami, Can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that it failed WP:BIO ??-Bharatveer (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was all about a seeming lack of independent and verifiable sources. As I said in the closing statement, if more of these show up the article can be recreated. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sufficient time was not given for re-writing the article, which had an underconstruction tag. Sources were being searched by me and another editor. There exists 3 books published on his teachings, one of which was published by State Institute of Languages, (Government of Kerala, India). There are 2 other google books available, where his name and teachings are mentioned. I request you to reconsider your decision.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You were the only editor in the AfD who wanted to keep this article. Would you like me to put a copy of the deleted text into your userspace so you can work on it there? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New username

 * SAWA Global

hi Gwen

I will be changing Sawaglobal's username today as per your note on its talk page. I have asked the Executive Director if it is okay to use her real name for this - I'm assuming that's okay with you (I did read the policy).

Stay tuned for the new name. thanks Gayle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawaglobal (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Please think about using a fake name instead, this is the Internet, after all ;) Moreover, only one person should edit from each user account, and you shouldn't edit as her representative, especially under her true name. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I am the wiki person for this non-profit, so I'll make up a name that makes sense to me. I created this account: User:Celebrateheros

Now, is it possible to get the sawaglobal article up so I can edit it to make it more factual and less like an ad?

Thanks! Gayle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawaglobal (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have put the deleted content in your new userspace at User:Celebrateheros/sandbox. Please be aware, stuff like mission statements are taken by most editors as straightforward advertising. Moreover, you must show that this org is noteworthy by citing reliable, independent sources which describe and discuss it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 block
Hi Gwen Gale

I've commented here: User_talk:Ludwigs2. I think some specific diffs would be a good thing, as well as a rationale for why you chose 55 hours. That's a rather odd number, especially for a first block. There, or ANI (if it's there already), probably are the places to discuss this. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Lar, happy to do it (but it took a bit of time), please see the user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time you took to pull that together, and that on reflection and reviewing the input from others, you decided to unblock. Thanks. If in future you think Ludwig2's still not behaving appropriately, I would be happy to take a look and act as needed. You have but to ask. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC) PS it looks like you have several threads on this... be bold and lump them all together, that's waht I always do. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ta! The pith is, Legos are cool! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ping!
email<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh! Nifty! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

E-Mail
Sorry. I never got your e-mail. I just found out my e-mail changed to Blake.Lubbers@malweb.net. Thanks, Poptarts12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poptarts12 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you like me to put a copy of the article in your userspace? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
Just FYI, I've callled for an immediate unblock here. Dreadstar †  20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 unblock discussion
Gwen, I appreciate your professionalism and your courtesy during the discussion, and I hope that my disagreement won't be taken personally. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Naw, we're all in this together and have to find out how to handle these highly controversial articles more smoothly. If you ever need help with something, here I am! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gwen. If the problem continues, I'll block Ludwigs2 myself.  I appreciate your understanding.  Dreadstar  †  20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to echo Zimbardo. I appreciate particularly that you responded to a request to justify the block, and that you were open to hearing those who disagreed with the rationale. Cheers, Gnixon (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you do. Now we get to discuss the completely refuted notion that ID is a theory. Over, and over and over again. You win. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, there is no spoon. :)  Dreadstar  †  22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not but I glark there's a fork somewhere :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying
Thanks for trying to help on the ID page, but unfortunately it backfired. Now there's no archiving of irrelevant discussions anymore, now that certain others are ready to strike. I'm getting close to my end here at wiki. Heh, I signed up when I noticed a good science editor had thrown in the towel; I thought I'd try to support the rest of them. I have scientist friends who would be a boon to this site, but I like them too much to send them here. :( Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that. Keep in mind, most of the true science articles aren't controversial at all. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both of you, keep up the good work. There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you can't make a pocketbook out of it, you can always braid it into rope, or at the very least use it as pillow stuffing. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks and meanwhile, some stuff takes a bit of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, although I certainly hope we don't make Guinness with this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I was profoundly grateful to have a previously uninvolved admin look things over. Furthermore, I thought you handled the "kerfluffle" with exquisite professionalism. Thanks for being willing to approach such a complex and difficult situation, and for seeing it through. Doc  Tropics  01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need a kerfuffle of the week award. Orange  Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a pretty good idea, coming from a fish-head : ) Doc   Tropics  04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks y'all :) Funny thing about all that, after handling the disruption I was going to try and put a stop to all the comment archiving, then help all those editors who wanted it get some strongly sourced descriptions and history of ID as a belief system into the article whilst reminding the others that, although carrying scientific criticism and context of ID in the article is a very worthy and helpful thing, "debunking" religion is not. Hence, so far as I can tell, by skirting Wikipedia's disruption policy they more or less wound up thwarting themselves. Either way, as I've said before, the whole topic is a nest of worries from any scientific or theological outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations -- you're famous. :-p 12.240.60.198 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! Yeah, someone tipped me off to that yesterday. It cracked me up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Whelan
Just about to create a stub on this gymnast (which forms part of the GB team at the Beijing Olympics), but I notice you've speedily deleted it twice, and protected it from recreation; Now as I didn't create the previous incarnations, I can't say whether they were justified, but I was wondering if you'd consider removing the protection so that an article can be created for this notable gymnast? -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a corollary, I've started a stub of what I'd intend to move there at User:Ratarsed/Hannah Whelan -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reads like another person altogether. Thanks for taking care of this. I've unprotected, please feel free to recreate the article with that stub. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I imagine that the article will get a lot more detail added to it as a result of the Olympics, too. -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go Hannah! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note
Thanks for protecting the page. I know that in asking for protection, frequently those who make the request, revert the text on their own to their preferred version immediately before making their request, in order to have their version locked in. I didn't do this, out of scruple. I preferred to leave it to an administrator to decide. As the text stands, it is locked in to the version that represents the latest highly partisan edit by the person who initiated the edit-warring. That is why I suggested that the administrator make a rapid glance over the history of the article, and restore the text to the status quo ante text to the status quo ante (as User:Hertz1888 User:Ceedjee (two commendably precise 'pro-Israeli' editors) and User:Vishnava did) which was at least stable, and unchallenged for some time. If you think a review of this unnecessary, fine. I will smile at the irony of my having handed someone whose editing I consider disruptive a trump card, out of scruples against my gaming the system, simple for endeavouring to secure neutrality. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, 'so it goes'. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for handling it that way, you did the helpful thing, believe me ;) Ask for sources, be open minded about it, blow off the snarky put downs and let me know if you need help! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but admins have a terribly burdensome job as it is, and we grownups should hack the flak like adults, and complain only when all other recourses have been exhausted (added an extra name to above). Given the history of that page, I think trouble will persist, unfortunately, especially since a lock-in has authorized the version that is extremely contentious. Still, I've a tough chin! Best Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, the lock didn't authorize a thing, it only stops any editing for a few days. Meanwhile these nationalistic articles can be tough, hang in there, don't forget to ask for reliable sources and remember, it's only the Internet and readers can be a lot keener than some editors think! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyme Disease
GWEN: This Lyme Disease Controversy page in current form is a mess. It violates NPOV and requires a civilized and thorough "edit war" to: RESOLVE MANY SERIOUS NPOV ISSUES, MISINFORMATION, AUTHORS OPINION FLAWS, LACK OF FACTS, ETC.... PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD OR BLOCK ME AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES ****THOUGHTFULLY**** AND IN DETAIL..... ON THE TALK PAGE AND WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS.. I KNOW THIS PAGE IS A PAIN, BUT... ITS GOING TO TAKE WORK TO RESOLVE THE MANY INACCURACIES AND NPOV PROBLEMS.. AND BLOCKING ME AND ELENA AND MANY OTHERS IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL WIKPEDIAN SOLUTION... AND IT DOWNGRADES THE ENCYLOPAEDIA. THANKS ... and please... lets stick to my points about the article....

