User talk:Gwen Gale/archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin

The following retrieved from Editor:SBJohnny's talk page:
How do I inform the following editors that there is an important discussion relating to Sar Palin at her talk.
The editors are; Steven_J_Anderson, Sitedown, Appraiser, Atom, BenBurch, jossi, SWAT Jester, Ron John, sheffield steel, Aruhnka, Aunt Entropy, Phlegm Rooster, JamesMLane. TVoz, Factcheckeratyourservice, Spiff1959, Bobblehead, Parsecboy, Neutralis, Aprock, LamaLoLeshaLa, Eric the Red, Rktect, Wikidemon, Writegeist, Evbwiki,jcdenton, and probably another dozen that Ive forgotten.
I don't want to be accused of canvassing but this is important.--Buster7 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The worry with canvassing is that an editor might (even unwittingly, in thinking they're posting to editors whom they see as neutral) post to a sampling of editors who are altogether more friendly to their own PoV than a truly happenstance swath of editors. Editors who are truly keen on the topic still have it on their watchlists. Hence, post in a highly neutral and settled way only to WP:VP along with all the project pages listed at the top of Talk:Sarah Palin (click on the show link in the This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects box). This can even bring in new eyes, which is always helpful. Don't post to more than one user talk page (please do so neutrally, but if it's only one user, there will be no worries if it's someone who shares your PoV). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Gwen :-). I left a reply on my talk as well. Just wanted to chip in that while the editor lists from the toolserver would be a big improvement over a hand-made list, the village pump or another forum to attract the attention of uninvolved editors would be a much better way to go. While WP:OWN doesn't exactly apply to this sort of issue, you might think about it a bit: a history of contributions to an article doesn't give anyone more or less say or stake than someone with no such history. In some ways, people without any history on the article can be more helpful than those who've already butted a head or two in the past. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes! This is spot on why building an editor list from the contribs and "spamming" it can stir up a skewed batch of editors and why I didn't even bring that up. WP:OWN is canny wonderful for writing one's own stuff, but not for building an open, sourced encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I didn't link to the ts results as a way of suggesting that, which is why I wanted to clarify here. If new blood is needed to break an impasse, it's better to recruit on fresh ground. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Your advice is well-taken. That is why I asked. Happy Easter to you both.--Buster7 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
See also. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Account password

Dear Gwen, is there anyway I can have my account back, I have lost the password when I left Wikipedia few months ago. Thanks! — (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (Orion11M87)

At the login page there's a button which says "email new password." If you didn't give an email address with your account info, you might want to ask at WP:helpdesk. There are sundry ways to handle this but I don't know them all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I will see what can be done. (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:You Know the Truth

Could you please delete and salt it to prevent it from being recreated?— dαlus Contribs 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding this

this jimmy has seen it now and although he said he wasn't offended , the fact is it is not suitable for an encyclopedia and needs removing .I'm not sure how to do it but I can blank it or you can do something ? I left a message on Genius 101 talk page User talk:Genius101#regarding_this.. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

It's been up far too long for me to speedy, otherwise I would. I think WP:MFD is the way to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can get the user to put up a {{db-g7}} tag, any admin will speedy it straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your advice, I put the MFD template on the page .There is a vote regarding the page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:D-Day.2FThe REAL Jimbo Wales Story. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

See my note on the snowball close. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Paul James (Canadian musician)

On July 26, 2008, you deleted this page, as I found out when I considered writing on the same topic. I would like to try to get an acceptable page up here, but would appreciate it if you could provide me the link or text to what you deleted, so that I can see what didn't work. I can't find it through your "contributions" section, though maybe I am missing something here.

Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it in your userspace but there was nothing to it, the whole article read:

'''Paul James''' (born April 4, [[1957]], [[Toronto]] (ON), [[Canada]])<ref>[]</ref> is [[blues]] [[guitarist]] and vocalist, heading the [[Paul James Band]]<ref>[ Official Paul James Fansite]</ref>.

Neither reference cited can be taken as reliable for showing notability under WP:MUSIC. Also note the botched syntax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this information; I can appreciate why the article (or, more precisely, short description) was deleted.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

An administrator accidentally removed the protection for this article and immediately it attracted some of the great unwashed. You have had an interest in this article in the past, can you restore its protection from IP atttacks? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Truth be told, the s-protection I laid on last October ran out. I've renewed it for a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanx, this will help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Are you there?

Could you take a look at Talk:Smiley face murders? It's gotten WAY out of hand. There's legal threats and Outing and... it's a mess. Padillah (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for legal threats and outing. Although he may come back on other IPs, you can revert his edits (if need be) as those of a bocked user, let me know if it gets overwhelming (it may for a little while). As for User:BoyintheMachine, can give me diffs showing legal threats or blatant outing? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't catch you in time but thought you might find this reference to "endless IPs" interesting. Looks like I really got you in the soup, sorry. Padillah (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, I can semi-protect the pages which will end things quick. Let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's some history but there's more. The talk page is strewn with it.

Outing by IP

Outing by Boyinthemachine

Outing in edit summary - (removed previous IP outing suggesting it may be valid)

IP outing including address

Padillah (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that lasted 15 good minutes. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SB Johnny got it. Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if BitM does it again. Those can be deleted or oversighted if you like, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

possible attack page

User:Mike_Doughney I fear could be read as an attack by referring to another editor as " legitimization and support of editors such as this one, who think this bit of delusional defiance of basic logic is a valid argument to make when editing an article" which I think just might be considered beyond the pale? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect has made ten tendentious edits on one page today, but i can't bring Mediation misbehavior to Arbitration. VirtualSteve addressed the issue [1] and [2] but Collect refuses to stop an onslaught of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEND despite numerous requests over the past four months. I am requesting administrative action, as much as can be allowed in privileged mediation. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? This is about a userspace page possibly being seen as an attack on a third party. I doubt it has anything whatever to do with you for sure. Is there a reason why you followed me here? Collect (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Because you didn't learn when VirtualSteve told you to apologize [3] [4] last time for your conflict-junkie games, and i am showing your pattern of frivolous distractions and disruptions. User:Collect has now made twelve tendentious edits today while refusing to retract lies which they inserted specifically to disrupt our mediation, and i have told them repeatedly that i would request Administrator intervention. Collect believes they can get away with these games because Mediation is supposed to be privileged, but they reneged privilege by coming here and trying to canvass for attention on another user in the mediation who opposed the Disruptions and WP:TEND and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and administrator User:Kevin already warned Collect about what basically amounted to WP:WABBITSEASON because of the pattern of perpetually disrupting proposed edits without providing WP:V nor WP:RS. We've been begging Collect to desist for four months, and now when they are finally being properly ignored and dismissed, they come here hoping to find sympathy for "attacks". ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Mike Doughney put this up on his userpage over three weeks ago to illustrate how Lyonscc and Collect were playing games with the Mediation system, after Firestorm, Kevin, VirtualSteve, Benccc, Phoenix of9, and myself asked them for nearly three months to collaborate on a disputed article, and it was obviously just a matter of time until Collect would run out of gaming moves and be forced to turn to these sorts of distractions. It's the modus operandi Collect has been using for so long, VirtualSteve had to call you on the carpet but you never answered his question a month ago, and i am asking you to answer it now. Either reply to VirtualSteve's question, remove your lies from our Mediation page, admit your WP:TEND ten times today and throughout the last four months, or i will ask Kevin and VirtualSteve and GwenGale to examine the need to chaperone your role in our article construction and mediation. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Collect has now made their thirteenth edit tendentiously to that Mediation page, without retracting their lie, without recusing themself from the Mediation. VirtualSteve told them a full month ago "this question is not rhetorical", and i have asked them a similar question to which they tendentiously show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thirteen times. Is there a way to temporarily topic-ban or topic-block them, until we work out our Mediation without their WP:TEND please? ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Teledildonix314 I don't have time to wade through those above posts. If you want to start another thread below and in one short paragraph, with some straightforward diffs, tell me what you're unhappy about, I'll have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzy thinking is allowed in "retirement" blurbs on UPs. I didn't see the diff link. That's a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


[5] = Thirteen edits to this page today, and still Collect refuses to retract a blatant lie, and still won't recuse himself from this Mediation. VirtualSteve has remained neutral and outside of all content discussions; VirtualSteve asked Collect on March 17th a "fundamental question", "And no, at this stage this is not a rhetorical question." but Collect never answers, and it deals with tendentiousness and edit-warring and obstruction of progress, such as in our mediation. It also addresses Collect filing frivolous charges of COI, Outing, etc, as a disruptive distraction whenever Mike Doughney or myself or any other editors demanded an end to Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:TEND trend. I wouldn't be able to take Collect's behavior to Arbitration because, for example, the thirteen tendentious edits today are on the Mediation page, which is supposed to be privileged. But when i asked Collect to desist in their assertions of disruptive falsehoods, and i pointed out their blatant self-contradictions where i caught them fabricating prevarications red-handed, they continued to ignore all polite requests for WP:V and WP:RS to support/defend their falsehoods. I want to know if Collect should be topic-banned, or banned from our Mediation, or simply chaperoned by outside neutral admins such as VirtualSteve, Kevin, and GwenGale or any other unattached volunteers? Because this pattern today, this pattern for the past few weeks, and this pattern for the past four months, have all been allowed to go non-stop despite our protests that it hinders our construction of articles. I've never been in a Mediation before, i never even made a non-Minor edit until four months ago, i am inexperienced at these committee situations, so i have been begging for some wikipedia experts to look at this administratively. Thank you very much for looking at the situation, i hope you will help our Mediation to proceed without these kinds of hindrances. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You didn't give me any diffs.
  • Paragraph not short.
  • Please don't call good faith edits blatant lies, even if you think they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Which additional diffs are needed? I have used green and red text colors at the bottom of that long page to point out the thirteen edits where Collect wouldn't retract the falsehood in which i caught them red-handed, using their own talkpage records. I must not have given you both of the two URLs which help illustrate VirtualSteve's attempts to assist (serious question (why do you think that you are upsetting so many different people at so many different pages, or (if you prefer) Do you believe that all of these editors have no cause to be frustrated with you to the extent that they canvass for a possible RfC against you?) and summary here). The UserContributions for Collect which point to the months-long Mediation (note especially the bright red part i highlighted to show you what i mean about not retracting a proven lie which was inserted disruptively on purpose) and Talk:Rick_Warren are my focus, but VirtualSteve was also pointing out the applicability of the problem to Collect's other edit-wars and conflict-addictions. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring? Show me WP:3rr with diffs. You still haven't given me any diffs at all, not one, only links. Meanwhile my eyes glaze over when I see text like "not retracting a proven lie which was inserted disruptively on purpose." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i can see you don't want to read the pages for which i provided you the URLs and the colored highlighted text. I will wait for VirtualSteve to return from vacation, he was dealing with this for months, he will be familiar already. Also, User:Kevin was a neutral admin who admonished the WP:TEND in the mediation recently, but he seems to be semi-retired, so we can see if he still wants to oversee the mediation further. Your volunteering to administer in the event of incidents is probably only possible if you had the opportunity to be familiar with the four-month long case being disputed and mediated, so i can't very well expect you to suddenly telepathically absorb several dozen pages of conversations all at once, and i didn't mean to waste any of your time when i should have gone to the administrators who are already familar with the particulars. Thanks anyway ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to keep harping on diffs, but you never gave me any. This is a diff. Moreover, when I read the word lies, without supporting diffs, I'm not keen to read further. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You are the administrator who unblocked Collect when they were blocked for edit-warring. I am an inexperienced volunteer editor with no specialist skills at this type of administrative activity. I don't expect you to read dozens of Mediation pages, but i felt it was reasonable for you to acknowledge your own involvement with unblocking Collect after an edit-war, when VirtualSteve and Kevin had admonished Collect for disruptive behavior at around the same time. If you want to ignore my highlighted text on the pages i've presented, and you wish to continue "forgetting" which users you have unblocked for edit-warring, and you need me to show you that edit-war in order to elicit some administrative action from you, then i don't know how reasonable it is for me to keep asking you to do things you oppose. I can simply go to the admins who were already privy to the facts, rather than ask you to examine the actions of your friend whom you feel deserves to be unblocked despite behavior that includes edit wars, disrupted mediation, and fourteen contentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in one afternoon. The fourteen edits i desribe today are here as you can see, but perhaps you don't wish to see. Those are fourteen diffs. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK. Collect was unblocked because he agreed to stick to 1rr for a month. If you can give me diffs showing he broke 1rr between 3 March and 3 April, please list them. I didn't ignore the coloured text. Now you're going on the attack with me. If this is how you wontedly deal with editing disagreements here, I can see why you're not getting very far. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may request of this admin some attention re: Collect please. This user has become active on a page I have maintained and expanded for a long while, namely Drudge report, and has succeeded in removing a lot of valid material from the page by policy shopping, relentless reverting, warring any changes I make, reporting me for any minor infraction (real or imagined). He has added nothing to the article, only removed data from it, often cited data, on thin pretexts that I do not have time to argue about. I find that his edits are, in general, tendentious, and not aimed at improving the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest you heed the complaints of other editrs about this individual. ► RATEL ◄ 12:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Following me? I would comment WP:OWN at this point. I entered Drudge Report at the start of March in response to concerns raised on a noticeboard. You, on the other hand, even revert removal of repeated words in a single section title <g> ("Alleged CNN reporter's alleged heckling of GOP senators") . All I ask is that reliable sources be used for claims, that saying "self-evident fact" is insuficient as a response, that asserting "fair use" on copyright images is wrong, etc. You may note you did not have consensus on your side on thse matters. [6] is a clear diff on how you viewed the article -- and I had not made many edits at that point. I have more -- but you appear to be the one seeking confrontation here. I stand behind every edit I make, and calling that "tendentious" when you now have 324 article edits on DR and I am all the way up to 57 <g> is interesting. Including typo corrections. It is of note, further, that this editor was upset when I pointed out the the Encyclopedia Britannica online accepted propsed edits from anyone -- and then was aghast thet the EB used my proposed edit on an article. He wrote to the EB making charges against me, which I found to be a teeny bit away from WP:AGF -- that is making off-wiki charges about an editor on an article. I refrained from any complaint, as I found it to be his usual m.o. As to the accusation of "policy shopping", he appears to be upset that his casual invocation of "fair use" is not actually accepted by WP policy. I am sorry that he was wrong, to be sure, but WP does think copyright means something <g>. And so do the courts, amazingly enough, which is why WP has the policy. Merci. Collect (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You're both edging towards 3rr at Drudge Report. What's wrong with the talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Collect likes to make sweeping deletions of cited, long-standing material without using the Talk page. Secondly, he/she again charges me with making derogatory statements about him/her, whoever he/she is, to the staff of Britannica, something I have never done. Collect actually decided to try to change a citation we were using on the Drudge Report page. This is a serious malfeasance. You are not supposed to try to change sources according the the rules of wikipedia, but that's exactly what Collect did, and for which he/she has never been punished. I merely contacted them and pointed out that they were being manipulated by a wikipedia editor and directed them to the Talk page involved. They reverted the change. Note that as soon as Collect succeeded in changing the source, he/she trumpeted it on the Talk page diff and changed the article. ► RATEL ◄ 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand. First, why does anyone care what EB says about anything? Gwen Gale (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately obtuse to send me up? Please answer the question: do you not think that source tampering is unethical? ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No and yes. Single, plain diffs please. I'm truly trying to be fair so I'll let that crack slide by with an "all the best." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole story is here if you can take the time. Nobody else seemed to care. It seems to me that if contacting sources during disputes to change citations used on a page is okay and goes unpunished, then wp is on a slippery slope. ► RATEL ◄ 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, EB is not a reliable source (nor is en.Wikipedia, ever), I didn't even read the whole thread, no need, skive any cite to EB, the end. Encyclopedias are for readin' up on stuff, they are not meaningful sources. What else? I do want to help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
EB not RS? Can you link me to that decision on a noticeboard? Or is that just your opinion? IMO EB is perfectly reliable for what we were seeking from it on that occasion, which was a general characterisation of the political bias of the Drudge Report website. ► RATEL ◄ 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

EB is a tertiary source, which can't be cited as a take on primary sources and can only be cited for the broadest overviews, maybe, see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Speaking only for myself, I've never cited an encyclopedia in my life, was taught never to do it, but I've read plenty of 'em, it's not the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oda Mari

Hi Gwen. I'm about to disappear from the web for 14 hours or more. If this doesn't have any effect soon, could you perhaps do something? If you disagree with me and agree with the block, as of course is your right, you could at least plonk a "blocked" template on her page so that she can use it to appeal. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

She might have misunderstood (and not read the text on the talk page warning): It's not 1rr, it's 0rr for whoever makes the edit, 1 rr for anyone who reverts it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, no, both of her edits were reverts, so she strayed from 1rr. That said, a warning would very likey have been enough to stop her. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Might you look at thesse diffs? Merci! I wish to make no false step here.

