User talk:Gwen Gale

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

Anna Anderson

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

---

I have requested third-party input at WP:AN, but I think discussion should be retained at Talk:Anna Anderson. DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The block you made should likely be looked at, too, so that might help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I must state that DrKiernan has been doing his very best to keep edit wars away from the Anna Anderson page through encouraging discussion rather than hasty alteration. It has been a very wise way to go considering the huge problems that have occurred on the page in recent years. It has also largely worked. Finneganw 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Going by the text of the article, I don't agree. The article is unencyclopedic and almost wholly lacking, to the level of misleading readers. I've said more about this on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome to your POV which is not shared by other edtors at Anna Anderson. Would you please take part in discussion as DrKiernan has requested? You are a newcomer to the Anna Anderson page and have been made welcome. I would like to think you would be good enough to discuss changes as requested by DrKiernan. Also if I happen per chance to leave something out in signing off it is not intentional. Thank you for your concern. By the way the nonsense being touted around that Aggiebean and I are one and the same is completely unfounded and quite frankly ridiculous. We are not even on the same continent or hemisphere! Finneganw 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, GG, I love what you're doing and I hope you keep at it, you are correct about this silly article. Now, say, isn't this poster (above me) by finneganw the one and same who Kiernan blocked? Who is now posting again under the "red" signature? Or did I miss something? Like did I miss maybe one editor got pilloried and gagged, while another got a slap on the wrist? GG, what do you say? Is this the fair, forget-the-past peace you hoped to attain?75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Am slipping back in to ask something. I have seen evidence that finneganw is a sock puppet which is offensive enough (but I will not make that accusation). So, I see that finneganw is also laughing at the rules, laughing at Kiernan, mocking rules that were fairly imposed. Perhaps I haven't a leg to stand on; here it goes anyway: I'd like to see finneganw banned from the subject for a while. Let us see what user aggiebean does in that event. Fair's fair! Or do WikiAdmins not consistently enforce their own rules? GG, I ask you on the level.75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I see is far too much emotion (anger, one way or another) from almost everyone. Worries abound, I don't see much at all that's encyclopedic about either the article or the talk page threads. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• GG, you are right--and that is what I have also been saying for a while now. Don't you see, I CHANGED as an editor and wanted to see a correct encyclopedic version of Anna Anderson. I wanted it because the stories of Princess Anastasia's survival meant something to me and my family for private reasons! I was a supporter of Anna Anderson, but those loudmouthed editors helped me see the truth. When I went back to help them, look what they did to me. I am not dredging up anything, but injustice that is simply ignored, "bygones" language, that is too much to ask. Be fair or be silent, that is the lesson to be learned from that talk page. But I see the unfairest of all continue to run rough-shod. Finally, GG, please don't get into the ring with Kiernan. He's done hard work there, he outlined an excellent article. Please don't change his hard work with frivolous things like the hundreds of Anastasias type of thing. They'll roast you for that, as a friend I warn you!75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries IP, I shan't be roasted. One last time, please don't talk to me about what's happened before, I don't care, because it won't help the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Acknowledged. It was unfair of me to think I might be able to "talk to" you. Now perhaps this: you are, in fact, doing a tiny bit of trampling in the wording of your proposed version. The entry still says there were hundreds of phony Anastasias. That is unnecessary. It is the kind of thing that sets those people off, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry. That is only point 1; there are a few other points. But not now....75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)--I edited a few typos and added some words.75.21.121.7 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much emotion, too boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• GG, listen, if you are thinking what I have been thinking for 2 months...why hasn't this article been proposed (or whatever you call it) for deletion? As you say, and I have said this countless times, it is too contentious a subject. Wikipedia will never get it right, because people either have immobilized POVs or they are like you and become bored. No one cares about this entry except a few of us. Propose it for deletion and everyone can lose this obsession.75.21.121.80 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll never be deleted because the topic is highly notable. Lots of articles about notable topics here are a mess in sundry ways, even some of the highest traffic ones, but most do get more helpful with time, as will this one. If I can't help out now (not saying I can't), soon or later, someone will. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dear GG, with a hopefulness I really cherish! Hopefully you're right. Don't stop working there. But I disagree with one point: notability is highly subjective here. What IS notable about Anna Anderson? Everything that is notable about her as a fraud, will be argued off the page. Therefore, what you think hopefully, is, in reality, a kind of everyone's-sick-and-tired mediocrity. Then the mediocrity is never challenged. Resolved, yes. Good encyclopedic entry? No ways. It would be burdensome to refer you to example pages, but I think you take my point? And to be more clear: I left out the idea that deletion of the page may chase 'em all away, and it could be re-proposed by responsible editors. Still, Godspeed in your hopefulness.76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