Here are the issues which were never properly addressed, as I had politely requested... and each of my footnoted edits was vandalized.. and the page reverts back to a glossy promo brochure for IDSA...

The page makes no mention of

1) the many conflicts of interest held by IDSA affiliated patent holders Steere and Yale for the inaccurate diagnostic test for Lyme and for the failed Lyme vaccine, LYMERIX which was withdrawn from the market due to the serious damage and lawsuits it caused.

2) The page does not cover the debate over the inaccuracies in the current diagnostic test... yet instead says that most chronic patients were "not diagnosed" with Lyme. The "lack of diagnoses" statement is the authors opinion-- in violation of Wikipedia's policy... yet he keeps editing this misinformation into the piece... while taking out footnotes? What is going on here? Bell's palsy where half your face collapses ---is not imaginary. To say that patients are undiagnosed is simply false and unsupported by facts.. and very insulting to those of us who are sick and to the professional doctors who treat and diagnose us. Wikipedia needs to include FACT, not opinion or spin from scientists who are under legal scrutiny for conflict of interest..

3)The Blumenthal legal action against IDSA's Lyme treatment guidelines process is scarcely mentioned, if at all. The page claims that ILADS is a fringe outfit, when clearly Bluemthal has legal concerns about IDSA guidelines, not ILADS doctors!!

4) The page makes no mention of IDSAs waffling and changing stance over the past 15 years... first they recommended 10 days of antibiotics-- now its 3 weeks-- a very long course of drugs for such an "easy to cure" infection... Then they said chronic infection did not exist... now they say chronic infection is possible but antibiotics can't treat it..although patients say they often get remission from serious neurological symptoms with antibiotics-- as I did. This is more waffling than John Kerry!!

5) The page makes no mention of the lawsuits made by IDSA affiliates against ILADS doctors, and the legal harassment of many fine doctors who are desperately treating Lyme disease in the field, although the authors spin the debate by focusing on patient "harassment of Dr. Steere." Again... this is biased and it is spin that violate NPOV.

6) Footnotes regarding persistence of infection are routinely deleted,

7) The scientific "studies" mentioned concerning antibiotics are all seriously flawed, were short term, and were conducted by many of the same individuals who are now required by Attorney General Blumethal to revisit the IDSA guidelines due to potential conflicts of interest with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies... this is important information that editors dismiss.

In short, these scientists goofed up and may have engaged in fraudulent science, and Wik editors need to understand that these scientists' opinions are under legal scrutiny by the Attorney general, and should not be taken as automatic "fact." ALso, reporting their misinformation as "fact" could ultimately result in a lawsuit against Wikipedia.. You need to make this page more balanced for Wikipedia's future sake!

I will work toward helping you to improve this page if you want to cooperate with me and many others on Wikipedia who believe this page is not neutral in its point of view and is out of date, especially in light of the evidence presented for persistence of infection in the Lyme disease microbiology page-- These two pages are now completely inconsistent in their information-- evidence for persistence of infection should be included in the page on Lyme disease controversy and it should be stated that IDSA claimed a lack of persistence and then reverted its opinion. Critiques on the flaws in the scientific method of the so called studies that prove the lack of efficacy of antibiotics also should be included.

I suggest that you work with all of us diligently .. to address the issues I have outlined above... Banning ( I have written two popular pages here) is simply a lazy way out of a difficult problem.. and it is discouraging to those of us who want to make this page more factual and balanced-- and who are repeatedly vandalized in the process.. The many issues I address should assure you of my concern and professionalism.

I am going to undo the recent changes made to my careful edit, and let's have a spirited and thoughtful debate on my points. Thank you... (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)69.120.212.35 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Freyfaxi, are you aware your block has expired? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

noobie help
Hey Gwen, hope you don't mind me asking you for some help...

I wanted to write an article on an important technology business owner here in Ottawa (see John Criswick) and had been chatting with him to get his information and background. Before I could start the article on Wikipedia, he started one himself, thinking it would help me out, the idea being I could just add to it.

It was flagged and then approved for notability, but is still flagged for being autobiographical & conflict of interest (which makes sense since Mr. Criswick created the article). I'm wondering what your advice on moving forward would be for me? Should I delete this article and start a new one myself, or is it salvageable as is?

Any assistance you could offer me would be very appreciated.

Thanks so much, Stace

Svanbuskirk (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The main thing is sources, sources, sources. Quote from them, refer to them, stick to them. Don't add anything you can't pull from an indepently published source. Interviewing him for information and then putting it in the article would be original research and not acceptable here. However, if you got it published elsewhere in a reliable source not affiliated with the subject, it would be acceptable. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I will definitely move forward with that in mind. What is your advisement re the article being flagged at the moment? Will they go away in time, or do I need to start a new article so that there isn't any autobiographical conflict? (Worried about the consequences of deleting a page). Svanbuskirk (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The tone of the article should be wholly neutral. In writing/editing the content, make believe you know nothing at all about the topic and draw things to say about it only from independently published sources. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor involved in RfC removing text from article talk page
Hi As you aren't involved in this in anyway, I thought I'd ask you what to do about this. User:Marburg72 has just removed some text from the Monk's Mound talk page, with an edit summary attacking another editor. I've restored it but don't want to get into a further battle with him. There is an RfC on him and he has raised two complaints against me and another editor   (and yet another editor raised a COI against him before the RfC was raised). I don't know if I should add the deletion of text to the RfC or take it somewhere else, so, sorry, I'm taking it to you to either advise me or to take some action (speaking to him for instance) so that this doesn't turn into an edit war on a talk page. He is capable of dropping huge chunks of policy on talk pages by the way, so he knows where to find policy and guidelines. Thanks, hope you don't mind. Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the comments and left a note on his talk page. He can't remove article talk page comments like that. You can add it to the RfC. Let me know if something else comes up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's exactly what I was going to ask you. I can't understand that sort of behaviour at any time, but in the middle of an RfC, especially considering his reaction to your first warning? He's accused me of further meatpuppetry and recruiting by the way.. Sadly I don't see a happy ending to this. Doug Weller (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Hopefully he'll settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As the initiator of the RfC I'd better check- does the 24-hour block affect Marburg72's ability to respond to my final revisions to the RfC (I'm about to add specific WP: indicators to various points)? David Trochos (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a short block, he can respond tomorrow. Is there an overwhelming need for his input today? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's just my first ever RfC so I had no idea how this new development affected things. Thanks. David Trochos (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only bearing it has is to make that editor seem disruptive as his RfC begins. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility
Indeed. There really is no excusing it, but I felt myself pushed by user:Yolgnu's continuous stalking of my edits, offensive remarks and questionable (often undiscussed) changes. I'm not trying to justify my comment (which was entirely in bad taste), just explain why I made it. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes &amp; prisms (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll find responding in that way will more or less never help, only stir things up even more. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been going on so long, I've reached the end of my tether. I'd take a break from edits but dread to think what he'd do to any articles related to Malta/the Maltese language/the Maltese people. But I'll bear your advice in mind. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes &amp; prisms (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Honey's sweeter than whine :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you've mead me all upset.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes &amp; prisms (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this must be what they mean by the hive mind ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo
Slow down and give a new admin a chance to do some work :-) Frank  |  talk  15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! You mean at WP:CSD? :) Careful there, someone's been putting up lots of unfit db tags, I've declined over half of them. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do, and I agree...I'm really on the fence about several of them. But I did decide to zap two of them...only to find you'd beaten me there... :-) Frank  |  talk  15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm stoppin' for now, have at it 8) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dermott Fictel
How come you declined the deletion of this article? The article is about a character in a show that had about ten minutes of screen time in only one episode. There is no doubt virtually no real world information to improve the article. Rau's Speak Page 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No CSD categories apply to a non-notable cartoon character. The article is so fully formed and neutral seeming, it's not blatant advertising. Either way it's not patent nonsense (which is how you tagged it). I suggest an AfD, which will very likely lead to its swift deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also added a merge tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll request an AfD. Thanks for explaining your reason. Rau's Speak Page 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added my delete comment to it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokua Airport
Could you please restore Tokua Airport? An earlier version had been tagged as csd-r1. I fixed the redirect just before you deleted it. --Eastmain (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Austal
Thank you for deleting Austal while I was in the process of expanding it after having to have the content wiped because of another editor's copyvio. I took a short break to shower and eat, and I returned to find you've deleted it without bothering to ask an editor with nearly 30,000 edits if he had a plan. Would you mind restoring it so I can finish it? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Next time you leave an article in a textless state, please use the tag, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I fogot! Btw, the revisions were copyvios - I just needed the last page. Sorry also for being snarky. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * :P Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for being clear about the copyvios, I've deleted those and only left the last page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one of those days, huh? I think we're straightend out now! THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, I'm takin a nap! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Deletion - Shoreline Trading Group
Gwen I'd like to know why the shoreline trading group entry was deemed as spam and removed immediately, when something along the lines of the Triad Securities entry remains up.