[7] (one more later -- restoring a clear copyright violation )

[8] (not consecutive) (two more in sequence consecutive)

[9] (two prior in sequence)

[10] (and three more in sequence)

[11] and two more

[12] and six more in sequence.

It should be noted that he specifically deleted material he asked me to add, of all things <g>. And that his "reverts" have been 100% directed at removing things he asked for, incredibly enough. I know I should ignore falsity in claims on cites and copyright violations, so might you tell him what the copyright rules are? Thanks! Ought I have ignored the copyvio as blatant as it is? Al;so note that virtually none of my edits were reverts of his added material - I tried as best I can to add different material relevant to what he asked for. Collect (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the copyvio? He removed text, he didn't add text. I don't understand. If he's strayed from 3rr, why not post it to WP:AN3? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The copyvio was use of a full 30 line table from a copyrighted site -- I added an RfC on it now. He used Alexa as a source for a claim about Drudge losing share from 2003 <g> by 2/3 (he quotes percent of Internet traffic as though it is a valid figure at all from 2003) and admits it is not available material from the cite he used - so he readded it without a proper source. He removed one month averages (replacing for DR with a single day figure of all things) on several sites in order to focus on the copyrighted table even where he ASKED for the data to be in the article <g>, and he has even said that saying Drudge "inflates" his users is NPOV <g>. I have carefully not deleted any of his RS cites -- whilst he reverted every single item I added in the past month -- only to assert that I added nothing <g>. If this is not 3RR is is absolutely OWN. I asked here as I value your judgement highly on this for sure. Collect (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Alexa is codswallop, rm that on sight, send anyone who says otherwise to me. I need a diff and a source for any copyvio. I think you two are somehow not on the same wavelength at all and I need to get it through my very thick and slow head as to why. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree on Alexa --- but the other editor is so enamoured with it that he refused to consider that it is not RS, and threatened to sic an admin on me <g>. He has an SPA, it would appear, and so feels that anyone contradicting him in his article space must be "lying in wait" of all things -- I just pointed out that I have several hundred articles on my watchlist, and have edited hundred that I do not follow at all. Merci. Collect (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff on Alexa [13] which seems, I trust, to show the attitude involved. The copyvio diff (showing removal) is [14] Collect (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor specifically asked that I enquire about using Alexa on a noticeboard -- which I have done here [15] . Collect (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What, is that a whole table copied from somewhere? Do you have a URL?

Alexa is a primary source and has a highly skewed, self selected sample base, which means any results are almost worthless as to meaning and either way must be interpreted, hence if a WP editor cites Alexa directly it's likely to be original research. Moreover, Alexa can be gamed by anyone with the resources to do so. While Drudge is one of the highest traffic websites in the world, Alexa is not a reliable source as to its traffic. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Site used is [16] On Talk:Drudge Report the claim is made that he only used 14% of the text of the article along with the entire table. I think it is pushing copyvio but he insisted I needed an RfC which is currently open on whether it is a copyvio. He also insisted I needed outside views on Alexa, which is why it is at NOR/N now. Any attempt to emend the problem is instantly reverted. HE also sought to reword my RfC saying it was not neutral enough <g>. Collect (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a straight copyvio to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Gee, I missed this section, full of lies and misrepresentations from Collect, and lots of lickspittling obsequiousness. This sort of blatant buttering up of an admin is very distasteful "<g>". Ugh. ► RATEL ◄ 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of Alexa — "Alexa has about 16 million toolbars installed which is a pretty good sample market, kind of like taking a poll. It shows a sampling how many people view your site that have the toolbar installed. So you can interpolate the results. Of course to some people who hate Alexa, there is the possibility that out of the 16 million people who have the toolbar installed not one of them visited their site. That would be a bummer for them, but it is still a rather significant sampling that cannot be ignored." Quote from a webguru. ► RATEL ◄ 02:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See self-selected_sample. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Gwen. Please check your email. I would normally have posted that request out in the open, but due to Tennis expert’s disruptive nature, I thought it best to make the request of you so only you can see. For the record: what I requested of you via e-mail pertains directly only to stuff related to myself. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. There… several hours this morning wasted addressing childishness. But things are better off anyway. Greg L (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please reverse your deletion of the userspace subpage of Greg L. I've used it as evidence at the Date delinking arbitration. —Locke Coletc 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If a user asks for deletion of something in their own userspace, short of an arbcom sanction or a banning, it's gone. However, admins can still see it and you can keep the link as "only admins can see this, sorry." Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
He's put it back himself. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
My concern was not with the content, but with the edit history. It contains an admission of off-wiki coordination that is relevant to the ongoing arbitration. —Locke Coletc 20:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries and either way, arbcom members could see the history. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I was not finished looking for evidence in the edit history of the page when it was deleted. I also believe it's use as evidence should exempt it from deletion until the completion of the arbitration case. Please restore the edit history. —Locke Coletc 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll be more than happy to do so if there is a consensus. See WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand that any admin or arbcom member can still see the whole edit history of that page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg L, my email reply to you was bounced back to me, "bad destination system address." Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • E-mail troubles. Fixed. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That one bounced too. I've sent a copy through the email link on your user page instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for unblocking me. It was really a stupid of me. I'm putting my ref. on the talk page and explaining about it as you suggested. Then add the ref. to the article. appreciate your understanding. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, other user has already added the reference. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Quoting Locke from above: It contains an admission of off-wiki coordination. *Admission*. Hell, it’s bragging. What does he think E-mail this user is for? Requests to babysit while I go shopping? BTW, that link takes you to Locke Cole’s e-mail address. ;-) Pardon me, but *accusations* of “coordinating” strikes me as “They had their act together! Shoot him! Shoot me now!!!”. If Wikipedia has a policy against coordinating on overall strategy, that’s news to me. Please advise. Greg L (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that email link is only for finding babysitters and ordering pizza. Please be more careful and keep your off-wiki conspiracies on IRC where they belong, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • COL! (Chuckle out loud). Greg L (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

weird newbie

[17] shows a very unusual attitude for a new editor with barely a hundred edits -- almost all on ledes <g> and generally quite disruptive in nature. [18] ... somewhere over a dozen reverts in just a couple of days now. [19] ahows him as a likely SPA or worse. Has any other editor had this particular quirk? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That sock is going to join in on an RfC on me <g>. Phoenix of9 is again soliciting for someone to back him up. BTW, Tele sent me a very strong apology in email, for which I thanked him. Should I be as thorough as I was with Ikip not all that long ago? Collect (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect for the RFC. It seems to me to be rather ill-formed and likely invalid? I did respond however. Collect (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it shows two editors have tried to resolve the same dispute with you but I may have missed something. The pith is, you have been a bit tendentious here and there and you have edit warred. Tip: Wikipedia understandably has a systemic bias towards the outlooks put forth by most governments in the "developed" world these days, which are a clever, skilled, 21st century mix of heavy fascism and socialism spun up throughout the 20th century, two world wars and a cold one, with roots reaching back to the "enlightenment," "mercantilism" and revolutions of the late 18th century, for starters. If one can skive away the socialist spin (hard to do, often can't be done), one is still left with the underlying fascist spin. You'll never sway political topics on en.Wikipedia away from their weighted, layered spins, since you'll always be overwhelmed by a consensus of editors educated in government schools for flawed sources written by government-paid academics. The most you can hope for is to get shreds of PoV into some articles but you can't do this by edit warring or non-stop badgering, since sooner or later you'll slip up and get yourself blocked. Some day, political and politically swayed articles on en.Wikipedia (or whatever winds up in its stead) will likely shift away from this. Meanwhile in most topic areas open editing does spin up helpful content sooner or later, so why waste your jets on a headwind you'll never get through? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck it shows no dispute resolution efforts at all <g>. BTW, my great-grandfather was a ship captain who rounded the Horn. Collect (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
All the same, I think you should take the hint ;) It's not worth it and you're headed towards nothing but online woe. By the bye, anyone here with European ancestors is overwhelmingly likely to be a descendent of Charlemagne (who had lots of, cough cough, erm, "GFs"). Go back only a few thousand years more and we're all cousins, so it's all in the family, so to speak and you know how families can be :P Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
According to internet "reliable sources" <g> I can trace back on one side to Minerva and on another side to Thor. Can't do better than that! My cousin (a genealogist) said with only one iffy link I have a majority of Magna Carta signers and John as well, and all the major Scots royalty. Also about half the US Presidents and more English royalty than QE II can claim. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Geneaology can be fun and one can learn a lot from it. Go back 2,000 years and anyone here has about 2,300,000,000,000,000,000 folks in the "grandparent" buckets who would have been alive at that time. If you could build up a "family tree" with their names, by far and away most of those would be the same few thousand people listed over and over again, owing to close cousin marriages, which is how it was done up until only a few hundred years ago, but even so, the only reason most people can't claim a tonne of historical figures as ancestors or cousins is because documentation older than about 400 years gets scant but for the most famous families and hey, today's crop of royals in the UK is German anyway :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The 400 years is easy on one side of my tree -- the other side benefited from having Mrs. Beinecke insist on having part of it done <g>. Tree has one problem -- average generation is well over 30 years. (My grandmother was born in 1861). That means, oc ourse, that I have far fewer ancesters than you have. <g> Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, haven't said the first thing about meself ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well -- I am pretty sure you have at least two ancestors ... Collect (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Buster Brown baby.jpg
You're forgetting about handy storks. However I was dropped down the chimney, unlike the drawing at right. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


The Wurdulak (talk · contribs). Of this one i have no doubts.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's him, let's wait and see what he stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. What is Nother? I changed my account name to The Wurdalak. The Wurdalak (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite. Nother = 'nother = contraction of another = another sockpuppet. What was your old account or account name? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can it be clarified why there is suspicion with this editor? I was communicating with him and was curious about this exchange. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's because I changed my account name twice. I messed up the spelling. The Wurdalak (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're likely User:Manhattan Samurai but am waiting to see how you behave. Mind, my worries about this should not sway anyone from editing with this user in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Who are you and why do you think this is kindergarten? I'm offended that you are watching my behavior. I don't know who the hell you are but you've managed to majorly irritate me with your comment. The Wurdalak (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have anything else to say before I block you, MS? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Please talk to Ikip. I will let you two deal with this. The Wurdalak (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

you got reverted

Your admin action on the forum shopping got reverted immediately by ... P of9. Got an idea that maybe he is not acting in good faith? Collect (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about any lack of good faith, it's forum shopping is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked if this was ok to bring up there. Please do not close the discussion again and let other admins comment since you are the admin who unblocked Collect and since it is your unblock that is being reviewed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My unblock isn't being reviewed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Snce your big evidence is not even a 1RR, I wonder what you think will happen? Consecutive edits count as one, and the adding of the OR tag was not a revert in the first place. Collect (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile if you want a smile inducing moment -- the newbie complaining against me now has this record: [20] (revert of Alexius08) 1:58 16 Apr , [21] (revert of Collect) 19:34 14 Apr , [22] (revert of Collect) 21:19 14 Apr , [23] (revert of Soxwon) 22:56 14 Apr , [24] (revert of Soxwon) 23:06 14 Apr , [25] (partial revert of Fraterm) 01:05 14 Apr , [26] revert 2:16 16 Apr , [27] 1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty) , [28] (revert of Collect) 22:02 14 Apr , [29] (added comment on disputed matter in Talk into article) 21:29 14 Apr , [30] (revert of PhilLiberty) 19:23 14 Apr , [31] (revert of Collect) 20:41 13 Apr , [32] (revert of Collect) 20:33 13 Apr , [33] (revert of Saddhiyama) 19:45 13 Apr , [34] (revert of PhilLiberty) 17:43 11 Apr , [35] (revert of PhilLiberty) 20:36 10 Apr , [36] (revert of Skomorokh) 19:30 9 Apr . Is any impression forming? Collect (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also at 02:22 on 16 Apr [37] -- busy. Collect (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pof9 just did an AN3 on me as well now <g>. Are there any boards he has missed? Collect (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynaflow suggested he do that, saying ANI was not the place for it, it looks to me as though you did break 3rr the other day. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It was actually a vandalism revert at that point (sigh) unless you can seriously believe a person who thinks that the US is fascist because we had the fasces on a dime? I should have simply called it vandalism I suppose. Collect (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't revert vandalism, that was a sourced, good faith edit and the editor's opinions about the US and symbols on its currency, whatever they may be, had nothing to do with that edit. Fascism is a widely misunderstood notion, by the bye: Although I think the lead of that article is missing the economic pith of fascism, it is collectivist, as are National Socialism and communism. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Drop by the talk page -- we can use some fresh voices there. The person's use of "collectivist" was substantially different from your usage however and I think there could be a substantive discussion (he did not use the economic meaning moreover, but the sense of national unity which is sorta implicit in "nationalism."). "Corporatism" is the other issue at this point. Collect (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Collect, the pith here is that you've been edit warring. Stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oooh! Bullseye.File:Smiley-Dancing.gif ► RATEL ◄ 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the compliment with regard to my 'Gimping' ability, but I have to admit that it is one of my jobs so use PS professionally (as an ex-photographer and currently as a graphic designer/image restoration/manipulation). I do have to admit that I never really managed the transition from PS to Gimp though. I'm too old and 10+ years with PS is too hard a habit to break. :) --WebHamster 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It took me only a few days to get cozy with Gimp, but I wouldn't call those days a breeze, having been so hooked on PS. Now (only for the fun of telling you), I did think the background had been blurred out but couldn't say if what I saw at the borders was lighting or selection artifacts, along with how the lighting all matched up and had the look of high CT, which meant to me, "one way or another this looks like professional-level skill" and hence, the thought about copyright! So yeah, take it only as a compliment, I've seen professional level photo uploads go all the way to WP:OTRS before their open licences were believed here. Don't know if you're aware how many users (most often teens I guess) grab professional stuff off the web and upload it to Wikipedia as their own snaps. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OR and POV

Well, you also may have seen this edit, and I see no evidence of you disapproving of it, neither the summary nor the content. The amount of shameless nationalistic Polish propaganda on en-WP is unbelievable. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, shameless unsupported PoV, but I'm only saying, it's not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a quick perusal of a number of sources listed in the References section supports the edits (and we usually don't inline the lead if there is support for it in the text already). Even the Boockmann book (which in my opinion is given UNDUE WEIGHT in the article) which is the main source which tries to downplay the massacre part pretty much admits that something must have happened. So my edits were neither "vandalism" nor "shameless unsupported PoV". But thanks for warning Matthead anyway.radek (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw in a glance that it wasn't vandalism, I didn't see that the massacre wasn't noted in the earlier diff. I meant to word that to mean, "Yeah, ok, you can say it's 'x' but whatever it is, it's not vandalism." As you know, sources on these nationalistic topics can have outlooks which aren't the same, good faith editors too, that's for the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, cool, just wanted to clarify that. Thanks again.radek (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you need to inline something in the lead for awhile, please do, there's nothing untowards about it, leads without footnotes are more a GA/FA editorial kind of worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional to the three buttons [rollback (AGF)], [rollback], [rollback (VANDAL)], I'd like to have [rollback (POVWARRIOR)], or considering the bad name given to the Germanic Vandals even in the Wiki Userinterface, rather a button [rollback (POLAN)], for some NPOV. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I don't like the etymology of vandal either (sometimes I cringe when I have to type that word here) and would much rather blatantly bad faith edits, pranks and graffiti were called harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he's at it again.