She was a highly notable scammer (although one must acknowledge she may have been so loopy, she didn't have a grip on what she was doing). Have you read WP:Notability and WP:Biography? The article however is highly unencyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Let me just respond quickly, I don't really bother reading the wikicommunist manifesto. Admins break it as often as editors. Plus, in reality you are preaching to the choir here...she IS notable, jeez, that is my point. And the notability deserves accurate, unbiased representation. Have you read the talk page archives?76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)--OH I left out something: several editors over the months have said no one cares about Anna Anderson entry here. I cannot verify that statement or attitude, it's at the talk page. But when does notability trump ennui? You see, for many, the notability is Princess Anastasia's, NOT Anna's, because nearly everyone hoped rather than believed she was Princess Anastasia. That is information I can verifiably source for you upon request.76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what's been happening. Meanwhile, if you won't read the policy pages of this privately owned website, we have nothing to talk about anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord, GG, I'VE READ THEM, and read them and many many others! Do you actually dare to pretend admins as well as editors get away with ignoring "policy"? Failing enterprise indeed! Whereas you have not read the talk page history for an appropriate appreciation of the trouble. Ain't that the way it's supposed to work?76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Bye IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Local notability

Hi again,

can you clarify for me the requirements for notability when adding content to an article about a small town such as Charlbury. I questioned whether the infrequent bus service and the local branch of the WI were really worthy of inclusion but others felt that they should be included.

The references provided for the additions are mostly to the subjects own website rather than some independent source. My concern with such additions is the article sprawl that develops with everybody adding their own tenuous connection - along with a link to their website of course.

The truth probably lies somewhere between WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:LOCAL, WP:TOWN perhaps with a brief detour via WP:ROTM but, as is so often the case, there seems to be so many ifs and buts that I end up non the wiser. As ever, your thoughts will be most valued . Lame Name (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all that. Although more or less any human settlement is in itself taken as notable on en.Wikipedia, aside from showing that it's indeed a human settlement and giving readers some broad, encyclopedic notion about it, anything else having to do with the topic should be at least regionally notable, which is to say, not notable only within that spot. Say, a bus schedule would be notable if it were an odd one (such as one bus a week coming through the village and only stopping if the village hall is flying a green flag, a tradition dating back to 1936, or 500 a day coming through an outlying village of only 800 because it's the birthplace of a Britain's Got Talent winner). Also, WP:RS has a lot of sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Hi. Since reading and contributing to the discussion this afternoon, I had been trying to put into words my thoughts about the potential impact on Wikipedia. Personally I think it's is an unproductive.

I just wanted to say that your jump the shark analogy hits the nail on the head very well! leaky_caldron (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As a one-off, I think it's ok. If this grows into say, a monthly stunt, yeah, it'll be Fonzie on water skis. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New Miss Pakistan is Ayesha Gilani

Ayesha Gilani is the new Miss Pakistan World Please add that in the article that you have created. Thanks Sonisona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.8.216 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't create that article, I dealt with it by beginning the article again, drawing the text only from reliable and independent sources speaking of which, one would need to be cited before putting something like that in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

so much for closed editing?