The Shoreline Trading Group was written in the context of the prime brokerage industry, the growth of hedge fund in the latter part of the last centry and how technology has changed the industry.

I'd just appreciate some clarification. Thank you.Rslott (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Grr

 * Mario Opazo

If you are going to decline the speedy, please read for the interwiki, which was directly below (both times): es:Mario opazo. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You said wikilink. Anyway it's no longer non-en or a copyvio and has a prod tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any "copyvio", ironically, would be from es.wikipedia. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what the tag there says . If you think it's an A7... Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack
I notice you didn't notify him. He attacked me first, provoked me. Double standard? Rau's Speak Page 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He didn't attack you, he said you were being a brat for edit warring. Moreover, you put up this wholly wrong CSD tag earlier, I guess hoping it would slip by a careless admin or whatever. None of this has been helpful. Please take the friendly hints you've been getting and stop now, thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GopalaSwami
Please do -Bharatveer (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's at User:Bharatveer/sandbox. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of pages
Hi Gwen Gale. Please see Priti Sitoula and Heema Shrestha. Bongomatic (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Physiobench
Hi Gwen. An article you deleted has been restored. It was apparently originally created by an IP who signed as "Chris", and now a new user named "Martynho" has recreated it. It is still a misuse of Wikipedia to create articles in this manner. From the article you will see who these characters are: "... Martyn & his brother Chris." -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> /  talk  15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scythed and salted, thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! You are fast! Thanks. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> /  talk  15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Badar Munir
Since you closed Articles for deletion/Badar Munir as CSD G12, what will happen to the other articles in that AfD? Should I start another AfD for them? Cunard (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! Cunard (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy
Gabriel Murphy, which you have just deleted, was restored following a deletion review which you can see at Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28. DuncanHill (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the person who proposed speedy (and who has a history of trying to get the article deleted) failed to mention this in his nomination. DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep and when I looked at the log it wasn't noted there either. Straight off, I'd wanted to decline the speedy but saw there had been an AfD, thanks so much for spotting this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK, the Speedy template also didn't link to the first AfD (which was a keep) (which was not mentioned in the second AfD either). I have requested that the first AfD be restored to its correct title at Requested Moves. Thanks for the quick work in restoring - I have suggested on the talk page of the article that AfD would now be the proper route if anyone thinks it should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's more, AfD is the only way to delete this article, now that it has gotten through both an AfD (never mind the DRV). I also notice the AfDs aren't noted on the talk page. Either you can add them, or let me know if you want me to. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will link them on the talk page - could you do the move of the first nominations? I can't move it, as the second nomination was done on top of it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a canny mess but I've cleaned it up, AfDs have been mv'd to their fitting names in the project space and tags have been added to the talk page linking back to them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gwen, much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosamund
we think is an historial article about an friend of vita sack ville west (unisgned cmt by User:Rosamund1888) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If Rosamond grosvenor [sic] was a friend of Vita Sackville-West, perhaps she should be mentioned in that article. Meanwhile, please stop recreating deleted content, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Vita Sackville-west was mentioned in that article, so  how can i rewrite it ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosamund1888 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ( Rosamund1888 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ) can i mail the test article to you ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosamund1888 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ( Rosamund1888 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) )

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Prof yashpal
Could you please clarify that even after the modification which are the portions in the article Prof yashpal that seems to infringe copyright and let to its deletion even after recreation? Its easy to press the delete button but probably much more difficult to tolerate seeing ones' 40 minutes of personal internet time going to waste in a jiffy. --Debashishc (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Gwen I have been on Hindi (and off late) on English Wikipedia for long so I know the rules. But Yes I have read your notice.


 * Facts about a person, his biography has to be sourced from somewhere after all, these are not fictional data that could be produced from thin air. I did copy paste some of the stuff earlier and I clarified that I was in process of re-wording/modifying the same. I am on a slow internet connection and it takes time to submit edits. I wonder how Wikipedia admin who are mostly in developed nations working on super fast broadband connections just blindly come and delete the pages in moments as if they would help world peace by doing so. They don't care about the speed of editing of others, the time they could take to refine an article.


 * Anyways I can see why admins should enjoy these powers :) Don't worry about the page now I have no patience left to recreate it (which should make you quite happy) and I didn't save the text either which I have to spend close to an hour to modify. Heh! And they call wikipedia democratic.--Debashishc (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You recreated the copyrighted material twice, the article was wholly unsourced and made no assertions of importance, not to mention the name is incomplete and not capitalized. I see you have a contribution history stretching back two years so I'm a bit startled you don't understand why the article was deleted. I'm not at all happy about deleting an article like this: Instead of harping away at admins, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia's sourcing and notability policies. If you have a slow Interent connection, the article can be written and marked up in any text editor, then quickly pasted into a Wikipedia edit window when you're online. If you'd like a copy of the deleted text, I'll be happy to email it to you. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwen your observations are full of inaccuracies and ironies. (a) The article was "recreated" only once (not twice as you say), that too after all necessary modifications and I annotated the same quite clearly (but probably in hurry to delete it you didn't care to read the modified article). (b) If the article title was inaccurate should it be "deleted" or "renamed" or "redirected"? (c) What do you mean by wholly un-sourced data? In India there are several note-worthy people and things about which there is not an iota of fact published on the internet or written about in newspapers. How do you expect us to substantiate those facts? Attach newspaper clippings? (d) What do you mean by "it makes no important assertions"? Do you have any idea who Prof Yashpal is? There are things important than Barack Obama in this world, if he is the only "important" person you people recognize. (e) I could understand why the article was deleted (and you should have paid some attention to the note I left on the editor's talk page who origianlly marked it for deletion), but when it was re-created there was no reason to delete it again. The modified article is absolutely valid on Wikipedia's benchmark. (f) Please don't advise others on how to edit articles offline or online, we all have individual preferences. (g) Please try leaving messages in my talk page so that I get an alert, as I am doing. And lastly yes I do know now that Wikipedia is not a democracy, which is why admin get to enjoy doing such silly stuff. Nevertheless, and I am glad that I live in one. You may send me the deleted text at debashish [at} gmail {dot] com. --Debashishc (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please study this page very carefully. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

