User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Jayeba and "Entertainment Online"

Hello! I reviewed the unblock request of User:Jayeba and I unblocked him. I don't see any evidence of spamming -- the editor was posting a legitimate link to an interview that the actress Maureen McCormick did in 2007 with "Entertainment Online," which is a major U.S. television news program that covers the entertainment industry. Please allow this editor to add the link to the article -- he is not vandalizing Wikipedia. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken and either way, should have spoken with me first. See Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews, WP:SPAM and WP:EL along with the user's contrib history, which had to do only with spamming external links and WP:BLP straying text into that single article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am mistaken -- it is "Entertainment Tonight Online" and not "Entertainment Online." I also reviewed the editor's history and I watched the link -- which I immediately recognized (I remembered seeing that interview on TV when it aired in 2007). This was clearly an "unambiguous error," as spelled out in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews, which is why there was no pre-notification. And there is no spam, as there is no evidence that the editor is associated with the web site in question or trying to promote it (certainly not with a two-year-old interview of a one-time TV star). And as someone who got into an editing war by constantly reverting Jayeba, you should have alerted a neutral admin. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We wholly disagree. I warned the editor. Saying I was edit warring by removing linkspam placed by an SPA which was also wantonly straying from WP:BLP is not only deeply mistaken, but edges on personal attack. Lastly, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews says nothing about "pre-notification" of unblocks. Please stop making up policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken with the above, see also the en.Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamar Discussion Page

In the Chamar discussion page; the other user has once again launched a personal attack on me AND he has also deleted some of the text that I have provided.

Can you please revert the text and notify Ravinder121 once again the respond to the article and not launch personal attacks. Bal537 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

I've blocked User:Ravinder121 24 hours for making personal attacks and have tweaked the section title, which he misunderstood, owing to your own sloppiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

refactoring

Please stop refactoring Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard, your edits make the threads highly misleading, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I stongly disagree. It was my fault that a secondary topic (about law enforcement laxity) was introduced into the thread about the maps. I wished to rectify my own error by placing my badly-formatted text and the replies it had generated under a proper topic heading. No wwords were changed, nor was any context changed -- the topic was simply split, as it should have been in the first place. This is not "refactoring." It is called cleanup for clarity of discussion, and it is certainly permissible. I find your charge that what i did made the threads "highly misleading" to be rude, and certainly not an assumption of good faith. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, your refactoring changed the sequence of posts. Simply add to or strike out from your own posts as you wish. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the date order of the posts became incorrect, but if that was the issue, it was easy enough to correct.

Note that you allow your own self to edit talk pages, for in the section immediately above you note that you have "have tweaked the section title, which he misunderstood, owing to your own sloppiness." You did that so that the record would be clear.

You were not accused of "refactoring" nor did you call what you did "refactoring."

Please be as polite and gracious to me as you are to yourself. It will serve you a lot better in this multi-user environment than pushing people around. You're an admin, doing a job. I'm an editor, doing a job. Your admin role requires neutrality, something you are obviously lacking, since what i did was "tweaking" (much like your "tweaking" on the aforementioned page, for the sake of clarity) and it was nether "refactoring" (look up the meaning of the word) nor was it "misleading."

Your rudeness makes Wikipedia volunteer work onerous and unpleasant.

Good day. catherine yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your refactoring changed the sequence and flow of posts and was hence misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Actions like these help to stave off drama. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_29#Blood_of_Angels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_28#Blood_of_Angels. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Without citations to reliable sources carrying critical commentary on either the album or the album cover, the image cannot be carried on en.Wikipedia under fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your DRV links to neither a file nor an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was merged as I said. The sources are now all included in the merged article at Michelle Belanger and some of the sources also supporting can be found on the Nox Arcana article. All of the sources are relieable and have already gone through scrutiny. The image file was deleted by you, so obviously there's no link to that. I followed DRV instructions. Please look at the history of Blood of Angels (without the redirect). I'm unsure how to get to the history after the merge and redirect was done. Perhaps the history can be found if the redirect from Blood of Angels to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels is removed. Also, you need to consider the policy at WP:Music#Albums which clearly supports having an album article. The requirement to be met is not of sources but of notability of the band, for which there are a good number of reliable sources (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Post, Fangoria, Sideline, TV shows, and some international publications). Fair use is covered if the original album page Blood of Angels is undeleted. Also, the old article probably doesn't have all the newer cites that the merged one does, but I can easily copy cites from the merges into the undeleted article. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, three links which may help you.