There is anew user entering the Smiley face murders fray and he starts by deleting the stuff we fought about just two days ago. I'm gonna try and talk to him, I just thought you should know. Padillah (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's twice now. Can you semi my talkpage, please? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


On TRfC/U on me -- you are quoted as though you had posted there. I thought this was not quite kosher. Collect (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
[38] but for some reason since they appear to be discussing you at several points, I had not noticed he did use blockquotem but only that he had. not as clearly as I would have, cited an elided exchange as coming from a specific page. My error, but I think you might well wish to note the uses of your name when I found no reason for them to do so Pof9 also filed another AN/I on me. BTW, I think some of the section headers were created to make very pointed claims indeed. Right now I am supposed to be in bed -- worst stomach virus in my life, and I got about 15 mins of sleep lastnight -- finalyy this morning I took some meds for it. Merci. Collect (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching, don't think those are misleading. I hope you feel better soon! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Amazing what a lot of painkillers etc. can do ... but "Sleepless in Florida" will not cut it as a movie plat ... Collect (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I think I did give you this [39] from a specific editor's user page. I thnk he is using it to the letter. Pack of cards, indeed, with a bunch of socks in the laundry basket. Collect (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I plan on saying something way pithy about all this when the time comes (very soon I hope). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Hey there. I added a new entry to the Alex Jones page which is fully sourced. Why was this deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanmcginty (talkcontribs) 01:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is unreliable. See WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathanmcginty (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: a word from an admin might help?

I wasn't online to participate in this discussion, so I'll reply in a new thread here; You are welcome to add it to your archive. I reviewed the complaints from Zombie president, and while I am certainly willing to allow the user page to be deleted, I did have some concerns. That medical cannabis was (and probably still is) under some kind of SPA attack is not in question. It was interesting how Zombie president created this account at 10:05, 23 February 2009[40], which was one day before Maxpowers4040[41], yet another account used on the page.[42] This kind of "coincidence" continued to arise with each new account, most if not all of which, were making the same arguments on the talk page. For example, another SPA Hiram408 created his account on 23:44, 5 March 2009.[43][44], just hours after a prolific SPA on the same page, Agent Agent created its account at 04:20, 5 March 2009.[45] It goes on and on like this. I appreciate Collect attempting to AGF, but after reading Zombie's statement in his defense, I'm not convinced. The "you're scaring new users away with SPA/sock allegations" was a common meme used by most of the SPA's on the page. It's a wonderful tactic, but it was odd to see multiple accounts keep using it-accounts that supposedly didn't know one another. In any case, I am not a fan of drama, so I've backed the contents of the page up to an offline file and I've placed a {{Db-u1}} tag on it. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Wurdulak

Hi Gwen. You indef blocked this user as a sock of Manhattan Samurai. He (The Wurdulak) has been on IRC unblock channel asking for some advice about why he was blocked, and asking to be unblocked. I've compared contributions, and had a look at your talkpage (archive 12) and I can't see any similarities. I'm quite happy to unblok him, but I thought I'd ask you to review it first/clarify your thinking for me. Thanks. --GedUK  16:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Message received. Now I know what the key article is, I understand why you blocked I think. I shan't unblock. --GedUK  18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

the wduofernl biran

It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling was not important enough for people to make dictionaries generally until the nineteeth century -- if a manuscript has a misspelt word, copyists would make sure to keep the misspelling. IMHO, one of the bg reasons for pushing spelling was the introduction of the "penny post" which finally made communication with others affordable for ordinary people. (The English language is one of the most forgivng as it relies heavily on the fact that most communication is redundant in some degree.) Collect (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't so much about spelling as it is how the mind can quickly grab meaning from somewhat jumbled text. The first and last letters have to stay where one has learned to see them for this trick to happen. Also, dictionaries go back at least a few thousand years. Heedful spelling does speed things up for the reader, a shred of text like the one above does take a bit longer to get through but what's kind of amazing is how fast one can still read it (among the IT terms for what what a computer would need to pull off the same thing are Massive_parallel_processing and Fuzzy logic), not that AI could ever altogether grok the human meaning behind words. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a nice paragraph which reminds me of the joke, "f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, that's output from the old UNIX fortune command. Never tried that on this machine before so I typed it into an Xterm window and got back... Kilroe hic erat!. Typed it again and got... Never try to outstubborn a cat. :D Gwen Gale (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
All the AI folks forget that the brain is the best pattern recognition computer in the world by many orders of magnitude -- we not only see shapes, but associates then simultaneously with all our other senses, hormone levels and more -- an incredible "flight recorder" goes on continuously in our brains. But as far as modern dictionaries - those are very recent. The earliest English list of words (which does not quite qualify as a dictionary) was early 17th century. And a lot of the word lists of ancient times are -- word lists. Or character lists. Collect (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, I'm rather close to two of the world's leading/bleeding edge AI projects and I can say, one will at least give a bunch of IT scientists employment for a few years, the other may give the world a helpful business tool, neither will spin up a gadget which can even grok a song by Joni Mitchell. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, the answer will be in a chemical molecule sufficently complex to encode data, but which finds "best fit" with other molecules already there -- then decode "best fit" to get the information. Brains can do many millions of "best fits" at one time -- something no "program" can ever do. Model could be done on a simple basis of (say) a 128 byte word, assigning 4 bytes to a character (32 characters), doing an XOR with all the nearby choices - and using the best fit as the vote for the pattern. Should be a lot faster than some of the stuff I have seen. But I am rambling. Imagine what a chemoical can do which has the complexity of DNA. Collect (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WebHamster

Hi, you added Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WebHamster to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but there is no WebHamster article, and if there was it should go to WP:AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The page is User:WebHamster and MfD is meant for non-mainspace XfD discussions. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be the right page now, I spoke back too soon! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this will give editors some understanding of what the consensus (if any) may be on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus already failed. This comes off looking more like a stalling tactic than anything else. Friday (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How has consensus failed? What do you think is being stalled? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we don't need to have the same conversation in two different places, sorry. *Waits for coffee to kick in* Friday (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm on my third cup. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing stronger? Thanks for trying the MfD. When Jimbo first bought into this discussion, it left me wondering if I should have gone in harder - if I'd misunderestimated the communities willingness to impose a bit of common courtesy on its members. Sadly, I hadn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That was earlier today :) Anyway, I truly thought it would be helpful (for anyone who cared) to understand what the consensus would be. As I've said elsewhere, this is a private website and the WmF can get that kind of thing deleted straight off if they think it's harmful. After watching this for two days, I think the lack of a talk page link in the user's sig is the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I do too. I note with happiness that, despite our radically different opinions, every contributor so far to this thread refrains from bloating their signature with "<font>" and similar silliness; could there actually be some common ground among us? Indeed I wouldn't be averse to mandatory bog-standard signatures, though I have no appetite whatever for all the agony, hysteria and pomposity that would surely take over any "debate" toward such an end, and indeed would miss certain sigs (the one that manages to be upside down and back to front, the roar of Bishzilla, etc). All in all I've learned just to ignore signatures, photos of people's pets, photos that might possibly show just a few pixels of sex organs, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That I wish only bog-standard signatures were allowed, likewise the gnashing of teeth in getting that to happen, never mind the odd custom sig here and there is ok, even fun to see. I don't think the outlooks of anyone in this thread are so far away from each other.

There is such a thing as taste. There are images on commons which show a lot "more" than that one but, given the craft and meaning woven into them, would hardly get a blink but in the wariest (or most spiteful, clueless, whatever) of settings. However, taste can't be "codified" and when one tries to do it, only "death by committee" is stirred up. My worry here is, through the layout of his user page the editor (who is a skilled graphic artist) doesn't seem to be saying, "see this image and the canny truth it speaks" but rather something baiting (with much help from the TP-linkless sig), like "haha! see how close I can get to the edge and I dare you to put into words, without coming off like a hopeless bumpkin jerk, how I've done my bit in thwarting editors' hopes that this website will be thought of as a learning tool!"

Now that I've had three days to let all this sink in, I think the image's lighting and background have been Gimped to make it look like porn, to make one think of that kind of thing.

Hence, the image on its own is no big deal at all and the sig is within policy, likewise the layout but wrap those three together and one gets taunting disruption, which makes his asking in loops to be told what policy it all breaks much more telling. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You want userpage policy changed? You want signature policy changed? Fine - but going after is not the way to do it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The policies are ok, no need to change them, the user has woven them to disrupt. This has aught to do with "going after a single editor." Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he has intended any disruption whatsoever, and I think it is unfair (at best) to blame him for the disruption caused (sometimes deliberately) by those who wish to impose their own personal taste on others. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think WebHamster meant to disrupt the project and has skillfully done so. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The we must agree to disagree. I am certain that Privatemusing intended to cause disruption in furtherance of his own agenda when he raised the issue. I am certain that Friday intended to cause disruption by his admin actions, again in furtherance of his own agenda, and I would go on but I do not trust an admin not to block me for personal attacks when I simply behave in exactly the same way as an admin in ascribing motive to the actions or inactions of others. By the way, there is such a thing as taste, but as the ancients had it de gustibus non est disputandum. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WebHamster is clever and talented. The image, signature and user page layout are all within policy and the policies themselves are ok. However, he has knowlingly woven them together in a way which triggered the weaknesses and less-than-thorough thinking of many good faith editors into a kerfuffle of meaningless back and forth about the image itself, all with a goal of disrupting the project. As for taste, I only brought that up as background, empty squabbles over taste would be nothing more than another side of the hoped-for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So it's OK to accuse an editor of deliberately disrupting the project based on him being clever, talented, and making a page in accordance with policy? DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. He wove policy in a creative, unforeseen way to stir up disruption. This happens all the time here, he's been more skillfull at it, is all and got himself a canny hit. If someone awarded him a "barnstar of disruption" it would be fitting, but unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I should also say, the political tweak was aimed at a subset of editors who were more likely to be flustered by the image and maybe a bit muddled-headed in how they dealt with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So the muddle-headed are protected from blame for the damage they cause? DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Not at all (nor should they be) and it's a trap set for them, which is why WebHamsters clever image/sig prank is so disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, they are causing the disruption (either deliberately, like Privatemusings and Friday) or through their small-mindedness or less-than-scintillating intellects. WebHamster's userpage could not reasonably be expected to cause disruption, nor could his signature (unlike that of the admin with no links), and nor yet could the combination. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The lack of any expectation of disruption ("unforeseen" as I said earlier) is why the mix of sig and Gimped image, with the political tweak and userboxen thrown in, are so clever. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So he's deliberately disruptive because he deliberately created a userpage and signature in accordance with policy and that he could not have foreseen would have created disruption? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he foresaw it as being disruptive, which is why he did it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he (or anyone) has that level of psychic ability. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about this was psychic, I said it was clever. You're groping now. As for your user page, see WP:POINT. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My userpage is not disruptive. It shews a sketch of the Dorset countryside, and makes a little joke about my own accent. It then quotes some sensible words by another Wikipedian. You are making it increasingly clear that your involvement in this matter has much more to do with your desire to impose your own personal tastes on Wikipedia than with any desire to improve the encyclopædia or the community which creates and maintains it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As I already said, "empty squabbles over taste would be nothing more than another side of the hoped-for disruption." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet you continue to babble on in what is essentially a dispute about taste. You invite me to read WP:POINT, which is about disrupting Wikipedia, yet my userpage (which only those who choose to look at need ever see) is not disruptive. I doubt your motives in this Gwen. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You think it's about taste, I don't. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So what do you imagine is WebHamster's motive for what you allege is deliberate disruption? DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ask him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I should ask him what's going on in your mind? I am asking you what you imagine his motive is - I don't think he is being deliberately disruptive (I don't think he is being disruptive at all). It would be daft for me to ask him what his reason for doing something that I don't think he is doing is. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is why it's usually good to avoid speculating about someone's motivations. We cannot really observe motivations. We can observe behavior. WebHamster's behavior is that of a troll. The two obvious possibilities: 1) he's being intentionally disruptive, skirting the rules for fun, so he can get his lulz, or 2) he's just spectacularly incompetent at behaving like a reasonable adult, and it's this ineptitude that causes the trolling behavior. Nobody needs to care which is the case, because in either case, the answer is the same: he needs to behave while he edits here, or he needs to not edit here. This is not difficult stuff- this kind of thing happens all the time. It seems weird to me that this one obvious case went so bizarrely off-track. I change people's userpages fairly regularly, when the content is inappropriate. I've never seen such a reaction to it before. Friday (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you've never so spectacularly & publicly abused your tools before. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, WebHamster truly hit the spot. It'll wind down. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So it's WebHamster's fault that Friday abused his tools? DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Friday's actions abuse, they were made in good faith but weren't supported by policy (my take is, Friday knew all this and IARed, but IAR can't spin without consensus) and when these were undone, Friday didn't wheel war. This said, everyone knows it's wholly up to Friday to use the bit responsibly. Meanwhile, as I said above, this is the kind of trap admins find in handling some kinds of disruption. It's also why some admins burn out and quit, why en.Wikipedia never has enough admins willing to wade into this kind of codswallop. Anyway, this has to do with outlooks on the image or taste only so far as editors mistakenly think it does. It's the mix. Take away any one of the three cores to this, the lack of a talk page link, the page layout or the image and WebHamster's UP would never have brought forth any meaningful heed, there would have been no disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Won't wash - admins blaming others for their or their colleagues fuck-ups is frankly pathetic. I do not believe that Friday acted in good faith (unless he is spectacularly thick). DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're trying to widen this into an overall attack on admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Now you are just being dishonest. You introduced the comments about admins falling into traps or burning out or quitting, I simply responded to that. Don't you dare try to play that game. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You're baiting. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So you introduce a subject, then berate me for responding to it, then when I point this out tell me to begone? Classic! DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ciao. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WebHamster is a valuable editor who has improved articles. He likes that picture, and like millions of other people he dislikes Bush. I haven't yet read anyone's saying they were shocked to see this; all I've read are worries that other people might be shocked and talk of the risk of embarrassment about being observed looking at his page while at work. If somebody's at work, then that person should presumably work, or conceivably look things up at WP, but not attempt to get into conversations with WP editors. If by contrast the person is doing something in his or her lunchtime while physically at the location of work, then the hell with bush-obsessed people looking over that person's shoulder. If the somebody is in some batshit jurisdiction where the sight over somebody's shoulder of fewer than one hundred pixels of genitalia can trigger litigation, then blame pathological prudishness or a bizarre perversion of the intrinsically excellent project of feminism or mass hysteria or the opportunism of the legal profession or some combination thereof, rather than WebHamster. And may I just add that I also appreciate the pictures of tits on Dekkappai's user page. -- Hoary (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep :) Moreover, contrib histories do have meaning here and there's more to this than the disruption. One can give WebMaster a little slack whilst all this settles down, which it will. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, pardon me for interupting, but I had a question or two. Now first let me say that I do not want to stir up any fuss if the storm has already passed, but I did notice a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster on Jimbo's talk page. I did click on the link to weigh-in with my thoughts, but it was apparently closed. I'm under the impression that the MfD was opened at: 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) by you, and closed at: 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC). If I'm reading that correctly, that's a little under 8 hours. My understanding of the MfD process was that somewhere around 5 days was the preferred time for a MfD to be open to the community. I am aware of WP:SNOW, and I'm not even trying to make a WP:Point, but I really don't see how any sort of consensus can be obtained in such a short span of time. At this point I'd quite imagine that any attempt to DRV would be met with harsh words about censorship, or AGF, or some other UP arguments. So I don't see any sense in stoking the fires so to speak, but I am correct that this should not have been closed quite so quickly aren't I? thx. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Sceptre closed it twice. I thought this was mistaken and unhelpful but didn't want to stir things up. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would certainly agree with that statement. By the very nature of argument, those that feel strongly one way or another are bound to comment on an MfD within the first few hours of its existance, and as such we get a skewed result (not necessarily incorrect, but most definitely skewed). There is no way that MfD should have been closed when it was, WP:SNOW or not. Do I dare bring this up anywhere else, though? Hell no, I'll be hung, drawn and quatered by the "we think this is fine, and you must too" brigade... TalkIslander 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For anyone who still thinks that Privatemusings wasn't deliberately stirring up disruption [46]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Never said you were wrong about that kind of behaviour, ya know? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it something I said?