lo and behold
The name of the subject seems to be is Yash Pal, who has had a short article on en.Wikipedia since July 2006. Both attempts by User:Debashishc at creating this other, wholly mis-titled article (Prof yashpal) were mostly copyright violations of this website in India. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten and thoroughly sourced Yash Pal, although it is still a short article. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwen, please stop using inappropriate words just for hiding your mistakes. Is it a crime to inadvertently create a page about somebody when the creator wasn't aware about the original page (which you say exists since 2006)? Moreover, despite being an admin, you didn't point that out at anytime, even while adamantly deleting my article twice. Laughingly, you source facts from the same places I did and have to guts to declare that you "have rewritten" the article. Such a good example you are putting forth before others! I wonder if you go about re-creating all deleted pages yourself.
 * You would do well to believe in others, which is what Wikipedia is all about, instead of smelling conspiracy everywhere. You should have shown the decency to email me my article and pointed me to the existing page you discovered so that I could have done the edits.
 * Mis-titled article? Do you know that Mahatma Gandhi was also known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mohandas Gandhi? What if a user searches for the name Mahatma Gandhi? Shouldn't the user be redirected to the actual page, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? Similarly Yash Pal (which is entirely wrong name of the page anyway) has always been known as Prof Yashpal. If you write simply Yash Pal it becomes ambiguous, people may mistake this to be the page for the famous Indian cricketer Yashpal Sharma. But then, you think you can write better than everybody else and would go about re-writing all pages for them, especially mis-titled articles.
 * The article wouldn't be brief if my edit were kept intact. To you it seemed more important to declare that he was a visiting professor at American universities than the fact that he implemented the SITE dream of Vikram Sarabhai, which you entirely left-out from my article.I pity Wikipedia for having admins like you really. --Debashishc (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gecad research center
I have removed the prod tag from Gecad research center, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Please let me add that it saddens my heart that an Wikipedia sysop should propose an article on what may be a nation's most respected research center to be deleted without discussion. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia sysop did not propose that article be deleted without discussion. A Wikipedia sysop declined to delete that article without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, you have restored my faith in the aimable intentions of WP sysops ;->. I'm sure you'd agree, however, that whilst removing a speedy delete certainly prevents immediate deletion, replacing it with TL:PROD does not in any way encourage discussion before deletion, rather the opposite. Perhaps you meant AfD? Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, not at all, I did spot on what I meant to do, knowing if there was an editor who cared enough to keep and build on this article, the prod would be removed. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. In my humble opinion, a better view would be to not assume that your actions will be reverted by caring editors. If you PROD-tag an article, you should, I think, have the view that the article should be deleted without discussion, and that this would be uncontroversial (and that Wikipedia would be a better place without it). Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't spin out that way (and I don't assume anything). WP:PROD is by far the mildest way to suggest deletion, since any single editor can simply remove the tag and once that happens, it can't ever be put back. Nor, if a prod is removed, do I see this as my action being "reverted" by "caring editors": Removal of a prod is simply a statement by one editor that the article will not be deleted through WP:PROD. That's all it takes for an article to get through a prod, one, lone editor. Please note the outcome here: I declined the speedy deletion, the prod was removed, cannot ever be put back and the article has been kept. This did not come about by happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ: PROD defaults to delete; AfD defaults to keep. Respectfully, I would describe the outcome differently: You declined the speedy deletion, you added a PROD tag, the prod was removed and the article has been kept. This did, I think, come about by happenstance, since a completely independent editor (me) happened to stumble upon the article. Finally, please let me repeat that it saddens my heart that a Wikipedia sysop should propose an article on what may be a nation's most respected research center to be deleted without discussion, and without leaving a note to the authour. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article again, it is very, very woefully written in weak English and in truth, the assertion of importance is hard to find. I could have been wrong in declining the speedy deletion. Moreover, the article doesn't cite any independent sources at all and those which are sourced are in Portuguese. Going by this, Gecad might be nothing more than a corrupt, tax driven government project with little or no notability or scientific importance. Instead of getting all WP:Pointy over this, might I suggest, if you care about this article and about Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, that you find some reliable, independent sources which establish the notability of this topic and then re-write the text into something readable? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias
I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've looked at it and said something on the article's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

your arbitration on Lei ?

 * Lehi (group)

Hi, Gwen Gale

how are you?

I'd like to thank you first for your protection of the page, and your message on talk page to turn to you if needed.

Since user Nishidani, has initially turned for your help, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to be "the editor" for all of us.

In this way we will all have someone who all agree up on.

take a look at our discussions on talk page, especially, the latest comments on the discussion under "Removing categories of "Defunct organizations designated as terrorist" and "Jewish terrorism" and the "T" word from disambiguation page of Lehi" - on the articles talk page.

I'll put a message on talk page about my request here (I can only assume there will be no objections).

Have a great day!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. The protection on the page has expired. I'll be happy to mediate if I can but the pith is, don't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the first edit after protection expired amounted to a revert, I have now protected the page for a week. When that's up, I'll be looking at the behaviour of editors rather than protecting the page for ever longer spans of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. But at list revert Nishidani's laset edit on protected article (right before your protection today), since it was removed from this paragraph by some mediator few days ago - this behavour should not be included in the article.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Protection doesn't favour any version at all. However, while the page is locked, I'll be happy to make edits for which consensus has been clearly acknowledged on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gwen.


 * The only thing is that his edit was against consensus, as it was removed by some mediator few days ago, and this is why you took this step: "Since the first edit after protection expired amounted to a revert".


 * the only thing I'm asking - is to re-revert this latest unconsensus step today (not to talk about many others before).


 * On my belhaf, I never participated on this "edit war", ever since this started - all I did, as I turned to you, was trying to reach for a third party's help.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If editors express their consensus for this edit at the bottom of the talk page I'll be happy to do it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * לחיים (cheers in Hebrew) --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Burgess
Can I appeal the deletion of this article - he was notable as both a yachtsman and a businessman - he is cross referenced from both the OSTAR and Vendee Globe pages (he was killed during the latter race) and rated a full obituary in the Times and Telegraph at the time. He also founded the company that bears his name and is one of the leading yachtbrokers in the world - see the recent controversy over their handling of Saddam Hussein's yacht. Regards Blackshod (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please put an assertion of importance in the lead and find some independent sources. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do I'll try to did out the obits but as they're not on line it might take a bit of time. You may have noted that Police, Mad, Jack put up most if not all the articles that I have created for speedy deletion. Thanks Blackshod (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the article now I've revised it with refs from three continents (including both London and NY Times) and let me know of any problems, thanks Blackshod (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for completeness can I bring to your attention the following from User talk:Nancy which I feel had relevence to the article's nomination for deletion:

Thanks very much for your input on this and particularly the tidy into columns. I'm afraid Police,Mad,Jack seems to do this to any page I create and has to be put right by one admin or another. Thanks again Blackshod (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I dont. You constantly hound and cyber bully and cyber stalk me, with your IP adress. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried several times to talk to you about this Blackshod, but to no avail. You seem unwilling to enter a civil relationship, I am by no means the only editor to notice this. Just take a look at Archangels post to your talkpage. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Police, Mad, Jack. From what I can see it is you who are doing the stalking & looking at your contribution history for today you appear to be making pointy CSD nominations & adding uncalled for tags on perfectly good articles that, just happen, to have been created by Blackshod. Please can you desist from this behaviour as all it achieves is to upset people unnecessarily and to cause extra work for the rest of us. <font face="Verdana" color="#FF6600"> nancy (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)''

Blackshod (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've so thoroughly sourced the article now, there are no worries. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion
Hi Gwen,

why was my article deleted?

Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen,

Thanks for your help. I am re-editing the article now.