• Last whole version of the article Blood Angel (now an RD to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels)
• article history
• 

Now, my take:

Many editors are likely to think the album Blood of Angels doesn't quite meet the en.Wikipedia notability threshold put forth at Wikipedia:Music#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs, because the topic is indeed on the edge of that threshold. There has been a wee bit of independent coverage, but that coverage may not be taken as significant by experienced editors. Hence the article was redirected to a section of the article Michelle Belanger, which is a notable BLP topic.

The kerfluffle now is mostly over the image. en.Wikipedia has a very stern policy on non-free images. The pith is, non-free images are a big drag on a free content site like this. So long as it stays non-free, the only way that image can be uploaded to en.Wikipedia is through Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images as cover art, but only if in the context of critical commentary of that item.

The catch is, so far, there seems to be no cited critical commentary which is verifiable and independently sourced, only publicity and verifiable authorship, which isn't at all the same thing. Moreover, if there were, it is highly likely the album would still have its own stand alone article. So on en.Wikipedia, the editorial outcome is, it's unlikely that a non-free image of a cover will wind up in an article which is not about the work itself.

If the image were free (say, GNU or CC), it could be put at Michelle Belanger with no worries at all, since that topic is notable and there would be no fair use worries to deal with.

So long as the image is non-free, carrying it on en.Wikipedia could easily be a copyright violation, for the reasons I've written above. Sourced publicity and verifiable authorship aren't enough.

I hope this helps you understand what has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think...

...it's time to protect Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard?  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, thanks for bringing it up, done. By the bye, please feel free to thoroughly clean up the article as you see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have tried, but they have been swept away like sand in the ocean surf. I'll let it sit for a few days. I've learned that it's easier that way.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, I must say. Let's let other experienced editors weigh in, then come back to it later. Meanwhile, as I said on the talk page, if this carries on even with auto-confirmed editors, I'll fully protect it from editing and let everyone sort it out on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

wrt BLP and infoboxes

I'd never revert you in a million years, but I'm curious about the WP:BLP guidelines being cited for removal of infoboxes. A sidebar is just a means of conveying information, isn't it? Can't they be edited to remove any conceivable vio of BLP? ↜Just M E here , now 18:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The info boxes spun up into sweeping PoVs which were not wholly supported by the sources. Moreover, infoboxes tend to narrow PoV in unforeseen and perhaps harmful ways. Wait for the sources to grow on this topic before thinking about infoboxes. Please stick to way heedfully sourced text for now and either way, infoboxes (and their assertions) should only be added by straightforward consensus on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are indeed a way to highlight basic factual information from the text. If what was is being highlighted through their use tended toward the POV, I'll readd the box solely for Jaycee, minus any item conceivable to be thought as "interpretive." Fair? ↜Just M E here , now 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the birth date, kidnapping date and found date, I can't think of anything which could come close to verifiable neutrality under WP:BLP in an "authoritative narrative" infobox. Please wait. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaycee Dugard
Born	Jaycee Lee Dugard (1980-05-03) May 3, 1980 Garden Grove, California
Nationality	American
Children	Two daughters Born c. 1994, c. 1998
Parent	Mother: Terry Probyn
Relatives	Stepfather: Carl Probyn

Your edit, with its rationale of BLP, is nonsensical and indeed itself violates WP:Preserve. ("Mother" is POV? birthplace? home town? nationality? Reeeally?) A lot of WPdian's have a wholesale aversion to infoboxes, Gwen; and IMO it would've been more honest with yourself to simply say so. ↜Just M E here , now 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacking me will get you nowhere. Rather, gather consensus on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)