Gwen, hi. I'm puzzled by the interaction we're having at AN. I think I'm just trying to ask a question about effective mediation, and I get the impression you're telling me to stop mediating. There must be something I'm saying or doing to make you think I'd be better forgetting about it. Do you know what that is, or you do that people shouldn't think about effective mediation? Where is the disconnect? I must be reading something wrong. What is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I don't think mediation works. The only way to sway clueless, edit warring, PoV drenched editors is to show them by doing, to make them understand in the coolest way one can, that sundry PoVs must be threaded together into a worrisome article, otherwise about two thirds of all readers'll blow it off anyway, one way or another, either because they're smart enough to see it's junk, or it's not their take. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. My experience tells me that mediation works well enough to keep after it. I respect your view, butand I disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds helpful to me, please keep after it then! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I give up

Could you please take a look at Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) and its associated history? I'm not asking to you back me up, but rather, to offer an unbiased third opinion. I'm available to answer questions and you may find more info at my talk page and the talk page of User talk:Amicaveritas. Thank you in advance! TNXMan 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's easy, you're dealing with WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that out right away! :P I'm at a loss as to which steps I should take, because there is continued removal of sourced material and glossing over of any rough spots (see the article history for the sordid events). I can't (and won't) block the user, as I'm involved in the dispute. I also feel like page protection would be overstepping my bounds. Your advice is always appreciated. TNXMan 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
He's been blocked by another admin for edit warring and I've left a short note. Let me know if you need more help. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
And now I've been unblocked. 3RR does not apply in this case. I also dispute that this is WP:COI. I'm not looking for a edit war, I'm also not looking to whitewash the profile. But I'd really like to know why you appear to have a grudge against Mr Ahmed. The editorial of the original article was far from balanced and far from fair. You are rapidly turning someone (me) who has long extolled the virtues of Wikipedia into a staunch opponent you do realise I am new here (but learning fast) - I thought you were not supposed to bite newcomers! I'm all for vandalism protection and balanced articles. But an article that just regurgitates all the tabloid sleaze it can find is far from this. If there is a conflict of interest it lies in the fact I am not a fan of the effect our press has on society. To perpetuate a scenario where a person can be damaged without balanced recourse is not a scenario I support or condone. I don't intend to let this matter lie, I will open a dispute on this. I'd rather discuss this however you seem determined that this is a disruptive blocking matter. I think the issue is that it was allowed in the first place and has run unchecked for some time. Do you have any idea who David Brent is? If so how can you possibly claim that it's not highly defamatory to be compared to him. You really must consider not just the pure esthetics of enforcing an arbitrary set of rules on real live people. Your actions, (or lack of them) and decisions affect real lives. The basis of Wikipedia is supposed to be good will. As I am the one championing the good here - you at least owe me the courtesy of discussing it with me before reverting my edits arbitrarily and getting upset when I reinstate them. As I said before: happy to discuss. Please message me. Thank you! Amicaveritas (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Championing the good? Whose good? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the removal, correction or clarification of any inaccuracy is for the good of all in general; is this not a fundamental premise of Wikipedia? They also clearly benefit the subject of the article, but not overly so - they just redress the balance. The removal of defamation is also of benefit to the subject but also I would count this as esthetically and intrinsically good in principle - wouldn't you? If all negative stories were simply deleted, you'd have a point I think about potential WP:COI - however that is simply not the case here; if you actually read the stories referenced they have two sides; however it was only the negative that was inserted into the article. That's not good, nor is it right. Amicaveritas (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not blowing you off, but when I hear the word "good" I reach for my copy of Spinoza, so to speak. Given WP:RS, the pith of Wikipedia is to show WP:NPOV, swayed by WP:WEIGHT and with this article, WP:BLP. If unhappy stuff has happened to this guy and the sources are reliable, it can go in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to get into a philosophical debate about good and evil I'd be happy to oblige. I'm following the dispute resolution procedure I've raised my concerns in the relevant forum. I question if the sources are reliable in all cases and even where they are I question the negative slant that has had been put on it in the article. In any case I believe defamation is not permitted or am I to understand that's the goal that editors can defame or re-post defamatory comments with impunity? Forget Spinoza - that doesn't seem right to me - what do you think? I think quite possibly over zealous preservation for the sake of preservation is what's occurred here. Quis Custodis Ipsos Custodes? Well - all of us...Amicaveritas (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS, set by WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering how this edit is signed it would seem there's a link to this company co-founded by Ahmed. It definitely puts this edit into perspective, where Amicaveritas puts in a nice testimonial for said company's dryer products. This whole situation gives me a headache. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I signed it. That's not the point here - or is it? I still stand by every single comment I've made. Imagine these articles and comments were made about you. Now think - does this in anyway invalidate a single arguement I've put forward? Honestly does it? Please take my arguments on their merits and their merits alone. I have no intention of stopping with this articles. But it's a reasonable place to start. Think - what are you doing and why? By the way Mendaliv - please enlighten me as to the said tesimonial I provide. I haven't provided any have I? Amicaveritas (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:V. If you carry on deleting reliably sourced content from the article, you could be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See also - so could you and I believe the offense is far greater in the case of living persons. For the record I have not deleted any reliably sourced content. My understanding from reading the policy is that the burden of proof is with you, if you believe it is reliable. But why are you fighting this? What are you trying to achieve? You seem to be quoting policy simply for the sake of quoting policy - if your goal is to defend your colleague / friend who brought you into this - I salute the principle, I'm certain he does a commendable job policing edits as do you. But I've now read the policies. I get it. I understand. I disagree with your application of them. What you've written in no way invalidates any of the arguments I've put forward. You've addressed none of my concerns and countered none of my arguments. You show no signs of having put any time into researching this, other than to read my comments and quote policy. Mendeliv has at least done some due diligence, although I submit - in a misplaced direction. Please direct your inquiry to the sources and full content of all the articles if you want to invest the time. If you have a case and really feel it necessary then please make it; although I fail to see why you would want to make a case against removal of defamatory statements. Support of defamation is surely neither a good idea nor a laudable aim, or are you just now in a position where you refuse to let it go? Is this a closed shop of frequent editors? I'm not going to be bullied into submission by quotes on policy(I believe there is also a Wikipedia policy against this) - if you dispute the defamation please state your case. If not then I rest my case. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) is a reliable and verifiable independent source. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the source in this case is both reliable and verifiable. What was not was the spin put on the wording in the Wiki article. It clearly gave the impression of guilt by association where none was proven (or even alleged), the claims of the article did not result in any further action (and none was reported). Additionally the article was wrong: the source clearly attributes the allegation of misleading to Afted Ahmed (no relation) not Syed Ahmed – a fact which I attempted to correct in the article. There are then the other concerns you raise to consider at the link(s) below.Amicaveritas (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The user has continued to remove the source against consensus. I suggest you block him. He has made it blatantly clear he isn't going to listen to us.— dαlus Contribs 04:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Both of you have broken 3RR and I've warned you both. The article has been protected from editing and I've removed any questioned BLP content while this gets sorted out. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Gwen for this and your other posts. Perhaps from the point of view of consolidation further discussion should be here:
Let's see where it lands, it won't get lost. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih

We may not quite agree about another user page, but we seem to have similar views about the nakal anak[47] that was at my user page last night. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think we're so asundered on that "other" page, the pith is, my only worry there is the sig. As for the nakal anak, yeah, I think we can somehow agree that was "naughty." :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Using Indonesian grammar, it should have been anak nakal ;) As to the talk link, note that I don't use one, and mostly never have. I want to drive folks to my talk page, as might others. Anyway, it's not as if the system doesn't offer talk links all over the place. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, it's not the sig, it's not the image, it's not the layout, it's how they all mix together. It'll settle down though. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've not really followed that whole bit about that joke. FWIW, when I first heard a form of that joke 8+ years ago, it seemed to be originating with women. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (who's at UTC+8)
It's only a dumb joke about one more politician, I never worried about that at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the assumption that anyone can play, I asked the translator for "Thanks for your help with the BLP mess". I then translated back the resultant text, which gave: "Thanks for your help with the BLP dining room"! Thanks anyway :)  Roger Davies talk 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Mess meaning military meal or eating area. Machine translators break down quickly over homonyms. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually got that link from a Third Level Cabal member and we had an amusing exchange of the same sort; an interesting artifact of that chatter was my female personal assistant ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Never, ever use those things to write something :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

Speaking as someone who has edited Pulp Fiction (film) and thinks it's one of the most meaningful to come out of Hollywood over the last 20 years or so, I at last saw Reservoir Dogs last night. I liked it more than I thought I would, which amazes me because I wontedly flee from violent films and more or less the only females seen or talked about in this one are either murdered or assaulted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You make me want to watch Ms. 45 again. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha! Haven't seen that. I hate to sound cliché, but the pith is character development (Mr White, Mr Orange), moral commentary and deft story telling. I mean, Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West goes through that (the whole movie is about morality, fate and social change) and it's wonderfully filmed, but in Death Wish, all he does is get mad and kills a bunch of bone-headed crooks, it's not much more than like watching a video game, as I recall. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you need to see Jackie Brown (film). Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Someday, maybe ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never been able to hear "Stuck In the Middle With You" since then without thinking back... Dayewalker (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard that song now and then when I was little, in Los Angeles no less, always hated it, I mean, we're talkin' gag me, so I thought it was way, way fitting for a torture scene in a film and cracked up when I heard it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hey, Gwen, thanks for reverting's vandalism on my userpage. I didn't realize he/she vandalized my userpage until I looked at his/her contributions. I was wondering why he/she got blocked if he/she still had one warning left (LV 4), so I looked and saw that he/she vandalized my userpage. Heh. I didn't even realize Poonhunter vandalized it until I saw the history today, though I was mainly paying attention to's vandalism. I guess you were returning the favor because I reverted his/her vandalism on your talk page. Anyway, thanks! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I wasn't returning the favour (though it's ok if you see it that way :)... I saw vandalism and I reverted it. Only so you know, a vandalizing account can be blocked straight off if the edits are harmful enough. I'd already warned the IP I'd block if it vandalized another page and was going back to block when I happened to see he'd blanked your page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the kind response. By the way, what's CMT mean? Is it like "re" meaning "replying"? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Means comment. See also Wikipedia:Glossary. No way to bite the newbies unless you can shower them with acronyms and project page shortcuts they don't understand :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice one! Ha ha ha! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
By the bye, re is a thoroughly nasty Latin contraction meaning in reference to :D Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thank you

from Mari to Gwen for reverting vandalism to my user page. Cheers! Oda Mari (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP Content

I was aware that what I was removing did count as vandalism, as it was removing sourced material from an article, sourced material that you, and several other users, were against the removal thereof. Now that I see that you agree it is indeed a BLP worry, I'm stepping back. This article is no longer any of my concern.— dαlus Contribs 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya Daedalus, thanks. The pith with BLP is, "be afraid, be very afraid," moreover with short articles about moderately or lately notable subjects. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Please see the relevant thread, here.— dαlus Contribs 08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching, looks like rangeblocks might be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a new sock just now, maybe not, but I'm hoping that that is the last we see of him or her.— dαlus Contribs 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:RBI. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe someday when I get the mop.— dαlus Contribs 09:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Meantime, you might think that way about it and mind, you can already do the "RI" bit! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, which reminds me, since you're watching the RFC, would you be able to revert any of the sock IP edits that are made to that page?— dαlus Contribs 09:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd otherwise do this, but I'm staying away from that RfC (on Collect) altogether, I'll say why when it closes, erm, if it ever does :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem

The Luez article isn't one of our best. The sourcing is mostly IMDb, and "Glamour Girls". At the "Glamour Girls" site, there's a list of sources attributed, including IMDb (!), but no attempt to match a particular fact with a particular source. May as well say the entire article is unsourced, but I knew the Marilyn bit was wrong. Rossrs (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We didn't even have an article on her until I began the stub there now in January. Those dodgy sources were about the only ones I could find that went beyond mere blurbs. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


lmao. I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean to abuse the NOTFORUM, NOTMYSPACE kind of things ... but THAT was hilarious! — Ched :  ?  14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh and there you thought I was joking :D Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


While I know you are most likely aware of this, after finding out BB wasn't informed, I might as well point out that you are listed as one of Collect's "allies" and being used as evidence against him. Soxwon (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I care about such codswallop? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured as much, just wanted to make sure you weren't in the dark. Soxwon (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ta! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Any chance this thing will be closed so a proper one can be opened? (I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DO THIS, NOR AM I ASKING YOU TO ASK ANYONE, THIS IS NOT CANVASSING FOR THOSE WHO WILL NO DOUBT SCRUTINIZE) Soxwon (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I can't close it because I don't want to deal with all the dumbheaded cries of abuse which would follow. I don't think any RfC is needed. Collect has been edit warring and that's easy enough for any admin to handle without smearing him. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, to make sure this doesn't happen again:
That RfC wouldn't sway a {{ref}} tag, I'm only waiting for it to die. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, I mean so that it isn't repeated and remind ppl to only discuss disputes they were involved in. Soxwon (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Not needed, I was about to handle this very quickly when the RfC began. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding, I'm talking about in general this will probably not be the last time someone files one and does this sort of thing. I think it should be general guideline so that won't happen. Soxwon (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No way this RfC will teach others not to do it again, it's so beyond the pale, most would see it as a fluke. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sit back....

Has Dell messed with my head, or doesn't this bring to mind a certain multitalented Ohio artiste? -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never bought a computer in Japan but why don't you go to some clone shop and have them slap something together for you? Oh... this is about a laptop? If so, yes, it could be a pain.
I don't quite get how you think it might be him... though the syntax and vocabulary don't rule it out at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
On the former: My congratulations to Microsoft for their degree of success in what I so ignorantly (what with my lack of an MBA and all) would think of as and call monopolism. You can't get a single Dell computer with an alternative in any store here, while if you get one online you have a tiny choice, you're reminded at various points in the process that Dell recommends this or that version (I forget which) of The World's Favorite Operating System, and at the end the whole process craps out anyway. Meanwhile, Dell's rivals don't even purport to sell any alternative to Microsoft. Incidentally, I'll concede that Win2k is pretty good in its way, and I note arguments here that it works perfectly well on today's computers. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I was hearing about Dell's odd sales behaviour with non-Windows machines maybe 2-3 years ago. Stay away from MS if you can, it's way overpriced. Although W2k/XP/Vista are far more steadfast than Win95, that's saying little, given you'll still be in the costly upgrade path, never mind all the security holes. If you're willing to put a bit of work into it, there are many Linux installs which can be made on a laptop and if you want true security and stability, the BSDs (like FreeBSD) will get you there. Also, OS X (as in a Macbook), close kin to the BSDs, is something to think about but it's very costly (and you said you don't like the keyboard, I'm not wild about the mouse, though I could live with it if I had to). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, not necessarily. You install Win2k; you then (if you like Windows) stick with it, and the hell with the upgrade treadmill. As your browser for Win2k, you use Opera. ¶ I dismiss the Apple mouse as a bizarre eccentricity of Mr Jobs ("high concept" but unergonomic), and replace it with any of the many offerings from Logitech, etc that work with the Mac (and most do). I mean, I regard an Apple as "mouse and keyboard not included". Offhand I forget the model number of my iBook but, irrelevantly to its thoughtful provision of bash, mechanically it has whopping design flaws. I get the impression that an overly large percentage of Apple's effort goes into making their products look kewl in the showrooms, at the expense of ensuring that it will still look kewl (or even work at all) a few years later. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Hoary. While I've loved my many Macs over the years, the keyboards have been maddening for many reasons (keystroke doubling, sticking, ... you name it) and the mice always inferior to the kind that ship with Windows boxes. I've gotten used to Vista out of necessity, but I have to say that OS X and W2k (pro) were the two most stable OSs I've ever owned. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was only talking about the later Mac Books with OS X :) I'll grudgingly nod (haha!) that W2k and XP are stable enough for most office and home use and that one can get meaningful work done on Vista (I mean, in lots of places, one has to get meaningful work done on Vista!). Don't mind me, floggin' for open source, Unix-like boxen. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A computer with Ubuntu is "on its way" to me, meaning that "Dell" (Compal?) is putting it together for me, plus 3 weeks' worth of extra delay for a beefier mattery. Not a single byte on it by M$ or Apple, as far as I know. I'm in a merry mood, so here's some music. (This starts off a bit slowly; be patient.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! I'll listen to the snippet when I have a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha! I liked it, cracked me up, too! By the bye, having at last seen Reservoir Dogs this week (earlier thread), I thought I'd have a bash at Kill Bill (both of them). It's utter Kabuki, so all the blood and death become much less worrisome, moreover with all the strong females and underlying dark humour, even satire (when Budd opened the suitcase of cash I knew something hidden inside was about to kill him), which I found much fun to watch. It's not Pulp Fiction (film), but Tarantino is a very keen and skilled film maker. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I should try to watch one or other of that earlier pair; trouble is, nothing I've read about either has appealed. I did enjoy Jackie Brown, but I'm reliably informed that this is very different from its predecessors. And the recent stuff sounds inane even by Hollywood "action" standards. My problem is that I'm bored by kabuki, though I do like Once upon a Time in the West. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're saying you haven't watched Pulp Fiction, go for it, ya won't be sorry :) Watching Jackie Brown (film) today... it's not a waste of time (Bridget Fonda, Robert Forster who's in Mulholland Drive (film)), but it ain't PF, none of the others are, but at least Quentin's been able to have fun harking back to all that stuff he's watched. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


