User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

speedy-deletion of Joseph Armitage Robinson

When you have a minute, would you please review your decision to speedy-delete the Joseph Armitage Robinson page? I'm not sure that the biography would survive an AfD discussion but being "Dean of Westminster" and "a renowned scholar" with an actual biography is at least an assertion of notability. This page didn't really qualify under case A7. I suspect that it's going to land at Deletion review if it stays speedied. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, in looking it over again (after I got that odd DRV notice a couple of threads up), I almost restored and sent it to AfD, so I'm gonna do that now, thanks for the nudge. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it more, it appears that you relied on the csd tag applied by user:Nuttah. I noticed that this user has applied a large number of deletion tags to articles, the vast majority of which have been summarily removed. That user seems to be having trouble understanding Wikipedia's admittedly byzantine inclusion criteria. Thanks for reviewing it. Rossami (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember deleting this because it took me some time to do so and I almost declined the speedy, way borderline and harmlessly so. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Donna Ricco

Hello

We posted an entry for American designer Donna Ricco. We work for her company and this entry was reviewed, edited and approved by her and all of the information is accurate. Could you please advise as to why it was deleted? And what we need to do to get it re-posted? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaricco (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article looks ok now. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

can you please watch this page? (Irgun)

New difficulties arose, with your exprience needed.

Thank you.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm watching the page and have looked at the talk page. Although I don't like the "terrorist" categories (since, broadly put, anyone can call anyone else a terrorist and the label is always overwhelmingly negative), if the New York Times and sundry news orgs called them terrorists it is highly unlikely you'll be able to keep this group out of that category set. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ThanX for watching, and your commants. I've detailed the problematic POV of this, since they were never designed as such (and makes the case of "terror" argumentive and disputed POV in contradictory to NPOV policy). The Hebrew wikipedia along with 18 (out 22 wiki's various languages website) didn't categorize them as such, which gives you a glimpse of what people think of the group (not just me), that have attacked only armed forces, not a defenition of "terror" by far, and no NPOV for policy for sure. They are considered even less "Extrime" then Lehi.

2 contradictory polices on this specific case to be resolved. I belive they put NPOV and other policies so someone would not "rape" wiki's policy of "refer as terror" to promote his own adjenda, in cases where it does not make any sense, like if the group was not even designed as such (different from Lehi where the argument itself was weather they were designed or not as such, here there is not a quesion about it)

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what other Wikipedias do or don't do. Short of deleting all of the terrorist categories (which won't happen anytime soon) there is no way to keep groups like this out of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete "terror" categories on wiki. Terrorist who kill women and children should be there. The only thing is you have other wiki's policies - like NPOV, and in this case they have attacked an armed forces (and were not even designed as such)- makes it quit an argumentive "terror" POV and not a NPOV policy. This is why this specific case, you need to resolve the problem of 2 contredictory policies.

one say : "refered as terror" (they were not designed as such - how can the policy be pointing at them? or is someoe "raping" the policy?)

second NPOV: They were not designed and have attacked (armed) soldiars - surly an argumentive POV (not to talk about the general POV of 18 wikis langugas website that disagree on the point of category:terror - including in Arabic)

I've offered a compremise "Militant Group" category - despite the fact that I don't agree (it hides behind words to describe a terror group on wiki) - yet avoids the woeding of it. I thought it was the only way out - solving the 2 contradictory policies.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may say they were not terrorists, but that's your own original research. As I have said, if reliable sources have called them terrorists (never mind who they attacked or didn't attack), it is highly unlikely you will be able to argue that this group doesn't belong in a terrorist category. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As Gwen points out, the easiest way to avoid any POV issue with the designation of terrorist is to represent what the sources term them. Beam 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watch list as well, to help out! Beam 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Iron man 2

thank you for the prompt response to the CSD. Please see the AN/I report here about that editor, if you could? ThuranX (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to double tag you) Also, see Talk:Iron_man_2_(film), which it seems he created as you deleted the mainspace article. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if he keeps at it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iamthe7DeadlySins

You are being beckoned =) –xeno (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eek! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Camp calleva

I tried to write the article as objectively as possible, but I do see some areas were something could be considered blatant advertising (such as where I said campers learn skills 'from top to bottom'). With your permission, I would like to write it again and make sure to be extra careful. I am also open to suggestion about ways to change the article. If I were you I would also look in the category of 'summer camps in maryland', as I attempted to emulate my article from these. Thanks for your time. Callevacamp (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, editor obviously has a conflict of interest per their username, but this is probably good faith. If you restore it, I'll be responsible for it. Tan ǀ 39 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've restored Camp Calleva pending some sources, I also added notability, COI and advertisement tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I might end up deleting it again anyways (or at least taking it to AfD), but I thought I'd give the guy a fighting chance with some admin oversight. Carry on, madam - Tan ǀ 39 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blocks

How many more times are you going to block me without ever taking action against those who commit personal attacks against me? How many more times? Wfgh66 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)