User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hummus & Falafel

Hey Gwen, I just thought I'd let you know that the on-going "food wars" regarding Israeli adoption of traditionally arabic cuisine seems to have once again spilled over to Falafel. Over the past week there have been repeated edits regarding the Israeli adoption of Falafel, which has seemingly culminated in User:Al-Andalus's addition of section titled "Israeli Controversy". While it does appear to be sourced and documented, I question whether or not the information is presented in a such a way that its real intention is to push a POV.

Poor chick peas; They can't seem to stay out trouble be it mashed into a dip or fried into a ball. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the wording is kept neutral and does follow the cites, I'd say it fairly documents the daftness. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What next, football? Frank | talk 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The article seems to handle that more helpfully than I would have thought. Meanwhile I'm numb to both games other than having had some brief shreds of fun kicking black and white balls about when I was in school. The brightly coloured ones look so odd to me. So, let me know when someone starts selling hummus burgers at gridiron football matches in Tokyo and calls it all the height of Rapa Nui popular culture. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoeTimko

How would you feel if I did an provisional unblock to assess his good faith? He's writing useful and constructive contributions on his talk page as a scratchpad. I'd be willing to look after him. If I remember correctly, wasn't his CU inconclusive? —EncMstr (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any CU having to do with JoeTimko or Wallamoose. No way does a brand new user stumble across another user who has been indefinitely blocked and then deftly put up an unblock template for them. There is a very small likelihood JoeTimko isn't Wallamoose. There is an overwhelming likelihood JoeTimko is Wallamoose. As for his contribs, Camp Treetops was a blatant copyright infringement from other web sites, mostly from http://www.nct.org/page.cfm?p=149. Every cited source would have to be combed for copyright infringements, so I've deleted the article for now. Klamath_Union_High_School is replete with sentence fragments. Both users share the same broken syntax. This edit on his talk page speaks for itself. Lastly, I've now had two emails from an experienced editor which stir up even more worries about JoeTimko and Wallamoose. Do you truly want to deal with this kind of straightforward sockpuppetry, tale telling and dodgy editing? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his latest post he more or less admits to being Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed—the evidence is strong, except for the article topics by each user. But he seems to be wanting to help now. Limited capitulation in his recent edits indicate realization that this isn't a free-for-all. (I posted at WP:ANI before you responded too.) —EncMstr (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly take copyvios as a hint he's going to start being helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in case you miss it: CU confirmation Fritzpoll (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw it, thanks (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wallamoose Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User caught in a hardblock made by you

Hi Gwen.

Can you take a look at this? The user seems OK, but I wasn't sure why you hardblocked that range, so I asked a checkuser for assistance before granting IP block exemption. I didn't realize you were on before. So, I figured it would be better to ask you. Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same IP (a library) was used by indef blocked User:Fclass today. I hardblocked by mistake (didn't untick something), Gavia_immer should be able to edit now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph. The block log entry looks funny, for the first block I made. I don't know what happened there. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny note,

In regards to Walla's suspected sock, I would just like to point out an inconsistency in the suspected sock's argument: The suspected sock claims to have been linked to Wallamoose's page from your talk page, however, after the creation of that user account, along with one day before, there has been nothing regarding Walla on your talk page. Did this user search through your archives? If so, why? How did this user find your talk page?

I do wish Walla took the time to understand his first(ever) block, instead of taking it personal and spiraling out of control and into an indef block and suspected sockpuppetry.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 05:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was Wallamoose. :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds after I typed this, Fritzpoll posted the outcome of a CU he'd asked for on IRC, Raul confirms JoeTimko and Wallamoose are one and the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it even matters, I had also requested a CU, and got the same results.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a note be made on the sock's page confirming that it is a sock?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put confirmed tags on both user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject matter,

Would you think it is possible to get a burnout from too much code or something? Ever since I've completed that template, well, my eyes have just been feeling tired all the time, like, tired-er than when I normally stay up late.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you only stayed up too late ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this kind of thing hasn't happened before. I've been able to stay up late before with no real consequences, but after all that logic, my eyes have felt constantly tired.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ew! Logic! :) Truth be told, if it was a task you don't often do, you might have been casting/focusing your eyes in a way that made 'em tired faster. Either that, or you're gonna need glasses! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>.> I actually have glasses, and contacts.. which I shall resume wearing when my eyes start feeling better... Either way, I hope this isn't permanent..."— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't, you might try turning down the brightness and contrast controls on your screen, most folks run them way too high. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hummus a là sockpuppet

Am I imagining it or is the chickpea paste becoming distinctly sockpuppet flavoured? I'm never very clear about how to proceed with this sort of issue. But [1] does strike me as rather similar to [2]. And if you look at my post ~~[3]~~[4] after the earlier of these ids turned up, I was already suspicious of it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've always tasted a bit of sockpuppetry dribbled over Hummus. Meanwhile, non-native English speaking editors who spin highly nationalistic PoVs (of whatever stripe, both exclusionary PoVs are utterly hateful and straightforwardly clueless) can often sound somewhat alike because of their limited English vocabulary, syntax and endless use of the same boring and heedless rhetoric. When they pop up on the talk page I tend to ignore them and I haven't seen enough disruption of the article to worry about it, much. If they are the same user and keep on editing, we'll know sooner rather than later and blocks will swiftly follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just noticed I provided the wrong link to my contribution to FayssalF's talk page which I've corrected above. The person whose contributions I list is certainly not here to help write an encyclopedia. Of course, instead of it being a sockpuppet, it could be a mirror image to the JIDF at work seeking to distort mterial their way.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with the fixed link I clearly see what you're getting at. Yes, it's overwhelmingly likely User:Avayaricoh is someone's sock and yes, I've indeed seen socks used in heated disputes as "false wiki flags" to make the "other side" look wholly bad faith and disruptive. This is another reason why I tend to ignore them altogether, as I've mostly ignored User:Avayaricoh, who hasn't edited in a few days. I didn't know Avayaricoh had been plopping tags onto so many articles, if he starts up again I'll put a stop to it. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought they were false flag puppets (though the possibility is intriguing) but that what the Zionist fanatics can do, the anti-Zionist ones can do too. That particular userid may not have edited for a couple of days because the puppeteer may be using another one, or two, or three... Which returns to my suspicion of the new poster to the talk page today. Anyway thanks for noting this and also for following up my recent AN posting re Malcolm S.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, true and both sides do :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpruce

User Redspruce is engaging in the same behavior he has been blocked in the past for here where he removes all the quotes in citations in an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I agree that was untowards. However, most of their edits look helpful. Please let me know if there is any edit warring or straightforward disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is starting to go through the articles one by one again. He has now moved here stripping the quotes, and removing information I am adding, and not leaving an edit summary. Removing quotes from citations is what got him blocked before. How is removing the quote function from citations "helpful"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAN is incorrect in saying I have been blocked for removing his footnote quotes before. This is a content dispute; RAN inserts these quotes regardless of whether they contribute any information to the article, and occasionally I try to remove them to improve the article. This is unfortunately a dispute with a long history, and one in which RAN has shown himself unwilling to listen to reason or the opinions of others. See here for example. RedSpruce (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpruce, please stop removing verifiable content from the encyclopedia, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, verifiability is not the only criterion for inclusion in an article. Whether or not the material in question improves the article or makes it worse is also a consideration, and an extremely important one. In the future, kindly refrain from giving me orders that are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you carry on deleting verifiable content, you'll be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have read my previous comment. Please do so. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]