At this point since you've chosen to flash your admin badge at me I am formally making the request to you that you provide me with diffs for any violation of WP:CIVIL and what portion of which policy you believe was violated. As an admin your assertion of incivility on my part may tend to carry an undue weight. Since you chose to become involved, I think I am within the bounds of reason to make this request. Thanks for the time you have spent on this already, fruitless at it may be, I appreciate the effort. I pride myself on my civility (actual civility, not mere adherence to wikipolicy) and my adherence to WP policies, and since you have taken it upon yourself to become involved, it seems to me that it would be uncivil of you not to point out the specific behaviour you choose to deem uncivil. Or incivil if that is your preference. User:Pedant (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point since you've chosen to flash your admin badge at me is uncivil and mistaken. Try again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rag, mama, rag

I'm done commenting at Jimberino's talk page - just want to point out that I wasn't criticising him, just speculating on what the people who do post there are after. pablohablo. 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, for what it's worth, I don't recall see anything you'd posted that stirred me up to say what I said. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Eastern Leatherwood

I noticed that you deleted Eastern Leatherwood. I created this article as a disambiguation page to differentiate two plants sharing "Eastern Leatherwood" as a common name: Eucryphia moorei and Dirca palustris. The reason for deletion was cited as A3. Was there technical failure in this case that resulted in no content being recorded? Something else? ENeville (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a bare wlink. I've redirected to Eucryphia moorei, but please do as you see fit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've edited it to what I had before, to the letter as best I recall. I'm certainly curious what happened?... ENeville (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No you have not. The deleted content was a bare wlink (only admins can see this, sorry). However, the disambig you've done is a happy outcome, so there are no worries from me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Weird. All's that ends well, though.  :-) ENeville (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


For watching my talk and blocking that new sock.— dαlus Contribs 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh and only to say it, I hadn't seen the that one'd dropped me username till I looked at it again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


This editor User:Muffinman991 is using racial terms. See here:[48]. That's all.Mcelite (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you watching the show too?

Think carefully about the next move. Every step Carol has made so far has been a step in poo pees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can say goldbug is a wholly PoV term and doesn't belong in the discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Noted the edit from "Controversies" - thank you! I've now added some links to discussion for Mr Marshall. Appreciated your support on this. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to say "thanks," but for your comments in the AN thread. Your friendly, helpful tone was much more palatable than the commanding and derisive tones used by others. Most importantly, my wife agreed with you. We have made some trims -both here and elsewhere- with an eye toward having the right balance of transparency and privacy that best meets our family's needs. Thank you for your help! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Those needs can shift over time and only y'all can know what they are :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Alex Jones (radio host), following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An Invitation

Would you honor my 10,00th edit by looking over, editing, and discussing my first attempt at an essay? I think I've captured something original, but I know it's merely a draft. No rush, but I'd appreciate your input, long-term. BusterD (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? look over my recent edits as it regards the main page FA today and my discussion on the user's talk. If I've been rude or personal, I'd apologize, but I feel this undeserved. Am I wrong? BusterD (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take your edit on that page as tacit approval. Sorry for taking your valuable time. Always appreciate any critique you may find appropriate. BusterD (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) My take is, you saw an edit which did nothing much but muddle Hoary's sleek edits and more or less spoke your mind. Maybe it all put you in a slightly snippy mood (I can say this because it can happen to me) but there was nothing untowards or uncivil about what you wrote on NSR77's talk page. Truth be told, NSR77's comeback may show a lack of WP:AGF along with WP:OWN. The pith is, Hoary's edits were very helpful and you said so. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Tough for me to see myself except through my own lenses. That's what I need my friends for. Thanks, wiki-sis. Hey, it's my day today! I've never had a day all my own. Do I get my way or something? At least guacamole? BusterD (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's your day, so if you're askin' for "my way" I'll canny give it to you :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of Hitler

Hello Gwen. Was planning to contact you regarding another issue, but your reversal of my edit at the DoH article sped up the process (at least the contact). Like yourself, history is a subject which fascinates me and interests me. I have a deeper grasp and knowlege of WWII history than most casual kibitzers. So I'm rather curious from where or why you are of the opinion that the "dual" method of Hitler's demise (which by the way is impossible to ascertain, other than by circumstantial evidence), was the basis of rumors, or perpetuated rumors concerning whether or not he did, in fact, die in Berlin on 30.4.1945? Thanks Dr. Dan (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please take this to the article talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Haymarket and the main page

Yo Gwen, just noticed you were online at Talk:Haymarket affair. Remembering the discussion about the articles title (martyrs vs massacre vs incident vs affair) I'm a little concerned that the blurb about the affair on the main page currently might not be entirely neutral. As you're an admin familiar with the article, can you have a quick look? Mahalo, Skomorokh 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a massacre is ok. it was, the startled and already edgy police clumsily massacred both themselves and lots of bystanders, the whole thing was a big, sad botch for everyone. The bomb thrower (a murderer, a killer) was glimpsed but his name and reasons are indeed unknown to historians. The aftermath and trial were mostly spun to hide how poorly the police had handled themselves. I'd rather "an unknown number of" be changed to "many" but otherwise I don't see a glaring PoV there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing, the article says 8 policemen whilst the blurb says 7... the sources on this topic are fraught with mistakes, PoV and lack of agreement (the article is very helpful though). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's more the focus rather than the characterisation that troubled me, given the historical significance of the aftermath of the bomb-throwing itself. I realise it would be difficult to do such a complex episode justice in a short news blurb, and thanks for taking a look. Ciao, Skomorokh 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's not easy. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of publisher

Hi Gwen,

What are the notability requirements of an academic publisher like Edward Elgar Publishing? They are not going to have much coverage elsewhere as per WP:ORG but are widely used as references here. Will that be notable enough for inclusion? Lame Name (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any academic publisher with "3,000 titles in print" and more than 250 new ones a year, all so widely cited, along with having been named after Sir Enigma himself, is notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Donadio and disruptions

Hello. I did not call his edits "vandalism" with no reasons. User:Donadio was blocked several times last months for the same kind of disruptions in Wikipedia. He floods talk pages of articles with personal theories, useless discussions and personal attacks. He already pretended to be leaving Wikipedia, and even reverted all his edits saying he "did not want to be associated with Wikipedia any way". [49] [50]

If an user who after getting blocked several times for disruptions, reported to be leaving Wikipedia, reverted all his edits but now is back using Wikipedia's talk pages for personal attacks is not a vandal, then he may be at least a Single-purpose account], since he only uses his account to create discussions, edit-warrings and disruptions at WIkipedia. Notice that he "disappered" from Wikipedia for a month. But, his first edit was dedicated for personal attacks at talk page of White Brazilian article. Is it a serious user? Opinoso (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, he admitted to be using a sockpopet at the Incident discussion. Opinoso (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing from an IP is not always sockpuppetry, although I'll ask him about that. Meanwhile, call it disruption, edit warring against consensus, original research, whatever, but that edit wasn't vandalism. Calling it vandalism makes it much more difficult to see, understand and fix the problem. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gwen. You have asked why I didn't take that edit to the Talk Page. The reason is simple: I have many times argued in the talk page that the number of 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil is absurd and does not match reality. However, this figure is a widespread meme; there are hundreds of sites reporting it. I have found a source that has sober numbers, probably much closer to reality. I don't want even to take the other "information" out; just to make clear that "25 million" is not an uncontroversial number.

I have discussed this issue many times in the Talk Page. I only got abuse, slander, threats, and was even blocked three times for defending truth against absurd. So I am not going to take that to the Talk Page again, to be again accused of being "obsessed with Portugal", "a Portuguese nationalist", of "using Phone Books as source", of "being proud of being of colonial descent", etc, etc, etc.

I am sorry, but Opinoso isn't someone with whom it is possible to argue rationally. He wants it his way, and will not make concessions.

Please read the Talk Page of that article. Please read the archived discussions on Opinoso's personal Talk Page.

Thank you for your patience. Donadio (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That edit is verifiable and sourced, and its source is mainstream and reliable. I hope it is made to stick, even if the "owner" of the article doesn't like it. Donadio (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, hence WP:V has sway: The goal of any article here is not truth, but verifiability. Sources widely held as reliable can be wrong. However, if a consensus of editors thinks the sources are reliable, this can be daunting to overcome. If you've already tried and failed to get consensus, there is likely little you can do short of using the talk page to carefully, in a civil way, whilst never making personal attacks of any kind, show why your source might be more reliable or at least worth putting into the text. Sometimes, one can settle this kind of thing by having the cited text say, "Some sources say foo, but others say bar." Meanwhile, the edit you made (and which I noted on your talk page) was sourced, but what you wrote was not blended into the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss in the Talk Page many times. Some standard behaviour from the other part:

Me: "But how comes Jews appear as the third most important religious group in your reckoning?" Him: **absolutely no answer**

"Please, stop with this Portuguese obsession."

"To the racist IP who thinks black people cannot be approved to an University in Santa Catarina, I think he should find a racist forum to post this comment. He should be blocked from Wikipedia for that pathetic comment."

"STOP trying to destroy this article. Stop manipulating the numbers.

"Stop with this Portuguese obsession. If you have all this obsession with Portugal, there are many articles about this country in Wikipedia. You should write about Portuguese subjects, not about Brazilian."

"I won't let you destroy this article with wrong information. Give it up."

Me: "Well, do these embassies conduct actual research on demographic data?" Him: **absolutely no answer**

(To another user that was trying to give a third opinion) "Please, do not "feed" this User:Donadio. He was already blocked two times for causing troubles in this same article in a period of only 1 week[8] and now he is back again with the same behave. Bye."

"Wikipedia is not a forum for useless discussion. This discussion is out of place. Bye."

"The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view."

"Then, Donadio, stop with this useless discussion."

"Italians being attacked"

"Please, administrators, block this Donadio. He is obviously using a single purpose account . All he does at Wikipedia is to find troubles in this article, with an obsession with diminishing the Italian influence in Brazil."

"You are attacking all the informations about Italians in this article since your first edit here, trying to transform this article in a copy of Portuguese people article, with your single purpose account."

(reacting to me putting "fact" tags next to "sources" that were actually broken links) "Moreover, you also claimed people from Calabria are not Italians...then, what are they? I'd like to know where you take all these informations from."

"It's funny, because you use Phone Books as source."

"Stop claiming a person of recent European immigrant descent is "less Brazilian" than a person of old ancestry, non-white ancestry." (a blatant lie; I never claimed anything remotely similar)

"Funny. First you claimed most white Brazilians are "colonial Portuguese", including your grandparents (when nobody asked you this information, why did you post it?)." (see the level of sheer hostility)

He doesn't want to discuss. He wants his way, and if his way is threatened, he either makes rants full of logical inconsistencies and personal attacks (and even lies), or refuses to answer at all, and relies in his superior ability to keep his absurds in the article.

In short, he is not a friend, he is not friendly at all, he is not reasonable, he strives to own the article, he is not open to cooperation, he systematically violates WP:AGF. Donadio (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're telling me but the very first thing you must do is stop making personal attacks on other editors, stop commenting on them at all, otherwise I can't help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So, he is allowed to make personal attacks but I am not?

Please read the Talk Page of the article. It is full of personal attacks by Opinoso. I try to refrain from making these, mainly because it is really not my style, but, frankly, up to now such behaviour seems to be supported and encouraged. In fact, yelling louder seems to be the way to make articles read like one wants.

What about [51], making threats on my Talk Page as if he was some admin or moderator? Is this allowed? Donadio (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've already told you, I've also warned Opinoso about making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese nationalism

I don't know if you have noticed, but it's a case of Portuguese nationalism there. I do not have the ownership of that article, and I do not want to. My problem with Donadio is old. Months ago, he appered reducing the number of people of Italian, German or Arab descent and increasing the number of people of Portuguese, particularly "colonial" Portuguese. He tried to sell the idea that white Brazilians are all of colonial Portuguese ancestry, while the other ethnic groups are small minorities. Then, he wrote in the talk page of the article that his grandparents were of "colonial" Portuguese descent. Since he was reducing the figures of Italians, German, etc, increasing the figures of Portuguese and then he reported to be of Portuguese descent, I realized it was a Portugues nationalism.

It was a long discussion, he posted several personal theories on that article. He even tried to use a Phone Book as a source, claiming that for the fact that most Brazilians have Portuguese surname, it means they're all of Portuguese descent (it's like claiming an African-American with British surname is of British descent).

He was blocked several times for disruptions in that same article, and even pretended to be leaving Wikipedia. [52] But, of course, he did not leave it, he's back again to the same article he was previously blocked for disruptions.

The user also manipulates sources in Portuguese, because most people cannot read it. He claimed that "Acording to Adriano Albino, there are about 10,800,000 people of post-colonial Portuguese descent in Brazil." The source does not even claim that. The source claimed this figure only including until third generation descendants. The source does not even talk about the figure of "post-colonial" descendants. Braizil became independent in 1822. Since there, there are 8 or higher generations. The source only counted until third generation. I reverted his source manipulation, but you reverted me back, and I don't know why.

We already had a long discussion about the size of the Italian-descend population. He already took that discussion to different parts of Wikipedia, including many other users. The Italian Embassy claims there are 25 million Italian Brazilians. We already had several discussion if Embassy sources are reliable or not. Just look at old contributions and you will find them. Other users agreed Embassy is reliable.

Donadio already used many personal theories to decrease this figure. The discussion was ended since a long time ago, and he already told me that he agreed with the 25 million. Not true, since he is once again trying to diminish the official figures:[53], claiming a source said it's 8 million. That source is not reliable. The Embassy is.

Since I'm the only person who posts in that article, all the things he posts in the talk page, I'm the only one that will see. I already tried to discuss with the user, but I gave up. It's a Portuguese nationalist who only wants to sell the idea white Brazilians are all Portuguese, without miscegenation, and that other ethnic groups are small minorities.

And when I included the information that "white Brazilians are mainly of colonial ancestry" I included the majority of self-reported white Brazilians, who are usually lighter skinned mixed-race people who think themselves as whites. It's not me who is saying that, but is anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro on his book O Povo Brasileiro. But, if we count only white people (not lighter skinned mixed-race people) whites of post-colonial ancestry will outnumbers those of colonial ancestry.

Donadio is using this as if I was a crazy person who claimed something on the talk page, and then wrote another information on the article.

I won't discuss with him anymore. It's not a serious user. Blocked several times, uses personal theories, Portuguese nationalist obssessed with "colonial Portuguese", non-neutral personal. I'm too busy for that. But I won't let him destroy that article once again with his Portuguese obssession. I won't let him decrease the official figures of Italians. Just take a look at past discussions. I already discussed with him several times. I noticed he was not a serious person. He's back after 1 month he disappered, reviving an old discussion. I don't want to revive that discussion. I gave up.