Regards,

Zeus


 * Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for your company. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Addy

 * Mark Addy (Albert Medal)

If you would have remained patient, you would have realised that the page was being edited and not ready for deleation. I hope that in the future you can find some restraint in the future and assist in future contributions(Archangel1 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)).


 * Please use the tag the next time you leave an article with no meaningful content, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion...
...of this page, previously deleted once? Frank |  talk  17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Plausible redirect, over 50,000 ghits for this text string. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who knew? Thanks. Frank  |  talk  17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not sayin me eyebrows didn't lift a bit when I did the search :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:SALT?
I noticed on your deletion of Ducky Wucky that you wrote, "The result was speedy deleted CSD G11, blatant advertising however, to stem any recreation, WP:SNOW." I'm sure you meant to cite SALT, but just wanted to clarify, as it hadn't been SALT-ed yet when I starting writing this. S. Dean Jameson 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant WP:SNOW, which is a means of closing the AfD, so the article can be swatted down handily as a G4 but ok, I've salted it too, happy to. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I was just confused by the "to stem any recreation, WP:SNOW" language. Thanks for clarifying. S. Dean Jameson 21:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Meanwhile now it's shut off both ways :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sanin Main Line (Izumo area)
I'm not sure I understand using G6 to delete that template. Was it renamed? If so, can you fix the pages which currently have the old name red-linked?? Thanks. Neier (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was a transclusion error of some kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Omnifray RPG page
Gwen

I appreciate the reasons for you deleting the Omnifray page which I created but please consider the following.

The Omnifray RPG is a print-on-demand published roleplaying game which is being reviewed by a number of reviewers, including those nominated by industry websites. It has been reviewed on roliste.com (in French), and a link to that review was inserted in the original page.

All / most RPGs have Wikipedia entries and it would be surprising if Omnifray did not have one soon.

The review submitted was extremely balanced and neutral. It went out of its weak to point out Omnifray's weak points - for instance, densely packed text, complexity, etc.

More importantly the link was to be passed to the various reviewers to edit as they see fit.

Please can you confirm:-

1. can the page be restored? 2. alternatively, if a reviewer creates a page on Omnifray, will it be left in place?

Please note that I will be retaining a copy of the text which I wrote for this piece and it may be used elsewhere publicly. If it or an extract of it resurfaces in a Wikipedia submission, that will be why. I am not going to submit it under a different name or encourage anyone to do so who is acting on my behalf.

However I would like to know that if a reviewer creates a page, it will be left in place.

Cheers

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnifray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I may ask a reviewer to consider posting a Wiki entry, depending on your guidance as to its chances of staying put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnifray (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all about meaningful independent coverage (reviews, mentions in the media). If/when this shows up, the article will stick. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JD554/Articles
I'm afraid you've confused me. You deleted the page according to the log but then when you removed a link from my talk page which I'd overlooked you left an edit summary saying "speedy declined - need clear reason, let me know what it is pls" (diff). --JD554 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted User:JD554/Articles. However, because you had a transclusion to that page on your talk page, it showed up as a request to delete your talk page too and moreover, not as the simple transclusion above, but as a db tag, which I declined, hence my note (thinking it was either a transclusion error or an RTV request). Nested transclusions within pages which have been tagged as CSDs can do very odd stuff like that (see User_talk:Gwen_Gale above). I'm seeing these almost every day now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm not too sure I understand it, but thanks anyway ;) --JD554 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Put another way, your talk page showed up as listed for speedy deletion at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion and when I looked at your talk page, it was carrying a big pink speedy deletion request tag, which I warily declined. This was all owing to the transclusion error, transclusions can and do carry content forward to other pages in unexpected ways. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
<div class="NavHead" style="background:cyan;color:blue;">My RfA <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left; background:240 248 255;"> Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was, , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.) Thanks so much for your kind words of support! I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

Create New Page Within Guidelines
Hi Gwen, I believe the time is at hand when we can restore the page titled 'Suzanne Olsson.' The original dispute was over (1.) Self-Publising books not allowed to appear at Wikipedia......Please be advised that a publisher in India, Gulshan Books, has picked up the option to publish, thereby eliminating the 'self-published' problems. In addition, a second book is also being published in India,'Roza Bal' co-authored by Suzanne Olsson and Fida Hassnain. Thus, neither these books nor these authors are self-published. Can the information about these books now appear? Aren't they now within Wikipedia guidelines? There is a need to know about the topics in these books because these are the latest historical books available about the tomb of Jesus in India, the bloodline of Jesus in India, Yuz Asaf as Jesus, and cultural terrorism destroying these sites. These are not 'fringe' theories but topics that are the source of several documentaries and books and articles per year.

The next issue had been one of poorly sourcing information at the Suzanne Olsson page. I believe I can correct most of that quite easily. I can include film credits and interviews (Fortean Times, Times of India, Paul Davids newest film, et cetera) I can also provide the dates attended NYU and the chapters of Mensa that I belong to, in addition to local Red Cross Chapter where I have been training for International Red Cross. I assume this is the kind of info required when the article was recommended for deleteion due to "poor sourcing"? The next issue was one of the pages being 'hacked' and severely modifiedby some Wiki editors. I believe we now know who is responsible and can correct and avert any such hacking in the future.

Can you please advise me how to proceed so as to conform to Wiki guidelines and reinstate the page? Thank You. Suzanne Olsson —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, Yes, of course I read that page....if you are suugesting this is about "self-promotion" You would be mistaken because I am approached several times a year by authors and independent film producers...the two most recent being 'The Aquarian Gospels" and "Jesus in India"...this also supports the topic at hand and removes it from the so-called "fringe" area.  So may we proceed with the page now? I would welcome your help and suggestions after the page is up again... Thank you.  Hmmm How many tildes makes a signature? I'll try four here. Suzanne Olsson 76.122.23.179 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been through this many times now. If you've become notable it is very likely someone else will get stirred up enough to write an article about you. I think we should wait until then. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen....thank you....however we dont want to wait. May the page go up today, and then you can advise on its strengths and weaknesses rather than carte blanche negativity...? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The page was deleted last time following its AfD at Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination). If you recreate it, the page will very likely be speedy deleted within minutes as recreated material. Hence, I strongly suggest you try to build consensus for recreation on your talk page instead. If you would like me to put a copy of the deleted article in your own userspace, where you can work on it and ask other editors to come see it, I'll be happy to do that for you, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I accept your offer...Please tell me when do you determine that there is enough consensus to reinstate the page? One editor? Two? Twenty? Also, please note that we never regarded Wickipedia as a place for "self-promotion" which is why all the articles in the press, the filmographers, and interviews and reviews were never inserted on the page...plus the research done about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal, althought critical and highly acclaimed...was never included. Had they been included, the article would have remained on Wiki, I am sure...Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've put the deleted content into your userspace at User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox. Please see and carefully read WP:Consensus, it wouldn't be a headcount but rather the outcome of a discussion. The biggest thing to take care of here is to support the article content only with independent and reliable, published sources other than yourself. Since there are overwhelming conflict of interest worries, I suggest that in building the article in your userspace, you forget everything you know about yourself and instead, only put in content which has been published about you by verifiable sources. Please go about this slowly and follow the rules. I'm willing to help, but to that end, please stick to this one user account now (and moreover, to skirt any misunderstandings, ask any family members or friends not to make edits about you on Wikipedia for now) or you will be blocked from editing. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood! Thank You for your help. Consider yourself hugged...Sue.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OOOPs I cannot find where you put the article. Can you place a link here that I can follow? Thank YOu.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look very carefully at the first line of my last comment above. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughing hard here...yupper...that sure was a link to the right place...Oh to be blonde and a senior citizen, what a combination.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get very involved here, but as Gwen has suggested I'm sure that someone (not me, I assure you) will cry 'Conflict of interest' -- I know of one self-written article that got deleted last week for instance. And a quick look at it makes me worry about the lack of reliable sources (or sources in general). Gwen, I'd hate to see this go the way the last article went. Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've salted Suzanne Olsson to skirt any recreation before a consensus to do so is reached. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen
Long time no see! :^) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Yes, I saw your username and remembered you! Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. Incidentally, I'm openly (and appropriately) canvassing interested folks to comment, if they'd like, here (if you've not yet). $\sim$ Justmeherenow     14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on articles like that. Looks like it'll be a no consensus keep though ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about speedy decline of Malik Abongo Obama
You declined the speedy deletion of Malik Abongo Obama. However this article is identical to Abongo Obama, an article that was just deleted through an extensive AfD discussion. This would seem to be exactly what the G4 category was created for. Am I missing something? Why are we starting the AfD process all over again when it just concluded yesterday? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is very nettlesome. However, as Davidwr noted when declining yet another speedy tag after I did:


 * WP:SNOW - a snowball's chance in hell if this is speedied there won't be a deletion review. AfD underway with active discussion and multiple !votes to Keep.


