User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

re: blood on the risers

it actually is "cock." im sorry if that offends you. but I am in the army and I would know. it's not vandalism, it's just the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it offends me? Did I say I didn't think it was true? Did you see the section in the article for alternative lyrics? Have you read WP:V and WP:RS? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. no but it did seem a safe assumption, considering the context.

2. you didn't say anything one way or the other.

3. no. i didn't. my mistake.

4. somewhat... heh

anyway, i wasn't being argumentitve, i dont see why you must have such a harsh tone... Jersey John (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) also, if you're tracking all my contributions... is that necesary? unless of course, you really ARE interested in united states army cadences and marching tunes lol...[reply]

What is with you and that word? On second thought, don't answer, I don't want to know. You're the one who showed up here and blurted it out. Thanks for reading what I had to say though, along with putting it in the "alternate" part of the article. If I hadn't believed you, by the bye, I'd have been unswayable about having a citation. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not doing a good job covering up your hostility. There is nothing with me "about that word." I do not know what your issue is with me but please stop. Thank you. Jersey John (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oh and, by the bye, if you saw my watchlist and noticed some, shall we say, very odd things on there, some of them saying things about brits which i am assuming you are one, please note I did not put those there, I have no clue how they got there. Foul play obviously.[reply]

I don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fclass

I know you've been helping this user a lot as seen above. I, however, am concerned by this where he calls someone "racist". I don't know the reasoning behind his unblock, but I am concerned by the diff. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I've reblocked him. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt link to a blog, i linked to a video posted on a blog

this is about the 'alex jones' article, the michelle malkin incident

i provided detailed information about what minute/second cue you could view the given quotes in the video. the video was a primary source of an event that happened, i dont understand why you would consider this to be 'non reliable'. was the video faked? did someone edit alex jones' voice, and then photoshop his lips to match the words?

Neither YouTube nor a blog is a reliable source for a video, because the uploads are unmoderated. Moreover you're edit warring, please stop now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

Is it ok to add information on wikipedia if you interview the person who the article is about? I mean how do you source that information. I may be able to interview a couple of people over the internet, via IM or email so how do I go about making it useful to wikipedia??? SholeemGriffin (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonderful that you want to add new content about Wikipedia. However, if you do the interviews yourself, these would be original research, which cannot be added to the encyclopedia. Only if you can get the interviews published by a third party reliable source might one be able to cite them to support article content. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful :) SholeemGriffin (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicolline

Hi, the group "Bicolline" has been widely covered in media, evidencing notability. I think the article included some of these sources, but some may have been on the talk page. Just saw you speedy delete now - can you give reasons? I could prhaps understand an AfD (although I think it would survive, as I say there's lots of coverage) but speedy seems extreme for that article. Unfortunately I'm about to be away from the internet for a week from tomorrow, but there's no hurry so I can take this up with you on my return. Cheers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicolline

Hi, this was borderline, I almost declined the speedy, I'm happy to restore it in the hope you can:

Make an assertion of significance in the lead (there is none, which is why the article was tagged as a CSD A7) and,
Find more non-trivial coverage. The two French language articles are helpful and fun to read but the number of participants is low and this seems to be a local event. Neither the film nor the book noted on the talk page have been released, they're yet but foreseen (the film doesn't even seem to be in production).

Please feel free to ask, if you have any questions. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this here so that conversation does not get.. fractured. I speedied the articles because the current sources were non-english, and therefore non-verifiable. As per WP:NONENG.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about your having tagged it, the text is A7. Having read the French-language articles I can say they only confirm shreds of local notability. As I said, it's borderline, so I'm ok with putting it back by editor request. If you think, as I do, that notability's lacking, I suggest an AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and noted. >.> I should really be getting to sleep, I've been wikipedia'ing, and modeling for several hours now.. and it appears to be almost 5 am... night!— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These mass larp article deletions come at an unfortunate time for me, as I'm about to head away from the internet for a week. The rationale of the nominator seems poor - surely subjects that are only covered in French can still be notable, and only "un-verifiable" for people who don't happen to read French or know how to use a translator tool. It also seems like an ad hoc rationale, given that the nominator is nominating larp articles in bulk. The admin's call that the articles only demonstrate local notability is worth looking at, but I suspect incorrect. I gather the subject is notable at least in Quebec, which seems a wide enough scope to me. Unfortunately I'll miss the AfD if it starts now, so I'd like to request it be delayed a week. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion by me had anything to do with French sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LARP group deletions