I ask you guys not to "feed" him. When other users feed him, he floods pages and more pages with discussions, disruptions. Then he gest blocked, disappers for a while, and then he comes back with the same discussion. It's like a circle. Just be carefull. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a serious user" may sound ok when translated back into Portugese but in English, on en.Wikipedia, it could easily be taken as a personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds exactly the same in Portuguese. It is a personal attack, and Opinoso is well known for making these. But it is not the only personal attack here.

Let's see:

  • "Portuguese Nationalism": this is a personal attack. I am not Portuguese, I am Brazilian, and I am not a Portuguese nationalist. Being called that is extremely offencive to me.
  • "He tried to sell the idea that white Brazilians are all of colonial Portuguese ancestry": this is a blatant lie. I never said or implied that White Brazilians are all of colonial Portuguese ancestry. I always maintained that most of them are. Either Opinoso knows that, and is simply lying, or he does not read what I write, and opposes my contributions without even knowing what they are. Now, only a complete imbecile would maintain that all White Brazilians are of Portuguese ancestry, so I suppose Opinoso is indirectly calling me a complete imbecile. So this is again a personal attack.
  • "Then, he wrote in the talk page of the article that his grandparents were of "colonial" Portuguese descent. Since he was reducing the figures of Italians, German, etc, increasing the figures of Portuguese and then he reported to be of Portuguese descent, I realized it was a Portugues nationalism.": This is again a personal attack, and, worse, using a personal information I gave in good faith to slander me. It is also lying by omission, since I clearly stated that I have three grandparents of Portuguese colonial descent and one Italian grandparent.
  • "He even tried to use a Phone Book as a source": again a personal insult. I made a rhetoric question, and he now repeats this tale endlessly, to make me look like an idiot.
  • "It's a Portuguese nationalist who only wants to sell the idea white Brazilians are all Portuguese, without miscegenation, and that other ethnic groups are small minorities.": again the same personal attack, repeated ad nauseam.

As you see, your warning that he shouldn't make personal attacks did not work.

This must come to an end. If Wikipedia is a serious place, and actually values civility and good faith, this user must be sternly reprimanded and made to stop this aggressive and irresponsible behaviour. Donadio (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. This is at least the third time I've asked both of you to stop talking about other editors and only talk about content and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gwen. Sorry to bother you with this subject again. Could yoo please take a look at this: [54]?

It seems that some people are willing to stir trouble with the fact that sometimes I post without being logged. Now, please explain me: is posting without being logged allowed or not? Donadio (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I told you earlier that when editing any of those articles, you should be logged on as Donadio (please don't make me look up the diff). IP editing is allowed. Editing from a user account is allowed. Making non-controversial, undisputed edits from an IP when you have a user account is allowed. Editing disputed articles from shifting IPs when you have edited them from a user account may be taken as disruptive and could get you blocked. Please don't do that, edit from Donadio. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything without being logged, except the IP's own Talk Page. The diff I pointed to you identified my IP and the place where it resolves to - I have erased that - and expressed the concern that it might be a sockpuppet of me - that I didn't erase, but answered with truth - that the IP is me, Donadio, and isn't used for sockpuppetry.

On another subject, you protected the article on April 30th. Today is May 4th; two things look more and more unlikely now: that a third editor will express any opinion about my proposal on the Talk Page, or that Opinoso will either agree with it or explain the reasons why he disagrees.

What happens if the discussion doesn't happen due to lack of interest of both the other part and third parts? Donadio (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is flawed, who wants to deal with sourcing a whole article about the racial make-up of a country when a paragraph or two in the country article would do? Reliable sources on race are both dodgy and scarce to begin with and are bound to upset lots of readers and editors. This aside, you both will have to wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; in fact, this article seems quite unnecessary, besides being too much of a duplication of Immigration to Brazil. How about deleting it entirely, and then discussing the many problems in Immigration to Brazil? Donadio (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me, come to think of it, this could likely be done through an editorial WP:MERGE at any time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, do you read Italian? Donadio (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, slowly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can enjoy this: [55].

Particularly note 38, in page 31, and page 36. I hope this can clear the reasons I have to oppose the article's figures on Italian immigration to Brazil. Donadio (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, this: [56].
Gwen, this is not a content dispute. It's a territorial dispute. Content is merely a pretext to assert page ownership. Donadio (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

For instance, see:

[57] - Editing article to include the "information" that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil.

[58] - Editing article to remove "information" that there are 12 million people of German descent in Brazil and reassert the 5 million figure. Donadio (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you stop worrying other editors by not editing from IPs, then the label can be taken down soon. The article should either be merged, deleted, or have more input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So, editing from IPs shouldn't be allowed. Wikipedia makes a wrong thing here: it allows me to do something, and then punishes me for doing what I was allowed to do.

The label was already taken down, thank you. My point was not that. My point was the abuse of another editor, who went to a Talk Page that doesn't belong to him, and changed it at his own will.

Let me ask you, can I go to Opinoso's Talk Page, or to the Talk Page of one of the IPs he uses to circumvent Wikipedia rules, and mess up with it the same way he did to me?

Then why is he allowed to behave in such way?

The article, as I see, is not going anywhere. There will be no imput by other editors, because no one wants to engage in confronting its W:OWNER. There will be no discussion, because the only other person that reads this doesn't want to discuss at all. And I very much doubt it will be merged or deleted, because nobody is really concerned with its content. Donadio (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please heed this very carefully: You have a user account, which you have used to edit at least one article where you are in an editing dispute. You have edited the same article from anonymous IP addresses, which stirred up meaningful worries about WP:sockpuppetry. This is at least the 4th time I, as a volunteer admin, have told you to edit disputed articles on this private website only from your user account. If you cannot do this I, as a volunteer admin, will not help you further. If you can do this, I will try to help you further. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing exactly what you asked me. It doesn't stop other people from trying to stir problem about an issue that has already been solved. (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

...and you tell me this editing from an IP rather than whilst logged onto your user account? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Sometimes my computer disconnects and I don't realize it, which gives occasion to these things. If Wikipedia required loging in for editing, this wouldn't happen.

On the other hand, I hope your Talk Page isn't a "disputed article". Donadio (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're posting on my talk page about disputed articles it would follow that you must do so while logged on. We've spent way too much time talking about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's do the following. I will no longer try to correct mistakes in Wikipedia. I'm working for free, and, on top of that, I am being mistreated, insulted, called a vandal, considered a sneaky person who uses sockpuppets for nefarious ends - even though I openly admit that I am me in all circumstances, and that Wikipedia allows me to do what I do.

I am tired of that. Wikipedia wants to keeps factual mistakes? Fine. It's not my concern; it should be Wikipedia's concern. Wikipedia believes that users like Opinoso are good users that are contributing to the project. Fine. Let's keep him posting. Let's allow him to send away any other Brazilian editor. Let's allow him to own the articles. Let's allow him to do this:


and this:


Good luck with that.

Thank you for your effort. Sorry for wasting your time. I'm no longer taking part in this hospice. Donadio (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, if you do post whilst always logged on as Donadio, I can likely help you and you'll have gotten beyond the first step but, if you later show up now and then as an IP, I can't. This is the long and short of all I've been talking about with you so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Falls Orangeman

Falls Orangeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked for a month for disruptive editing, came back from his block and yet again made an edit largely identical in content to the ones he has made since February. This editor seems quite single minded in using that particular article as a soapbox for his extremist views, what can be done please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned. If he does it again, I'll block him again. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2006 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2006 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship. 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. –Howard the Duck 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it following your good faith request. You can ask the deleting admin straight off, next time. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Bristol's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, now has his own article, and now that Bristol has gone on a media blitz as part of her national campaign against teen pregnancy, makes her notable enough for her own article. Would you please unprotect Bristol Palin? Dems on the move (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Still basically BLP1E material -- and I doubt Levi really should have his own article in any case. Collect (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is a conensus for unprotecting Bristol Palin at Talk:Sarah Palin, I'll be happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You might wish to note the AfD on Levi Johnston, which is now cross-listed on a number of projects, including Organisms and Sexuality as well as Comspiracy theories <g>. Collect (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What a mess, bits of underlying PoV there, ya reckon? :) Why didn't they cross-post to Nazi UFOs, too (see thread below)? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Erm, that's twice now I've misread organisms as orgasms. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fools and Heroes

Writing in regards to the deletion of the Fools and Heroes page for the reasoning "A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.)"

I am politely asking (in light of your post: If your article was deleted and you want it back to work on, feel free to leave a polite note on my talk page and I'll be glad to help you out (but I won't give back copies of attack pages or straight copyright violations).)

I would like the page back. I am not aware of which Fools and Heroes member created the page but I have had several members recently ask why it has disappeared and it fell to me (as Society Secretary) to look into it, so here I am.

I plan on updating the page so it is more relevant and make it more accessable to people who may wish to know about the oldest LARP society in the UK, it will also make the Lorien Trust page relevant again as it mentions our biggest event (Summerfest) with a broken link.

Alpha Hannah (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus a year ago among those who edit these topics is that LARPs have their own notability standards, so I restored most of these back then and I've restored this article to the mainspace too, thanks for letting me know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin unprotect request (again)

I've just noticed the section above, but I thought I'd let you know that there is an unprotect request at WP:RPP. I don't follow US politics (if this really is politics) sufficiently to form a sensible position anyway, but you protected it, so as far as I'm concerned it's your call. Could you respond at RPP so the editor sees it there. Ta :) --GedUK  12:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've commented there. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel (and I re-opened the discussion because I feel as such) that this must be dealt with another, different admin owing to the clear consensus to reopen the article (not to mention the abetment of much of the problems that led to the original up), if not the consensus for what should be done. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the consensus? Wlink please. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've posted to the unprotection request. WP:RPP isn't well-suited to long discussions, so it may be more appropriate to bump this up to WP:AN as an administrative matter if the conversation continues.   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did have that thought. I don't see any consensus for unprotection at Talk:sarah Palin or anywhere else. Am I missing something? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Link to RPP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uy. Gwen, I'm having a hard time seeing the argument here... as said elsewhere, the norm is for open editing. There hasn't even been a speedy/prod thing associated with this, much less an open AfD discussion where this will quickly end up anyway. Much as I find the attention being given to the Palin Pack to be rather embarrassing to my(/our?) national culture (such as it is), it's pretty clear that it's not at all a black-and-white issue at this point, so shouldn't be handled unilaterally as a simple maintenance issue.

For a while on Wikibooks some of the editors of b:Wikijunior had tried to implement a "consensus to create" system, as opposed to open editing followed (if necessary) by "consensus to delete". It didn't work out, because it simply ran against too many principles that we held dear, and the admins (myself included) weren't willing to support the system without a policy making that exception. You're essentially using the Sarah Palin talk page in this manner now, which more or less presents the same problem that the Wikijunior system ran up against. If you're going to follow that model, you should really run it by the community on AN or perhaps VPP, because it really isn't how things are normally done. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

b:Wikijunior had nothing to do with BLP worries. Consensus many months ago was to protect. If consensus shifts for whatever reason, I'll unprotect. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Past consensus is not binding on present editors. Can you point to anything like a current consensus to retain protection? Based on the number of people who've asked for it to be preotected versus those whove asked for the protection to be retained, it appears that whatever consensus there was before has disappeared.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's just the problem though. You're asking for consensus to create an article, which just isn't done. Wikijunior's issue is not the same (in that case the issue was to protect the readers, while BLP protects the privacy of the subject), but it's just the only other example I know of in wikimedia where something like this has been tried. Unless there's a solid precedent for requiring consensus to create an article (thus making it a simple maintenance protection), this really should move to AN. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You are in error. It is indeed done, in this case there was established clear consensus there should be no separate article, and that the redir should be protected. To create what is effectively a spin off article requires a change in consensus, hence the need to establish that consensus has, indeed, changed. You cannot simply ignore the prior consensus because you disagree, or don't like it. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
'scuse me? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
KC, I'm not aware of another public figure who's had their article protected from creation for nine-months. When has this been done before?   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's at least arguable that the name should be unprotected so that an article can be created (whereupon it would risk AfD etc). However, I haven't seen anyone claiming that there is an urgent need for an article. Since nobody has cited an urgent need, since Palin and Johnston may be similar in their notability or lack thereof, since the BLP considerations likely to be appealed to are likely to be similar, and since Johnston is undergoing AfD right now, I suggest that everybody waits for the AfD to be settled one way or another before making or acceding to any request. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I guess I'll say again, BLP is the main reason I've been asking to see a consensus and moreover, a consensus will be showing up way sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, getting consensus on the SP talk page only makes sense if it's a "spin off article", and my impression is that the people requesting unprotection believe that she is notable in her own right (and of course because she's SP's spawn). If her relationship to SP was her only notability, then it wouldn't survive an AfD (per BIO1E). The problem is that by insisting that a consensus is needed on the other article, you're pretty much positing as a given that she's non-notable (in the Wikipedia sense... personally I think she's non-notable in the real life sense, but that's real life).
Hoary: Johnston's not the same person, hence not the same article, hence not the same issue. Unless you assume as a given that the two of them are in fact non-notable aside from their relation to SP (see paragraph above).
No offense, but this needs more eyes, because I think you're not taking your assumptions into account on this issue. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I see it as a spin-off article. No way would she have a shred of notability if it weren't for her mum. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The same could be said for Todd Palin, unless someone has decided that amateur snowmobile champions are notable, and about Michelle Obama, unless someone thinks that all lawyers are notable. People often become notable due to their relationships to notable people. SB_Johnny is correct - protection should occur in reaction to a problem, not preemptively to head off a problem we're worried about. It's been eight or nine months since the article was protected. Any consensus from before that clearly doesn't exist anymore, and the situation has changed due to extended press coverage of Bristol Palin. Per Hoary's suggestion, let's see how the Johnston AfD turns out and then make our decision with that new information.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnston is indeed not the same person. But what has been said about an article on B Palin is remarkably similar to what has been said about an article on Johnston. This doesn't mean that the fate of an attempt to create an article on the one should determine the fate of an attempt to create an article on the other. However, if the Johnston article survives AfD then proponents of a BP article may wish to cite what happened in the AfD and opponents can point to differences, and if it doesn't then vice versa. Either way, people will have a simpler job. And a few more days should bring an end to the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, I agree with most of the stuff Hoary and User:Will Beback have said, and unfortunately fear that Gwen and User:KillerChihuahua are somewhat stonewalling this not only for the three of us, but for millions of other concerned Americans who want information on this figure who since her majority is becoming influential in her own right. Honestly, whether or not the Johnston article fails is not particularly germain to the necessary unprotection and subsequent creation of a Bristol article, as Bristol is (in the opinions of many) considerably more worthy of an article. I continue to comment on this on the page-protect page. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What, me? All I'm doing is trying to get people to stop badgering Gwen. I haven't expressed an opinion about Bristol one way or the other. Suggest you re-check your facts. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I went ahead and asked for more opinions on AN... hope that's OK. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of Interest

First, thanks for taking the trouble to discuss some of my concerns at the DoH article. I would still like to clarify some issues there. While I was scanning some related WP articles, I recently ran across the article concerning Hitler's vegetarianism. One of the references linked to the article alluded to "Gales Group" copyright 2000. I was wondering if you are affiliated in any way with this group, or if the surname is merely a coincidence? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've never even heard of them, it's happenstance. A long time ago, however, I did edit Hitler's vegetarianism, but stopped when I became weary of some modern vegetarians who muddle diet with behaviour and get spitting mad over the notion AH was a vegetarian following the standards of his time for about the last ten years of his life. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring article history


On 14 April of this year, another editor was making unwelcome edits to User:Greg L/Delinking links and even filed a MfD on my page (account of that here). To quickly duck the MfD, I blanked the page, moved its contents to a new article title, and asked you to delete the article history of the original. As you know (thanks to your rapid and helpful intervention), I moved the page back its original title. However, I couldn’t do an *admin-grade* move, where all its history carried through. When you have a moment, would you mind restoring the old history to User:Greg L/Delinking links? In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done (you may need to click on "500" to see them until the cache catches up). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Gwen. Greg L (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems Again

Webhamster has again added defamatory content to the article on Syed Ahmed - against the concensus of opinion. Please would you remove this content and prevent him from editing? Thanks Amicaveritas (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The content is not defamatory (it's thoroughly sourced) and his edits aren't vandalism (which is what you called them on the talk page). However, these are the same BLP worries as before and I've commented about this on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This string of edits could be taken by some as a legal threat and I've left a warning about this on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. Dispute resolution and mediation procedures have been followed. Consensus was agreed - how can you dispute that edits that fly in the face of this are anything other than wanton vadalism?
We have already established that validity of source is NOT sufficient in these cases - pursuant to Wikipedia policy. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is the same BLP worries as before - so why have the edits been allowed, when consensus removed them in the first place? Amicaveritas (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the sources look reliable, one or two do not look reliable to me. However, truth be told, your behaviour here hints that your motives are not at all encyclopedic, so I'm taking some time to watch and further think about the BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In compiling an encylopedia I would not include either "incident" in an article of this length. My original edits however included both. I did not ask for either to be removed. All I wanted was accurate refelection of the truth - which I think is wholly encylopedic. This is not possible as it requires information not published elsewhere. It was on this basis that striking was agreed as the appropriate action. Is WebHamster your friend? Amicaveritas (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Other than having asked Webhamster to deal with the image on his user page in a way which would be less likely to upset some editors, I don't recall having had any contact with him at all. I understand the BLP worries in the article. Your behaviour is a wholly different topic from the article content. You won't get what you want if you carry on the way you have done today. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my comment above. I have read the template links you provided. Apparently I am only allowed to refer to editors in the context of content. I did not realise this. I am not used to constructing arguments or discussions in this manner; as in real life behaviour is integral. I also retract the comment above - given his comments to your comments on the discussion page of the article (as these references to editors refers to content I think this is permissible). Given that the content of his comments to you are derisive and insulting I can surmise my stricken comment is misplaced regardless of whether I should have asked it - which clearly I shouldn’t. Can I ask what recourse there is for behavioural concerns on Wikipedia if we are not allowed to discuss them? Amicaveritas (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Gwen. I'm a bit concerned that the protected version is the one where there are WP:WEIGHT concerns, and I wonder if you'd consider restoring to the last stable version.