 * The only thing you could be missing is that high profile + election year in the states = lots of back and forth and a muddle all the while. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So if this one gets deleted again, can I expect the article to be recreated next week and a new AfD process started yet again? It just seems a real departure from the normal way of doing things. I've never seen the deletion review process get bypassed in favor of a "do-over" (absent any new information).--Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, lots of back and forth and a muddle all the while. Wikipedia can fall to its knees (so to speak) on any high profile article. Give this one time though, I glark it'll wend and wind it's way through and volunteer editors are very cheap ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding user page User:GHcool...
I am copying in Neil, Gwen Gale, and LessHeard vanU, since all three of you commented here. So... what should we do? GHcool has made ut abundantly clear he doesn't want to compromise, so we either decree it acceptable, or an admin takes action. There was already a no-consensus MfD. RfC? Mediation? Any ideas? --Jaysweet (talk)


 * You know, I think those out of context quotes say more about User:GHcool than anyone else. Am I a bitch untowards for sayin' that or what? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, you replied on both your talk page and mine! How confusing! ;p hahaha, anyway, I replied on my talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've canny done it now then. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SAWA Global article rewrite
Hi Gwen

I updated the SAWA Global article in my new sandbox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Celebrateheros/sandbox

Can you please review it and let me know if it is okay. I tried to make it factual w/o any promotion to it.

I am working as getting more external references for it.

thanks Celebrateheros (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Gayle


 * Ok, the article is now written neutrally, which is helpful, but still carries no assertion of importance and no sources supporting any notability for this organization. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re User:Arthur Rubin
I'm not seeing consensus. Best do what you do so well, and act decisively. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Should've been a week though ;) Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Requested moves/Tennis

 * See also: A review of this close

Many thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you close this page? Tennis expert (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was the oldest in the backlog. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What was your reasoning for closing it? Surely (and hopefully) the reasoning wasn't "it was the oldest."  Tennis expert (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I closed the discussion because it had been brought up at AN (Administrators%27_noticeboard) as being backlogged. The discussion on some of these names was over a month old and the consensus against a move was clearly overwhelming. Like it or not, the length of time a discussion like this has remained open does have bearing on when it will be closed. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But you were measuring the wrong kind of consensus, as I tried to demonstrate below. Based on the arguments that WP:UE allows, there was a clear consensus in favor of the moves.  And like it or not, there was virtually no opposition to moving these articles on the individual article discussion pages, had you taken the time to look.  Your action has foreclosed those moves in bulk (which I opposed) or individually (which WP:UE allows).  Tennis expert (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only did you close this page, you moved many tennis articles from diacritics-less names to names with diacritics. On what basis did you do that?  Tennis expert (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly moved some to diacritics-less names, then moved them back to where they were before (names with diacritics). I agree with you that on en.Wikipedia names shouldn't carry diacritics but the consensus was overwhelmingly otherwise. At least there are diacritics-less redirects, through which most English-speaking readers will get to these articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have grossly mischaracterized my position on this. I believe that whether diacritics are used to name a Wikipedia article must be determined case-by-case and depends on English-language usage as demonstrated by reliable sources.  This is what WP:UE requires.  Whether there is consensus for particular article name s to have diacritics is irrelevant.  Instead, the question should be this: What is the consensus opinion about which sources are reliable and what is the consensus opinion on what those reliable sources do about diacritics?  You should not have closed the discussion on any basis at this point, much less "it was the oldest" or "there was consensus to have diacritics."  According to JPG-GR, your closing the discussion has foreclosed the article-by-article decision making that WP:UE plainly requires.  By the way, redirects are not a substitute for naming articles correctly.  Tennis expert (talk)13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most sources in English don't use diacritics on names, hence the short take in my note to you on this talk page. However, I did not close the discussion because I thought consensus was against the notion that "on en.Wikipedia names shouldn't carry diacritics." I closed the discussion because after a month, the consensus of that discussion was overwhelmingly against any move, regardless of what WP:UE has to say about it. I agree it's a worry. Since it seems to be Wikipedia-wide I suggest you try taking this up at WP:VPP. This said, it looks very likely to me that if this kind of consensus carries forth with other article names, WP:UE itself will be changed to show this more internationalized consensus in a UTF-8 enabled world. Lastly, I agree when you say, "By the way, redirects are not a substitute for naming articles correctly." As an editor I disagreed with the outcome of the discussion. Since I thought the outcome was utterly forgone for such a move, I even began moving the articles before I was startled to see the discussion had come out so strongly against the move. Hence, as an admin I closed it following the consensus and put back the articles I'd already moved. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how or why any administrator would knowingly close a discussion after the administrator determined that there was a consensus not allowed by existing Wikipedia policy. Are you aware that there have been two highly contested and ultimately failed attempts to change WP:UE with respect to diacritics in the last month?  All the more reason for administrators not to ignore WP:UE based on a false consensus.  The other avenue you could have followed would have been "no action."  Instead, you chose the most problematic action possible.  Very regrettable.  Tennis expert (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus went against WP:UE because consensus can change. Change often comes in patches and can be messy. The net outcome of my action was to close the discussion with a single line and otherwise not touch a thing, following consensus, about as close to "no action" as one could get and still close the backlogged discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But you didn't have to do anything at the moment. You certainly did not have to say that the decision was "do not move."  That's as close to a flat-out rejection of all 50+ move requests as there could possibly be (and is being interpreted as such by JPG-GR and will be interpreted as such by many others, including administrators who will again threaten blocks and other administrative sanctions).  I am disturbed to hear your belief that WP:UE and other Wikipedia policy can be changed by ignoring them instead of discussing changes to policy openly.  I am even more disturbed to hear your belief that it is OK for administrators to overtly bless these sub silentio changes of policy.  This shouldn't be happening, in my opinion.  Tennis expert (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it you're saying I should have done nothing and left the discussion open but there is no way you were going to get those moves through what you asked for at Requested moves/Tennis and it is highly unlikely any admin would have done a bulk move like that against the consensus which showed up there, whatever the policy says, which is why the discussion went into backlog. There are clearly Wikipedia-wide disagreements over WP:UE which is why I suggest you take this up at WP:VPP. This said, I often close backlogged discussions, which are more often than not in backlog because they're hard to close, so I tend to foresee unhappiness from someone showing up on my talk page in the aftermath. Taking this up on a wider forum is up to you, as it should be. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doing nothing is always better than doing the wrong thing. And your "no way it was gonna happen" belief was premature.  There were admins and at least one bureaucrat who were in favor of applying WP:UE article-by-article, which was my request all along.  Some things that may appear to need closure do not actually need it - yet.  And the way you close backlogged discussions could benefit from some reflection.  If you are closing a discussion simply because it is "old," then use age as the reason.  Don't choose "do not move" if Wikipedia policy does not support such a conclusion.  Otherwise, you are the tool for ignoring policy or changing policy sub silentio.  And I hope you do not like being in that position.  By the way, thanks for pegging me as just another unhappy customer.  That's really constructive.  Next time, would you please just give me your toll-free phone number with endless deadend "press this" options next time?  That would be easier.  P.S. I have taken this issue to a higher forum - I have formally requested an independent review of your decision.  Cheers.  Tennis expert (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I think you're "just another unhappy customer." I said "...they're hard to close, so I tend to foresee unhappiness from someone showing up on my talk page in the aftermath." The length at which I've gone to talk about this with you should show I think your worries are meaningful. Moreover, I was unhappy about the outcome when I closed the discussion and I'm unhappy about it now. I closed the discussion because the consensus was overwhelmingly against a move and was clearly not going to change from that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in Gwen (I still have your talk page on my Watchlist from the GHcool thingy, which BTW is about to start heating up over at WP:AN), but I was aware of the Tennis page move discussion due to an earlier Wikiquette alert, and I'd just like to amplify what Gwen just said about how the issue was just not going to be resolved there. When I looked into that discussion, I did some research to try and locate relevant policies -- and found that the exact same issue had been discussed multiple times on a community-wide basis, and never achieved consensus either way.  The Tennis discussion wasn't going anywhere, which is too bad, but it is the reality.  --Jaysweet (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iamthe7DeadlySins...
...is beckoning you to his talk page. =) –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I only count three admins...
I count you, Neil, and LessHeard vanU. I wasn't sure if you miscounted, or if there is somebody else, or if you forgot I am not an admin. I don't want to come off as pretending I am something I am not :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Yep, thanks, I fixed it, forgot I'd commented in that first thread :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Jan Abas article
Dear Gwen