Now and then I check up on Citizendium. So far I've been underwhelmed, other than to say the writing maybe tends to be slicker than at en.Wikipedia and there are fewer spelling mistakes. The Cz article on Abraham Lincoln is even worse than the one here, which is startlingly misleading (owing to the flawed sources which are nonetheless the most widely published and from which both articles are drawn). Meanwhile, Citizendium still doesn't even have a stub on AE. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal -- yes, you are named as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I must say I cracked up when I saw it, meanwhile someone beat me to blocking FH indef for that wholly beyond the pale, time wasting breach of good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying not to make jokes and innuendo about being those other people all day... but if you can't laugh at yourselfs... Verbal chat 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to rub it in and I don't know why FH has done all this, but I guess it's ok to hint that the CU made me laugh. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, see the sock-puppets talking to each other :P --Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? Why wasn't I listed? bah. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia a microcosm of the real World

I just saw your comment on the global warming talk page, citing an article in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ has been an outlet for sceptics for quite some time now. This reminds me of editing Wikipedia in general. Sometimes you have people who don't agree with a consensus about how to edit an article and create a POV fork. The people sceptical of anthropogenic global warming are doing something similar in the real world.

The normal procedure for scientific discussions is via publishing in peer reviewed journals. Very few sceptics actually submit articles to peer reviewed journals. Instead, they directly take their argument to the lay public, bypassing scientific peer review. This then creates a false perception of a large dissent in the scientific community about global warming. Count Iblis (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

With most (but not quite all) peer reviewed journals, the peers are government funded scientists (university, scientific agency and military employees along with grant feeders). Since this money comes mostly from utterly scamming, lying politicians of all stripes, the latter get back mostly what they want to hear. Degreed scientists have mortgages to pay, kids to feed, like anyone else. Peer review has always had its flaws, but the moral hazards seen today are overwhelming. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would then have to lead to articles being unfairly rejected. The sceptics would complain about biased referee reports. But that's not what we are seeing. When in rare cases this does happen, you do get angry reactions, like e.g.

this or

this or

like this paper rejected by Nature. The author has included the referee report in the updated verion of this preprint and as you can read, he was not pleased. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The papers aren't being submitted, for fear of losing employment, promotion, grants, moreover when some politicians and bureaucrats are calling for the criminalization of publishing any speech which doesn't tow the government line. Either way, it's easy to follow the money and there is meaningful dissent. Time will likely out all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again

[1] Apparently, your efforts to explain what is and what is not vandalism haven't yet reached a satisfactory effect. Ninguém (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think his/her efforts to stop edit-warring between you and me "haven't yet reached a satisfactory effect". That's because you keep following my edits, or checking my contributions page to know what I am doing or what I am not doing at Wikipedia. Unfortunetly, I'm too busy to check other users's contributions pages, I have better things to do with my life, and when I'm in Wikipedia I read articles, I do not read contributions page of other users.

I want to be far from this "Ninguém", I do not have time to play this game anymore. I know this user won't stop finding ways to rise news edit-warrings or discussions, because he's not stoping until somebody block me. That's why I'm not making part of this trouble.Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems edit-warring is back

Long time no see. Unfortunetly, I am here once again to say user "Ninguém" is once again edit-warring my edits. Funny, I have been out of Wikipedia for some days (too busy) and while I was out, user "Ninguém" almost did not post anything in Wikipedia. Now that I am returning, the user seems to be once again active in Wikipedia. It's incredible how fast he is able to edit an article I have recnetly edited. In a few minutes, he's there posting or reverting something. When I am not posting in Wikipedia, he is not posting too.

I think it's clear the other user follows my edits. It's also funny an user who claimed to not to be associate with Wikipedia, who seemed to be leaving the projective, is once again active (only because I am returning). With hundreds of articles in Wikipedia, it seems the other users is only interested in the articles I recently posted. This is really strange. I try to be far from the other user, but it's impossible because he follows me and spends hours a day checking my recent edits. Please, do something aboout. It cannot keep this way. Opinoso (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When your blocks are up, I think you two should stay away from each other altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh

I, uh, I've struck out your recent !vote - you had already !voted - #10. It pained me to do it, too, because Skomorokh needs all the support they can get ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering why I hadn't seen that RfA earlier :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans

Good bold action. 'Nuff said. --Cerejota (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

If you think archiving our exchanges was a good idea, bully for you...your talk page, not mine. But do not disgrace yourself with the cowardly action of removing my final comment posted there just before you conveniently archived it. You forget, I can unarchive it whenever I wish. Unless you get your guard dog to come after me again.75.21.122.118 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)