    I'm well aware of The Wrong Version, but in view of the fact that there are BLP concerns here, I think Tnxman's edits need consensus to add, not consensus to remove, and I think we should go back to the status quo.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'm about to deal with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Gwen.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I think you are being quite harsh on user:Amicaveritas. I have gone over the text of the talk page in question and it seems he has legitimate concerns about the article that you seem to be ignoring. You protected the page with content that was not agreed upon during consensus that was posted by a user who was not part of the consensus. I ask you to please review the facts and re-assess your position. Neutral 3rd party...Drew Smith What I've done 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not ignored his concerns. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They were initially ignored, but they have been addressed for now. Thank you both. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They were never ignored. Wholly aside from the BLP worries, your behaviour was outside many policies and has wasted much time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They certainly appeared to be ignored; instead of my concerns being addressed initially I was censured for simply restating bona fide concerns in light of DOLT which had already been made and ignored by the editor in question as highlighted by Drew above. I think this especially harsh in light of discourse before editing being highlighted as the appropriate course of action last time round, especially as any comments were made in a direct response to another editor's comments - the only differentiating factor being our respective lengths of service.Amicaveritas (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your disruptive behaviour is not the same topic as the BLP worries in that article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Er - yes and? I again dispute that my behaviour has been disruptive. Your reaction to my comments on content have been unfair and harsh... this is supported above by a neutral 3rd party. You think I've been disruptive, I think you've been disruptive and ignored my concerns until now. I raised these issues above this morning in a concise simple clear statement of reason. Eight hours of discourse later it been reverted to a stable edit pending discussion. This is what I asked for this morning. Had my concerns been addressed then, instead of my behaviour being commented on as an aledged violation of policy (relentelssly all day I might add) this could have been resolved much earlier. Behaviour of admins is IMHO liable to the same, if not greater scrutiny than editors. Can we drop this now? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It would have taken about 10 minutes for me to revert to the stable version had you not been making legal threats and personal attacks. It is also highly unlikely that the article would be fully protected, as it is now. Editors who don't agree that their edits break policy are blocked here all the time, day and night. Yes, I hope you'll drop this now and instead, spend some time reading up on Wikipedia's policies and moreover, learning that these policies are not meant as means of wikilawyering every way you can think of until you get what you want, especially given your blatant conflict of interest. Please make no mistake, if you make legal threats, attack other editors or edit war again, whether or not you agree you've done these things, I will block you from editing this private website. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I will of course read all of the policies in detail, it takes time. Please make no mistake: I have not and have NEVER made legal threats (the single exception to this in in my first request for editor assistance on my day of joining before I was aware of this policy, it was also retracted), attacked other editors or edit warred - and any accusations of such will be the subject of formal complaints. I am amazed that you have chosen to single me out for such harsh accusations especially given the comments of another editor, some of which were directed at you. With regard to blocking, any blocks would of of course be appealled and I'm confident as there is no basis for blocking me - they would (as on the previous occasion) be promptly revoked. I am completely unsatisfied with the enforcement of Wikipedia own policy regarding BLP and I am now working avtively at all levels to improve this. I wholly applaude the wikilawyering policy - where has the spirit of upholding BLP been today? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't break policy as a means of getting what you want, if you're unhappy with that, this website may not be for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't. However [User_talk:WebHamster] clearly has. I wish to register a harassment and personal attack complaint against him. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Webhamster hasn't broken any policies, so far as I can tell. This does not mean I agree with Webhamster's edits to the article, or the tone he has taken with you. The BLP worries are now being helpfully discussed on the article talk page, your input is welcome there. Please comment only on sources on content, do not comment on other editors. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm now very confused. Please make sure I have this straight: His personal comments are OK under [Wikipedia:Civility], but mine - which refer to an issue with content are not? I'm sorry but that just utter rubbish. I'm not commenting on another editor. I'm making a legitimate complaint about their behaviour. I understood this to be the appropriate course of action. I understood that admins had a responsibility to take action in this case. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're confused at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler

By all means put it out to six months but please do not make the protection indefinite as it is against Wikipedia ethos that all articles can be edited by anyone. --PBS (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SEMI: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism
Indefinite is not forever, there will be nothing to stop any admin from trying no semi-protection again in 6 months, a year, whenever. Anyone can still edit the article so long as they have an account which has been autoconfirmed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of WP:SEMI, but that does not mean that protection of pages is not against the Wikipedia ethos that all articles can be edited by anyone. To take the protection off an administrator will have to ask you to agree, it seems to me for those two reason better to alter it to a discrete period and -- as I have protected the page several times for vandalism -- there is no reason why the period should not be 6 months plus. --PBS (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok but the middle school boys will be back in 6 months :) Gwen Gale (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh! Yep, every autumn at the start of the English School year, the English Civil War is a course from some of the little darlings and every year vandalism starts to get out of hand around that time. --PBS (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good archive

Indeed, however when I requested it, he was getting ruder and ruder. But since the request, he became very quiet, so I think your archiving at this time is a right call. However I wonder why people suddenly get interested in the proposal.--Caspian blue 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he was rude and I don't think he helped Donadio at all (if anything, the block may have been lifted earlier if Donadio had been left to talk to the admins on his own). I think most would agree PD was uncivil, some might say he should have been warned for making PAs. Thanks for understanding why I closed the thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh... I know what was going on. Wikipediareview buddies..Anyway, thank you for handling the case calmly.--Caspian blue 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that while it was going on. Two admins (Hoary and I) wanted him unblocked, I got the blocking admin's ok to do so, had the unblock template all written up, read it in preview, hit save and got an edit conflict with a string of demands (his friend having stirred him up off-wiki). I couldn't bring myself to go on with the unblock, even Hoary declined to unblock a bit later over that, though it was clear he would be unblocked when things settled down. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Independent view

Hi Gwen, if you have time could I possibly request you to give a view as a neutral third party on discussions at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) please? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the thread is carrying on in a helpful way and that the BLP worries are being dealt with. I agree the words secret family shouldn't be used in the text. Please feel free to keep me posted on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fclass again?

What do you think? [61]Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, find 10 editors with contribs like those, 9 of them would be him. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Brendan19 has fled an RFAR on me -- sigh. Nothing new - and the RFC/U has never been closed (where more stuff keeps getting added). Seems like quite a total waste of any common sense. At what point does the WP equivalence of "litigious" enter in? Meanwhile I still have suspicions about one editor and Abbarocks (banned). If such is true, it would be nice for it to be proven or disproven (I doubt it would be disporven). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, if you have a suspicion about someone, please just list it on WP:RFCU rather than discussing it in a round-a-bout way. The CUs are good at what they do, and can simply confirm or dismiss the concerns rather than letting them "hang out there". Sorry to butt in, Gwen :-).--SB_Johnny | talk 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's ok SB Johnny, I was going to say the same thing, thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Gwen Gale/archive12's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Gwen Gale/archive12 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gwen Gale/archive12's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Gwen Gale/archive12!


A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My own day! Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Hmm, would this be an inappropriate use of your rollback button? Me thinks it is! But, no action will be taken against you since you're a big scary sysop eh? Never mind, I'll leave it now since i'm tired and a bit pee'd off. Goodnight.... John Sloan @ 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok to rollback pointy edit warring and disruption on an administrative board. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Well, since another editor agrees with me, it looks like I was in the right when unarchiving the thread! I bet I dont get an apology off you before I hit the hay though? I wont wait up to find out! John Sloan @ 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Have fun. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the thread is still ongoing despite Jimbo's block of Bishonen being long since expired. I guess I really was in the right when keeping it open. Not that i'm gloating or anything ;) Anyway, it takes two to edit war and if I was being "disruptive", then you were also being "disruptive". Even though I don't believe anyone can be classed as disruptive outside of article space. Anyway, I was slightly out of line with my comments here last night! For which I apologise, no hard feelings? John Sloan @ 12:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no hard feelings. By the way, your edit(s) had also left the bottom archive tag. Anyway, I think it belonged at WQA. I don't much support the block but understand why Jimbo, doing what Jimbo does, did it, I don't support Bishonen's incivility and I believe admins should be held to a higher standard. Civility breeches are wontedly blockable only after a pattern shows up and I'm not aware of anything like that with Bishonen. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Shut the fuck up you little shit.Drew Smith What I've done 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think I will. Thanks for the input. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem.Drew Smith What I've done 03:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead I'll sit here, helplessly weeping over my hurt feelings and hope that online bullying is made illegal. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that effectively shut down about two-thirds of the internet? Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that's what many government-types worldwide would like to see happen, like, yesterday. Erm, twixies y'all, my saying that has aught to do with Bishnonen's civility botch. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Disruptive User

User:Tsagali has been causing damage to the article Native Americans in the United States and has not only been having war edits with me but with other editors as well. The user also keeps adding statements without citations. Seems to have a minor objective changing Europeans to Americans (Europeans) and changing the Africans section to Blacks and adds information without any citation at all.Mcelite (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a friendly warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Hello! I notice Donadio is now erasing sourced informations from that article (and even replacing them with unsourced ones) and he's also, once again, posting his personal theories there. I posted the erased informations and theories in the talk page of the article, and then. He seems inclined to erase or hide informations about non-Portuguese ethnic groups and to enflate "colonial Portuguese" ones.

I know this user likes to claim that I want the "ownership" of these articles, which is not a fact, of course. The difference is that Donadio cannot make a single contribution without posting a personal theory, usually inclined to enflate the Portuguese influence in Brazil. The fact that I am against this kind of contribution does not mean I have the ownership of that article.

Take a look, please. Bye-bye. Opinoso (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I try not to speak about the other editor, but it's so clear that everything is based on personal theories, trying to enflate the Portuguese influence and erase informations about non-Portuguese ethnic groups that it's hard not to do it, even though I will focus on the contributions. I won't edit-war, but if the other editor keeps erasing sourced informations and posting personal theories (even after months telling him this is not allowed) somebody should do something about it. I'm not the owner of the article, but I cannot see somebody erase informations and post personal theories and not do something about it. Opinoso (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not edit warring. You must speak with the editor yourself about this, on the article talk page and try to find a way you both can both agree on. Please talk only about sources and content, or it will only make any disagreement worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gwen. What should I do now? Can you please take a look at the page under discussion? Donadio (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Given what he said, you might, on the talk page, start with proposing one change, give the source and say why the source supports the change you want to make. Don't talk about the editor at all, only the edit you want to make and the source you have to support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Already did that. Now? Donadio (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not do that at all. You posted 5kb of rambling text answering all kinds of claims, more or less the same as you've been doing all along and truth be told, the reason why you're getting nowhere. Post a very short proposal for one single, small change to the article with one or two reliable sources to support that change. Nothing more and please stay civil. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I cannot give a source for removing information. Donadio (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am being asked in the Talk Page to do all the changes together. Donadio (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is there any indication that I am not being civil? Donadio (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mkay, I am trying again. See new section "One by one" in the Talk Page, please. Donadio (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
One can easily give a source which supports changing information, or removing conflicting information which may be unsourced or more weakly sourced. Moreover, unsourced information can be removed, along with content which does not follow the source as cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Donadio (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My latest view; feel free to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, back to the office it is...

Whose duty is it?

Hi, Gwen, I see that you deleted the pages Michele Trimarchi and Neuropsychophysiology some one year ago because "blatant adv". But a little longer version is present in en.wikipedia since then, maybe more "blatant" than the former one. Can you please provide and delete these pages, too? We are sure there is something unclear beyond this guy!! Thank you, bye, ---- RingYourBell —Preceding unsigned comment added by PernillaPthor (talkcontribs) 06:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I never deleted either of these pages, although I seem to recall having seen them before.
Has an edit history stretching back about 10 months. It might barely squeak through an AfD or not and needs lots of cleanup but it can't be speedied, since the topic at least seems like it could be encyclopedic.
This was once deleted (by another admin) as a copyright violation. The new text doesn't look like a copyvio. Although it too looks a bit dodgy as written, this could be encyclopedic and likewise can't be speedied.
The only way to deal with either of these articles, if you have worries about them, is to put them through AfD. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed deletion (through the ProD process). Bearian (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said ProD too. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Query about my actions