Can you please reinstate the Jan Abas page that you deleted - he really merits mention and is a master of maths and art

I was surprised it was deleted so quickly even after I had put a hangon on


 * Johnbibby (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehi (group)
"Stern believed that the Jewish population of Palestine should fight, rather than support, the British in the War, and that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals." --> this is not part of the dispute, it's not in the lead. It's in the paragraph after the lead. terroristic should change to a different word like paramilitary. Can you change it please, because it's WP:WTA, not referenced nor part of the disput. Amoruso (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you strike out ( text to strike out ) the bit about a "vandal" I'll have a look at the talk page to see if there is a consensus for this edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A party of the other side has agreed to this change . I don't know if Nisihdani will be adamant, but both sides now agree, and it's clearly a consensus. We're talking about a clear violation of WP:WTA and this should be changed, it's not part of the dispute. It should change to "militant methods" like most articles. Can you do so please? Amoruso (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I think this goes a long way to calm things down. The sporadic use of the word "terrorist" was too much and this was acknowledged by the other party. It wasn't part of the dispute of course. The dispute was about the lead. The lead word phrasing is more tricky but I won't RV again on the matter. I will not fight over it whether the article is locked or not I won't revert. I do honestly believe that I think consensus can be reached about the lead too. Amoruso (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, I don't understand this :. At the contrary of what Amoruso says, Shabbaz didn't support the change (???). And it has nothing to do with the qualification of a party by another party as terrorist/freedom fighter. Lehi (itself) said it defended terrorism as a way to free the country. This is well known. Seeing the discussion, I brought a source for that. But Nishidani had already brought another one. Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee, this is not true. Shabbaz explicitly endorsed the correction here . It was a violation of WP:WTA and the article can't be shown in this way. It's a serious violation. The claim that Lehi definied itself as terroristic is not true. And even if it did, the article wasn't phrased that way, and it wasn't Stern at all. The issue of whether "Lehi defined itself" as terroristic is discussed already in the section "Goals and Methods". Writing the word "terroristic" sporadically in the article is not allowed. Amoruso (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is what they did in the review they published in 1943-44.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take this to the article talk page :) Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

please reinstate the Phoebus Design Automation page

 * Also Phoebus design automation

Dear Gwen

Can you please reinstate the Phoebus Design Automation page that you deleted.

I was surprised it was deleted so quickly even after I had put a hangon on tag and I was in the middle of puting what that company has done to the industry to deserve a mention.

Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Mr. Police - Like I said I was in the middle of editting of that page and more time to save my effort would have been appreciated?

How long have you been policing Wikipedia, sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebusda (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you carefully read this page? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

urrgggaaahhh - Did you look at this page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azuro" OR this one "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altos_Design_Automation". Can you share the difference between these ones and the Phoebus Design Automation.


 * See WP:WAX, also WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG - either you are a teenager and "master of annoyance". Killing people without water in matter of seconds. I'm leaving you on somebody else to teach you a lesson and saving my time. Good luck buddy.


 * You never did tell me if you read this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did and I opine that it must be deleted immediately. ;)


 * Would you like me to put a copy of the deleted article into your userspace, where you might work on it a bit before trying again? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now - you are making some sense. Please do so, and I'd advocate that author must be given at least an hour to finish the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebusda (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, your username is not acceptable. I want to help you, but please open a new account with a neutral name which doesn't give away straight off that the only reason you're here is to promote your company. Then please come back to this page and let me know you've done this (remember to sign your post with four tildes ~ ). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user over his name. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooner you than me then, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jigsaw
Hi

you deleted Jigsaw two days ago with ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: make way for article), but no new article has been forthcoming. Presumably someone was going to do it but forgot about it. Do you know what was intended - perhaps a move of another jigsaw puzzle to this location? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Barryob put up the CSD tag, which said it was to make way for a page move. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Hardie deletion
I don't understand why the article for Sebastian Hardie was deleted?

I believe it was an important inclusion because they were a highly regarded Progressive Rock band from Australia. When I created the article I had done a lot of research into this band. The band worked with John O Keefe

Regards kraftneu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftneu (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Skull & Serpent
Deleting Skull & Serpent was incorrect. >>>A two year old deletion discussion is not relevant. For example, one of those posts stated that there were too few Google hits on the name--but that was two years ago, and there are many more hits now. >>>It makes a perfectly legitimate stub as it was left. Henry Bacon is a noted architect. It can be expanded if left alone for a bit.>>>The article does fit in with the series on college secret societies. So its part of a set.>>>I read your page, it doesn't apply don't tell me to read it.>>>Any Wikipedia policy that states that a two year old deletion discussion created by ten posters must be preserved inviolate is ridiculous.OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you carefully read the link at the top of this page you'd understand why the CSD G4 was approved, even after 2 years. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the link at the top of the page as I had already said. Wandering around wikipedia doing whatever you like to other people's articles and then telling them to drudge through your own prose for clues to why you do what you do is not endearing behavior. If you read your page, you would find there is nothing there about "G4". As a matter of fact, talking to people in code is not especially useful, either. Nothing you have said addresses any of the points I have raised. it's still a valid stub, it's still a part of a larger set of articles. OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you carefully read the link at the top of this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daytona Post
Gwen You deleted The Daytona Post and gave a "7" cryptic explanation that it is not "notable". I have read the wikis on "notable" and the article does certainly meet them. The online newspaper is non profit, non commercial. It is a watchdog widely read in the Daytona Beach area. Has been quoted by even CNN and over 50 other news sites. What was the reason of its deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.226.148 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, Please let me know the actual reason, I read your boilerplate and had already checked the page you indicate. There are already references to CNN in the article. Should this have been a stub instead?