Would you be so kind as to reconsider your deletion of True Adventures? While the article was poor at explaining the notability, with about 3,000 players, a budget on the order of $100,000 a year for a single four day event, and a level of complexity of build unmatched in the US, it is most certainly notable. You appear to have deleted it under Wikipedia:CSD#A7 while ignoring the citations provided as "not reliable or independent". CSD A7 specifically says we should not consider verifiability or reliability of sources, only that notability is asserted. If you would be so kind as to restore the article, I will strive to make the notability far more clear. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's just turn this into a list. Should be easier to go over:

True Adventures - Massive complexity of build, 3,000 players and ticket sales of over $100,000 for a single event.
Darkon Wargaming Club - Notable for long history (since 1985) and for having a documentary made about it (Darkon (film)).
International Fantasy Games Society - One of the first LARPs, founded in 1981.
LARP Alliance - Previously speedy deleted and restored for the exact same reason. As such warrants a proper AfD discussion and not just a speedy deletion.

(More to come, I'm sure)

No notability was asserted, they were all A7s. Any note I made about sources had to do with my having tried to skirt deleting an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that some the groups are notable and in many cases did list why they were notable. The article's only fault was failing to clearly spell out the notability. As far as I can tell, had I gotten to each of these pages before you and simply slapped, "This group is notable for" with my above notes, they would still be there. I would in fact have already done so had I realized that someone unfamiliar with LARPing would not have appreciated their notability from the article as they stood. As far as I can tell, I could re-create them right now, but more carefully spell out the notability and they would survive a CSD challenge. If I must, I will. But I'll be spending hours of work copying text from Google and re-wikifying it. Were the articles restored, it will save me a great deal of time. Please reconsider. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith articles about non-notable topics often don't assert notability. The deletions had nothing to do with anyone's unfamiliarity with LARPing. Members of groups like this often mistake their enthusiasm with Wikipedia's wider notability standards. I should also ask, are you aware of the conflict of interest policy and are there any worries about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying these articles would survive an AfD challenge on notability grounds. That's not the question. I'm saying that speedy deletion was too aggressive. CSD:A7 very clearly sets a lower bar for notability than the wider standards. Were I to repost the articles, in the process pulling out the notable part and putting a very clear, "This group is notable because," would they have survived an A7 speedy deletion attempt? I believe so. If that's the case, the flaw was simply that the notability wasn't well stated. As such, restoration and an opportunity to make this very minor improvement is superior to posting new articles copied off Google and losing the edit history. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, you are aware that simply copying the information from google would be a copyright violation right?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my suggestion below? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LARP doesn't need to be clogged with them. Indeed many of these articles exist because LARP was getting clogged. I feel that the standard that each group's article needs to survive on their own is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps none of them will survive AfD. But, for the reasons given above I believe CSD was the wrong path to deleting them. I believe the articles were deleted on a minor technicality that is easily remedied. I would like the opportunity to remedy the minor fault. If they're not notable enough, they'll be deleted via AfD soon enough. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to my suggestion for LARP clubs. "Clogging" LARP would not be a worry. Either way, they were all CSD A7, which is not a "minor technicality," nor was there a "minor fault" in each of these articles. As you acknowledge there is a question whether any of these could make it through AfD, so I see no need to restore them. You might want to look into WP:DRV instead, since if a consensus showed up there to restore, I'd be more than happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was reading it as a way to weasel otherwise arguably non-notable topics into Wikipedia, which I decidedly don't want to do. As I said above, I'm okay with the articles standing on their own strengths, so I thought my answer was implied. Upon further thought, perhaps such an article could stand on its own merits, one I'll consider the possibility. That the articles might not survive AfD (and I believe some would), seems irrelevant to my questioning the decision to speedily delete them. And my point isn't that CSD:A7 is minor; my point was that some of the articles did express notability, simply poorly, a minor and easily correctable fault. However, it seems clear we disagree, so I'll take it to DRV. Though we disagree, thank you for your time. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, I declined the speedies on Dragonbane, Dagorhir, Belegarth Medieval Combat Society and Amtgard. I think an article along the lines of LARP clubs could handily cover the non-notable ones. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LARP