I prodded Wikipedia:Argument_with_Collect as being likely aimed at me. Writegeist removed the prod and reproved me for not notifying the article creator. I would like your opinion as my quasi-oficial advisor as to whether I correctly prodded it as a PA and whether it should be recommended for deletion (clearly I am the "interested party" and would be chastised were I to nom it). Merci. Collect (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Crying wolf. No "reproof"; just courteously presented information: [62]. Writegeist (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can rm a prod tag, but this doesn't belong in the project space, I've userfied it at User:Factchecker_atyourservice/Argument with Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the userfication GG. Writegeist (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, since Collect seems to have selected you as his mentor to provide advice going forward, I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting on this incident itself.
Though I didn't understand the distinction between user space and project space, I do now realize the page should have been created in user space. However, could you comment on Collect's decision to tag the page for deletion rather than respond to it? The page was created, in the first place, in order to highlight what I felt (and still feel) was abusive and obstructive behavior on Collect's part, and presented as evidence of his behavior in the recent RFC/U.
Instead of responding to or rebutting the criticisms being leveled against him, he simply ignored them, attempted to have the page deleted, and only after Writegeist noticed this, and called him out on it, did he seek input. Characteristically, this gives the appearance of only seeking outside opinion when he thinks he's gotten in trouble, similar to the way he liberally insulted his critics on the RFC page right up until the moment Arbitration proceedings were initiated, at which point he issued allegedly "heartfelt apologies" and vowed to seek constructive criticism going forward.
Again, characteristically, it also seems unpleasantly familiar to content debates with Collect, in which he resorts to PA accusations or quibbles about minor details (along the lines of "I noticed you made a comment in your edit summary... you're not supposed to do that", for example) in order to change the subject or derail the discussion once it becomes clear that his position is indefensible or obviously contrary to policy.
I'm sure you are not fond of wading into such discussions, but doesn't it strike you as the slightest bit underhanded to attempt deletion of a page that was presented in good faith as evidence for an RFC, when the above-board thing to do would have been to rebut my complaints or even say outright that he didn't consider them to be worth discussion? At least then he would be responding, publically and in the expected forum, instead of apparently trying to sweep things under the rug when no one was looking. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll have something (hopefully) very meaningful to say about all this and maybe do something when the RFAR has ended (should be soon). I can say, the RFC has been such a rambling smear-fest, both ways, it blurred what was going on and few neutral volunteer editors would want to wade through that mess: It's done more harm than help. Owing to these, I must ask you to please wait a bit longer for any further input from me, which I'll be happy to give when the time comes. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The RFAR has been rejected. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"...the entire dispute seems to revolve around one or two points of disputed fact." Gosh. I must have missed that particular RFAR. Writegeist (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I inadvertently gave that impression. It was admin. Coren summing up. Writegeist (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) actually the quote had absolutely nothing to do with the RFAR. BTW, there is little need for you to go posting on every user talk page you can find -- if they have not talked with you, there is a possibility that it could be regarded as Hounding. Collect (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Writegeist is hounding me. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And I did not consider that possible interpretation <g>. Collect (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the protecting my user page from the vandal! Opinoso (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Issue with User:Cameron Scott - 3 reverts on [Copperfield] against multiple editors. Please would you take a look. Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Amicaveritas (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
CS's solution is to launch a CU on everyone else <g>. And making edit summaries such as "toot toot! All aboard the sockpuppet express, next stop sockville!" Collect (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile Ratel is at 3RR already (seems a record after a block?) and making rather intemperate remarks to Flowanda in Talk. I do not think he really intended any change in behaviour at all. Collect (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've not a clue if those are socks, could be, but either way, any editor can ask for a CU. I don't see 3rr in Ratel's edits but if you do, it belongs at WP:AN3. I do see ongoing BLP worries there along with too much back and forth edit warring by too many editors and am edging towards protecting the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand CS's frustration and the CU, but all three editors accused of COI (only User:TheMagicOfDC has actually expressed a COI although User:Karelin7 has indicated a "natural bias") have shown in their edits and comments that they are willing to abide by Wikipedia policy and the community and have, in fact, made productive edits to the article (with the help of CS and others). Even if a CU brings back proof of sockpuppeteering, I would hope the toxic environment on the article's talk page would be taken in consideration as to why inexperienced editors wanting to discuss or contribute to the article would be tempted to create another identity as a defense against the unrelenting and mostly unchallenged attacks. As someone who has been repeatedly taken to task for rude behavior toward suspected spammers and COI editors, I find myself in the strange position of defending these editors' right to participate. It's annoying to figure out only now why AGF really exists.
Rather than protecting the article, I'd rather see more editors participating in the actual article editing so COI editors can feel comfortable (and safe) staying on the talk page and more experienced editors don't feel outnumbered. Flowanda | Talk 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The conflict of interest guideline is very clear, COI editors must be very careful and encyclopedic about how they edit. Meanwhile, WP:BLP is also very clear, weakly sourced negative content (which also means most "gossip") isn't allowed, the end. Both "sides" have strayed over the edge, from what I've seen. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Impossible discussion

Hello. You asked me to discuss everything on talk pages, then I did it. But now I realized that it's impossible to discuss with Donadio. The user is always non-neutral, he always has a certain point of view that he wants to prove, and when he deslikes an information he claims its source is not "reliable" or even included a "fact tag" when the source does exist.

Recently, he opened another discussion about "most white Brazilians are of colonial descent"[63] and then he reported that there's no source to support this claim. If there's no source, then the information is untrue. If there's no source, why another discussion about this was opened? Because of his pro-Portuguese point of view that he wants to prove.

He opened another recent discussion [64] at the buttom of it, and I could not believe the subject of the discussion: he could not distinguish the difference between a German-Brazilian and a non-German-Brazilian fighting against Germany during World War II. I think any person is able to distinguish the worse it was for a person of German descent to fight against Germany in a war, to a person that had no family ties with Germany. Moreover, the information was sourced, and it was based on a famous book called Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas (The German Soldiers of Vargas) which talks about how hard it was for German-Brazilians to be obliged to fight against Germany in the war.[65]

Donadio claimed the source "is not reliable" and is "sensationalist". The editor is probably trying to "soften" the opression during Getúlio Vargas government. Maybe because, even being a Dictator, Vargas was (and still is) beloved by many Brazilians. I wonder if the other editor, besides being "pro-Portuguese", is not also "pro-Vargas" and that's why he is now trying to "hide" the opressions against Germans in Brazil during his government (funny, because Getúlio Vargas was also of "colonial Portuguese descent", maybe there's a link between the two "obssessions").

Gwen, I do not want to discuss with the other ditor anymore. He's using the talk pages of article like Foruns, and when there's nothing wrong with article, he finds something to open a new discussion, and then edit-war. He's using Wikipedia not as a way to write sourced informations, but as a place to chat on talk pages about useless discussions. And (it cannot be a coincidence) all his discussions are happening in articles where I usually often contribute. His obviously following my edits and opening discussions everywhere I post. I know to follow other people's editions is not allowed and he should be warned about it. Anyway, I won't "feed" this editor anymore, because if nobody feeds him, then he will stop flooding talk pages with theories and edit-warring articles. I'm leaving the discussions, but I will keep watching the articles that he is trying to "soften" or to write his personal theories. Opinoso (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoary, one of the most experienced, neutral-minded (and still-active) content editors on en.Wikipedia, has been helping out at White Brazilian. I see no reason why you can't take part on the talk page there. As for the other articles, they are few and have to do with the wider topic. Please stop trying to get the other editor sanctioned: In the end, sources will have sway on these articles, reliable sources can't be hidden for long, so it's much more helpful to go to the article talk pages and talk about sources. As for PoV, I think you both have PoVs on this and readers will come to these articles with sundry PoVs, so as ever, the articles should echo both (which is to say, all notable) PoVs on the topic(s), citing sources along the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive unregistered user

Hi Gwen. This unregistered user: has been making personal edits in the article Native Americans in the United States. The user has not only reverted my own edits to improve the article but also the edits of User:Parkwells. This has been consistent. The unregistered user has done so much that full copy paste has to be used to restore information removed or warped. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has stopped. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A year

I meant to do this the other day, but as of May 24th, you were an admin for a year. Congratulations! Acalamari 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta! :) Feel free to let me know if you think I've botched something. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
With what I've seen, your work has been wonderful. I'm glad I nominated you. Acalamari 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal user/IP

There's a vandal IP ( following my edits. It's the same person who recently vandalyzed my user page. And I know who that person is: it's a sockpopet of user [Vivalatinamerica who also vandalyzed the same articles. After getting blocked, he "disappered" from Wikipedia, and it was the time that the IP vandalism started. Can you do something about it? Opinoso (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The hitch is, he's on a shifting (dynamic) IP, so blocking doesn't help much. I'll semi-protect the articles if need be, please let me know if it keeps up. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is it possible to check if Vivalatinamerica is also a sockpuppet for someone else? There seems to be lots of "identities" intent on inflating figures for Brazilians of European descent. Donadio (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to look at them for y'all if you give me some usernames. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you try User:Skanter, User:Mhsb, User:Raffaeleserafini, User:Donadio, and User:Opinoso, please? Donadio (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Donadio and User:Opinoso? I don't understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so we make sure no one is playing foul here. Donadio (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The vandal is back with another IP Opinoso (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I do smell dirty socks in the drawer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No response

Gwen, you never commented on my questions before they were archived. Would you mind? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you posted that you would comment further when the RFA ended. You then posted that the RFA had ended. How is that a response to my questions? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean the RFAR. I'll comment soon, no worries, I haven't forgetten. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Whups, sorry then :-Z Carry on! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Gwen, can you please comment on edit summaries like these:

  • [66] (Undid revision 293388278 by Donadio (talk). The information is sourced. Stop manipulating the article as your wish)
  • [67] (Reverted. Why did you remove the newst figure and replace it with an old one? Because the old one has a higher percentage??)

Thanks in advance. Donadio (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's done more harm than help"

In your talk Archive #12 (a speedy archive to say the least) you made this comment re:RfC/Collect. It is an often repeated response by the few Collect supporters. I would point out that, perhaps, you might see that a window of opportunity for editors to request that Collect change his way of doing business was created. Collect selected you as his mentor long ago...much before the RfC. Perhaps you are too close to Collect to see thru the fog.--Buster7 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- I canvassed not, yet had many and not "few" supporters. Gwen is one of about a dozen folks whom I am friendly with on their user talk pages -- she is, moreover, a good and constructive critic of mine, and not biaaed in any manner or form. The real and proper purpose of an RFC/U is to engage people in a collegial discussion, not in a mortal combat <g>. Every old RFC/U which I have seen in the past (I read a bunch, in point of fact) which devolves as this one did, turns out to redound badly on the complainants. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Admin:Gale for your comments at the Rfc. They are timely and I hope they do some good. (I guess the fog lifted).
Since many eyes will read this edit I would like to make two points about Collects 31 May 2009 edit that are examples of why so many GFE's turned up to communicate at the Rfc. 1) Collect states...The real and proper purpose of an RFC/U is to engage people in a collegial discussion. Exactly! And Collect refused to take part in that discussion. What little he did share were misguided sock/meat puppet attacks against myself and other quality editors. And a childish trip into Wonderland. And yet, here, now, Collect acts like he was an active participant. We all know different. He left his few defenders stranded. 2)"...turns out to redound badly on the complainants.". Am I mistaken? Is that not another in a long list of threats and innuendoes? You asked him (in the thread below) to stop making threats, to me specifically. It would seem that Collect does not respond well to your good counsel! Does he have some plan of action to retaliate against me for comments made? How else am I to read that? --Buster7 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Could be a threat, Buster7. I feel that Collect does hold grudges. We came into conflict at Drudge Report, and he pursued me onto a variety of pages thereafter, for revenge (I feel). My advice to anyone having problems with Collect is to avoid him if possible, and I'm not the only one. I got an email from another editor saying he would not edit any article Collect edits. Not good for the Project. We need more of the Broom icon.svg sometimes, methinks. ► RATEL ◄ 08:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


I would like to ask that the list of presidential nicknames (which is really a vandal target) be not considered as a "political page" in any sense. Also that BLPs which have only marginal relevance to any current political issues also be exempt. I am concerned that you feel I have made any "legal threats" as I surely have not thought I made any such. Please detail such by email. Merci. Collect (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You can still revert straightforward vandalism on any article. Otherwise, no. You've lost too much trust having anything to do with the revert button on political topics.
Gosh -- I did not view it at the time as a "legal threat" and that was 8 months back, quite early on in the edits I made. It was in response to this (and similar) posts: "Collect..just yesterday you said my claim of paid operatives at work here was, let me think, o yea....reprehensible and that I was not editing in good faith. My claim was, as it turns out, verified by this [[68]]. My POV is that Kelly and ferrylodge were editing the Sarah Palin article in mid-July---5 weeks before she was a twinkle in the eye of Americans. Ok....maybe they are not paid. But someone would have to have blinders on to not realize that this article needs to be controlled by the Republicans. And, the Democrats need to do their best to counter. It only makes sense in this CyberAge. Perhaps you don't agree. But you needn't condemn me and call me heinous. War is reprehensible and heinous. I edit in good faith!!--Buster7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)" Which struck me as being an improper post. On "nicknames" a lot of the "edits" offered are not "vandalism" per se ... but inapt according to how the page is set up. (Like "King George" for GWB). Collect (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop trying to skirt acknowledging what you've done, this is what got you into this mess to begin with. Don't make legal threats and you'll likely have no worries about editors saying you've made legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC closure

Excellent decision and comments. One thing that I've noted in the (many) weeks since the RfC opened is that Collect has a bad habit of making rather informal accusations of sock-/meat-puppetry, which I find to be at least as disturbing as the edit warring. I'm not really familiar with the rules for RfC closures, but I would like to see that discouraged as part of the "deal". Would it be ok if I added that in? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although I think of this under the overall outlook of disruption, please do. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do so. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I have undergone about a half-dozen claims of me being a sock, that I have had multiple CUs performed on me, and I never objected. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I'm aware of that, and am also aware that you have not used socks. If that happens again, please ping me and let me handle it. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What? Me worry? I can be CUed a hundred times - it will not bother me one whit. I used to be able to see who people were (user ID number, user node and location etc.) in my incarnation for AOL, and it really is boring on the poor person who gets the requests on the same person over and over. I do discuss "alternate personas" at User:Collect/personas which I have been advised by knowledgeable folks is actually all too accurate. Collect (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
en.wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be startled and dismayed to learn who's behind some of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've long said there were smears both ways in this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interject, but I thought I should bring up the sudden appearance of Phoenix of9 at Fascism when Collect's Arbcom case was losing steam. He appeared on the 25th and this comment was made two days later: [69]. Almost immediately this storm occurred. While the events most likely aren't connected, I do think that some point should be made that some of the more involved editors (Phoenix of9, Ratel, Brendan, and maybe 1 or two more) shouldn't be provoking Collect either and should try to avoid him when possible. Soxwon (talk)

Yes. Collect, if anyone tries to bait you, let me (or another admin) know and I'll swiftly deal with it. Don't try to handle it yourself. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now, Pof9 seems to be baiting you -- see also the RFC/U list of open cases. Collect (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he was hoping you'd be blocked, but doesn't understand the blocking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

gwen, i think what you have done is great. closing the RfC is fine and i am glad you placed sanctions on collect. this is the sort of action i was seeking in my RfAr. i agree completely that collect can be a good editor if he stays away from politics. maybe these restrictions will allow him to become a better editor in the political realm as well. i do not have the same problem with you that Pof9 seems to have- probably because i got what i wanted out of the whole affair. anyway, thanks for achieving what the arbcom should have achieved. if something like this had been carried out immediately after the RfC i never would have gone to the arbcom.

sb johnny, your addition to what gwen had to say is spot on. it addresses some of the other issues w/ collect that seemed to get overlooked by the arbcom (who focused on edit warring). your input was greatly appreciated because i didnt see you taking any sides.

soxwon, you have taken a side and i am discouraged by that. it is noble to defend someone who is being ganged up on (in your eyes), but i think your judgement is being clouded because of the fact that youve taken a side in the matter (namely, collects side). i agree with you that nobody should provoke or bait collect with the sole intention of causing a dispute/uproar/war/et cetera. i will certainly do no such thing, but there may be times when i have a different opinion than collect and i disagree with the idea that i (and others) should try to avoid him. i have done nothing wrong and i should not have any restrictions placed upon me. you seem to think that the RfC on collect was also about others, but i have corrected you in the past when you asserted that the RfC was about "multiple editors... convincing one side or maybe even the other to change their ways." i will say it again, the RfC was about collect and only collect. because of that i should be able to edit when and where i please... which brings me to your recent comment on my talk page [70]. frankly, i find you to be quite a pot stirrer at times and i do not appreciate it when my motives are questioned. please dont look for conflicts when there are none.

collect, best of luck to you and hopefully this can be the end of all the admin type stuff. i hope you have taken to heart what everyone has said and i truly hope that we dont have to get into this ever again. i am sure we will disagree over things like politics, but that doesnt mean we cant be friendly and i hope you will refrain from making false statements about me in the future. best wishes to all--Brendan19 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of reaction you expect Brendan when you and Phoenix randomly show up on pages that Collect has edited so soon after his RfC's conclusion and then comment on ancient discussions. If you want to be part of the process, fine, I don't have any reservations. Soxwon (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Gwen, much respect from me on your comments on the RfC closure. I withdraw unreservedly any comments I made previously that impugn your adminship in any way. SMirC-thumbsup.svg ► RATEL ◄ 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Hello, Gwen Gale. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What outcome were you hoping for? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have dealings with Collect for months now and I really do strongly disagree with "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP". I also request from you to let another admin deal with it if someone accuses me of baiting Collect. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think his understanding of WP:BLP has been lacking, but rather, his implementation of it, which has stirred up the same kind of worries. As for baiting, I think the time has come for everyone to start over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Eva berghof.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Eva berghof.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Andrei (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the image, which was uploaded years ago when our licensing and free image standards were far, far looser than they are today. There was no way to verify copyright status or support fair use without it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)