Also, please let me have the deleted code so I can rewrite. It took a long time to figure out the codes and it was deleted before I could copy the draft. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.226.148 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said the topic was not "notable." Gwen Gale (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Max Keiser Article
Hi,

I noticed that the article about Max Keiser has been deleted.

As a journalist for Al Jazeera English, blogger for the Huffington Post and co-founder of the Hollywood Stock Exchange, Mr. Keiser does have the notability required to have a Wikipedia article.

I am aware and sensitive to the fact that the deletion was done following established practices. That being said, I was hoping to receive some pointers on how to make this a stronger and lasting article.

Thanks for your assistance.

Regards,

Jonpare (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen,

Not as daunting as you might claim it to be. I just fail to understand how it met the criterion for speedy deletion.

Does Mr. Keiser lack notability? I provided evidence that he doesn't and can provide more if necessary.

Was there somehow something that was judged to be commercial advertising? I don't believe so but if it is the case, I would be more than happy to oblige if I can be given a little guidance.

Was there a copyright violation? No. The picture of Mr. Keiser is under a Creative Commons license.

Was there any vandalism? Absolutely not.

Forgive me if I'm being dense. After reading your page (more than once), I still fail to comprehend how this article matched the criterion for speedy deletion. I would be grateful if I could have the article back and given the opportunity to improve it.

Best regards,

Jonpare (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted through an AfD last year and nothing seems to have changed. Second, the article makes no assertion of importance. Either lack would be enough for speedy deletion. You also might want to have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, along with this take on single purpose accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Pages
Hi

I just submitted a couple of pages describing a an XML development tool, and the pages got deleted. The reason given was advertising, however other products in the same market place have there own pages. Can you tell me what makes my pages ads and there's content so I can address the issues.

Thanks for your time

Regards Simon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Spy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altova http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_XML_Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by SprottS (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Hi I've read through the page you suggested, but I'm still unclear what distinguishes the posts I added from say XML Spy. If you could let me know what issues are I can look at sorting things out. Thanks Simon SprottS (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Other articles have nothing to do with it (see WP:WAX) but even so XML Spy is notable and makes a very strong assertion of its importance in the article lead. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, OK XML Studio is not as notable as say XML Spy, but we have a freeware edition used by many universities, and about 40,000s users, so its on a par with oxygen, and there are certainly more independent references to it than say EditiX and Conglomerate XML editor. What do we need to do to get a page published? Do we need to make the page look more like EditiX (ie add a lot more information) or cite some independent reference? Regards Simon. SprottS (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try making those assertions in the opening paragraph and cite some independent references. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ShiVa game engine page deleted
Hi, could you please tell me why you deleted ShiVa's page and not unity for example... Advertise, price, license ... It's really important for us to have this page... please give me a way to keep this page. Regards, Stonetrip —Preceding unsigned comment added by StonetripSupport (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this answer is not good for me, I know this page seems to be an advertising page and in some ways it is but, if you delete this page you also have to delete all page like mine, as i said, unity, garage game and others. If i had to change some things like price and others I'm okay but without a good answer i'm not. this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_engine refers some commercial engine and we need to be on, also we need a wiki page for our engine because we are in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines ... So please, give me a good answer. Regards.StonetripSupport (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:WAX, also WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it's just to know why shiva and not them. I write my page to match with others commercial game engine descriptions, so ok it's commercial... i can remove license, price etc... just tell me what to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StonetripSupport (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained in WP:WAX other articles have nothing to do with this. Moreover, following WP:COI you shouldn't be writing about your own company here to begin with and if you do, make sure you understand the policies thoroughly enough that you've written an article which breezes by this kind of thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm considering taking that Unity article to AfD ;-) <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What was the wlink for that one? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the old conundrum: "Are 5-10 minutes of my life worth getting rid of this more or less harmless but un-encyclopedic pitch?" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So far, I'm on the "no" side of it, just because 1) I'm supposed to be working and 2) I'm lazy. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, if it was open source and free I'd be less inclined (but then, it would likely be highly notable as an IT topic). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I need help
Hi Gwen Gale. I've recently revived an article that is about an American rapper who goes by the stage name of Diamond see here Diamond (rapper). The article was created before but was not about the female rapper that was once apart of the rap group Crime Mob. She has gone off on a solo career and has already had the release of a Mixtape. Her situation is similar to that of Beyonce Knowles or Kelly Rowland. Both were memebers of Destiny's Child, but moved on to solo careers. I'm not sure how to show that the article meets standards and that the person has notability. Thank YouMcelite (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Source that and she'll have an article on en.Wikipedia (at least until someone calls an AfD). See WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen. I do have this source. It's from an interview done by AllHipHop.com which it specifically states that she has decided to go solo and has released a mixtape which has done well. See here:|Diamond Leaves Crime Mob:Diamond Interview.Mcelite (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how that source is cited 4 times in the article... very carefully read the red-bordered prod tag at the top of the article and do what you think is fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to to anything on Lehi page
I opened a discussion on talk page, got no response or objection, then after waiting 24 hours I went and edited Lehi page - but someone who was not involved in the disscutions did a revision to my edit - no exlanation.

The sentenace I have removed, after waiting for 24 hour of response -was removed anyway by some mediator, prior to your latest blocking - and the reason you have blocked that page.

In addition I have attached a reference supporting it (in the additional sentance - further deeper with in the article)

I do'nt understand - does somebody own this page ? I am not allowed to do anything in there - despite the fact that though I removed the sentance that was the reason for your blocking the page (and did not exist up untill latley)- and depite the bad behavour - I have waitwd 24 hours for a response from the one who conducted this bad behavour?

please help me, I don't know what to do ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the background on this, please wait, someone may very likely revert back to your edit. Let's see if consensus is showing up. I'm watching the page closely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ludwigs2
Hi, that user's unblock request could use your review. It appears to me that the block has served its purpose and can be lifted. Best, <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked for further input at ANI, please stand by. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend an immediate unblocking. See Ludwigs talk page. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> /  talk  17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help if you'd say that here and thanks for speaking up. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm out for 20 minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mary Hanley Catholic Elementary School
Hello, just to let you know I have recreated the above title you G4 speedy deleted as a redirect to a school district as doing so is a long standing precedent with school articles. I have also fixed up the histories as they were spread out between two titles, I have left them undeleted for non-admin reference. I have retained your page protection through adding full protection, please let me know if there are any issues with this I am not aware of. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None, a redirect's spot on the thing. Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A little help (and time) please..... Re Robert K. Hall

 * Robert Hall (National Guard Officer)

Hi Gwen! A few years ago I started a page for William T. Innes, which was promptly deleted for notority. I tried again (knowing he was important) and did a better job,,,,,,,,not a good job but better. The new subject was allowed to stand long enough that other members added to and improved the story, with better refs, better wiki skills, and better writing. The page has had over 500 edits, and I am proud to have started it.

Robert K. Hall was, for one night, a hero. The night produced two Medals of Honor (not for Hall), and a never equiled 5th Navy Cross for Puller. Hall's decision to cede command of his men to a Marine (Puller), if even for just a few hours, was a selfless act in leadership that turned out to be the right decision. It was a case study, when I attended Command and General Staff College many years ago. Robert Hall (not Robert K. Hall) is already mentioned in the Guadalcanal article, and it cried out for a link. I found the "K" in my search of 164th Infantry stories.

Who was this guy? He is probably long dead, so this is not some ploy to get him undeserved notority. I'll do more research, but I'll probably never do enough, alone, to make this a decent article. If we let it stand, it is my hope that other members of the community can improve it over time.

Best regards Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmilesmmr (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, I declined the proposed speedy deletion of this article. Sources would be overwhelmingly helpful. Please carefully read all of the red-bordered proposed deletion tag at the top of the article and do as you see fit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)