It might be more helpful to list these clubs at LARP, or in an article called LARP clubs, since taken altogether an assertion of notability can easily be made for them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I wish to apologize for some comments that I made some time ago on the Jarvis Island talkpage. I disagreed with your reversion of my edits and the characterization of them as "unhelpful", and still do with regard to some of them, though I'm not as "hung up" about the whole thing as I was then. In retrospect, however, I believe my comments were rather rude and thus themselves "beyond the pale" (a term I used at the time), and I have accordingly removed them from the talk page. If I offended you by anything I wrote there, I sincerely apologize. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. I was never offended, I always took what you said as coming from good faith and left it at that, without saying anything more. Since you said you were very unhappy but weren't going to dispute it, I was so wary of saying anything that might be misunderstood, or stirring up more unhappiness, I let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the "Beauty Bridge" page posted again?

We wrote the article called "Beauty Bridge" which is a trademark owned company serving and served closed to million customers. People search for this company and want to know more about that. When we were writing this article we inspired from Sephora which has been selling similar products and services and one of Beauty Bridge's competitor. What should we do in order to Beauty Bridge article get relisted?Gerkavun (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GGcsd Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Talk pages are not deleted under RTV, as numerous administrators had said there. Why did you delete this page? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about WP:RTV. All user talk pages can be deleted if the user is in good standing and requests RTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So from where did Krimpet, chaser and Stifle get the idea that user talk pages are not deleted? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is not in good standing, the community may decline to delete user pages, most often the talk page. This happens, but otherwise you might want to ask them. WP:RTV is clear and makes no exception for talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not explicitly say we do not delete talk pages, that is true, but it does not say we do. Several people here, as well as the three administrators I mentioned above, do not agree with you that RTV covers user talk pages. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Right to Vanish at meta, which says User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meta policy differs from the en.wp policy; elsewise it would just be a soft redirect. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to sound like wikilawyering to me. Meta is referred to in the see also section of WP:RTV. Moreover, when RTV refers to user page and subpages, it wlinks to Wikipedia:User page which clearly includes talk pages, which have been a part of RTVs for users in good standing as long as I can remember. As I said, users not in good standing sometimes are declined deletion of their talk pages, which is how this misunderstanding likely came about. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←The main thing is that in all discussions I've found about this, the agreement is that talk pages aren't deleted. They can be blanked, and they're not indexed by search engines. You seem to be the distinct majority in this opinion, given what I provided above. Given LRG's history, I don't view the deletion as wise after the speedy had been denied and two other administrators agreed. But fighting about LGR is hardly worth my time. So I'll defer to you. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good faith misunderstandings. Mind, lots of RTVs come about because a user not in good standing (or at least, in "dodgy" standing) has become unhappy about how things have gone and wants the user account and its history thrown down the memory hole, but nevertheless the talk pages are kept, following the "good standing" bit in RTV, so that later editors and admins stumbling across the user's edits may be made aware of past worries. If one wants to assert that LGRC was not in good standing, that's another tale. However, in my experience, the talk page is deleted in uncontroversial right to vanish episodes, which we are all much less likely to hear about, whereas the "not in good standing" episodes get plastered all over ANI and AN, the talk pages aren't deleted and hence, a snowball of misunderstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]