Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale/archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Note

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've posted something there. Adam's topic ban ended many months ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Betelgeuse

thought you might like to see where it's at now....it grew a bit. Can't wait till Gaia images it in the next few years....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Non-free rationale for File:Nikumarorogallagher.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nikumarorogallagher.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Done. Thanks for letting me know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

You've edited this article before, and there are problems again, see WP:BLPN#Moni Aizik. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Happy to give my two pence about it, but I don't want to be the one who wades back in hoping to clean up and fix it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Gerald Celente

In an effort to resolve ongoing disputes about the article, I removed a large portion of material self-published by the subject for examination and reworking to the talk page, with commentary to which the subject of the article User:Geraldcelente reverted summarily without an edit summary nor engagement on the talk page. I have not yet reverted. How should I proceed? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, I've blocked the account because of impersonation worries (Wikipedia:Username#Real_names). If the editor is indeed Mr Celente, he'll need to be made aware of the WP:COI policy. Conflict of interest is allowed by policy, but editing one's own biography on en.WP is much frowned upon here and moreover, fraught with worries of backlash and can easily do much more unforeseen harm than help.
This said, Mr Celente is widely quoted by secondary sources, so it shouldn't be too tricky to get cites. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the edits, if those sources have been published (even in publications sold to Mr Celente's subscribers), given editor consensus, they may be ok as citations. However, WP:WEIGHT would still have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this, taking action, as well as giving your feedback. I do think it's important as well to accept self-published work in an appropriate way under WP:SELFPUB and would certainly welcome discussion about the article from the subject if not disruptive. I will continue to try to engage consensus and explain any edits which could be considered controversial on the talk page of the article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know about that. I've commented on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are interested enough in this discussion to have participated. I apologize for failing to check the other locations a person may have commented, and because of this I did pass information along to several, like yourself, who were most definitely already aware. I meant no harm, and appreciate the kind manner you displayed in pointing out my error. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Thanks Bill, likewise to you and yours :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Thank you Michael, seasons greetings back! Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nickadamsrebel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Nickadamsrebel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Investigating a possible sockpuppet of a banned user

Hello -- over four years ago you briefly were dragged into an edit war on Gilles Deleuze, which is why I come to you now. The instigator of that edit war was later banned: [1]. Recently, an editor has reappeared on the Deleuze article making very similar edits and comments, and that account has also made multiple edits to another article that the banned user habitually edited. I smell a sockpuppet. I don't know how WP investigates or resolves these cases, so I'm asking you for help. The account is named "Barnabas2000" [2]. Thank you. 271828182 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation case. Sorry to take your time. 271828182 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Funguy06

Your blocking of this account is mentioned on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

MfD nomination of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox

User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Yash Pal

Hi! I notice you put the Yash Pal article in shape. I've added substantial content. Please take a look. Amuk (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Talk:Quantum reflection

Hi Gwen. Why did you hide the transclusion? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That was almost five years ago and I don't recall (though I can say it wouldn't have been editorial but rather, technical/janitorial). Looking at my contribs for that day, I was doing bits of XfD, may have stumbled upon some kind of transclusion glitch, which one often saw back then. Minutes earlier I'd hidden another transclusion having to do with that one, here. Transclusion woes back then could get deeply nested and hence, kinda "spooky." I was most likely trying to deal with something that was somehow displaying (very) wrong and only "hid" it so that it could be easily put back. I recall fixing a bunch of transclusions back in those days (sometimes it had to do with vandalism but this one doesn't seem that way). Perhaps I was somehow aware that this one would clear up on its own, dunno. Anyway I put it back now and everything seems ok. Thanks for letting me know about it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Does seem there was some kinda bug in the template. Looking at this a bit further, I see there was some tweaking to that template going on that week and looking at the talk page it indeed seems editors were loading up that template with lots of heavy code ("more to go wrong"), then four months later, shifted over to a "meta banner" template which one would think had been quite thoroughly wrung out. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Hi. You indefinitely protected User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back in December 2010. It's been a few years, could you unprotect the page, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, yep! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Talk:Abdelkader Benchamma

I see that you deleted the Talk:Abdelkader Benchamma page on November 9, 2008 because the article Abdelkader Benchamma didn't exist back then. Now, the article for the deleted Talk page got re-created, thanks to GalleryIVDE on July 1, 2013. I thought I'd let you know before the Talk page got re-created. --Buspirtraz (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Happy New Year Gwen Gale!

Happy New Year!
Hello Gwen Gale:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proofreader77

Your comments could be helpful here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proofreader77 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Kremlin Letter (plot), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick O'Neal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Koolaid Electric Co.

Koolaid Electric Co.
Hi, I'm sure there is an easier way to send you a message than this - but I'm not entirely familiar with wikipedia. On behalf of the band The Koolaid Electric Company, I was wondering if you could undelete their page you deleted in 2008? It would really be appreciated. Here is the link.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=The_Koolaid_Electric_Company

Furthermore, if you are unwilling to undelete the page, would you provide reason why? Possibly I could assist in changing the page to be of a high enough standard as to not be deleted again in the future. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Heavydeavyskulllover (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi. In 2006 and 2008 that article was also speedily deleted by two other admins (please click here to see the log info). This often happens to new band articles. Six years is a very long time on the Internet and on Wikipedia too! Here's what I'm thinking:
  • After having done this first, if you think, after all these years, that the band now meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability (could be!), you're more than welcome to write a new, updated article at The_Koolaid_Electric_Company.
I checked and the deleted text here at en:WP looks the same as what's at the outside link you gave above. If it were to be restored "as it was," it's rather likely that the article would only be quickly taggeded and speedily deleted again. This is why I believe you might be happier with the outcome by rewriting and sourcing a new, much updated article on the topic.
I hope this helps out and if you have further questions, please do ask!
By the way, there is no need to use a message template on a talk page here as you did above. All one needs to do is click on "edit," scroll down to the bottom of the edit window and type away :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the fast reply. I'm reading the notability page. What can I do to prove that the band is notable or worth having a page? They are moderately annoyed that the page has been deleted and would like to have a page for the band, as it would be useful. When I make the new page, how can I ensure it won't be deleted again? Merely having accurate references and citations, would that be enough? I read all of the criteria. If at least one of the criteria is satisfied, is that sufficient? Thank you for your help, it is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavydeavyskulllover (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much about "proof" as such, but what we call verfiability (click the word to read more if you like). The pith is, one must cite 3rd party sources which can be checked out by others and show that the topic believably meets at least one of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music), "believability" being a lower threshold than "proof." The more independent sources, the better. Also, a music project need not meet any of those criteria at all, since reaching the broader thresholds in WP:Notability would also do. Keep in mind, citing sources isn't quite enough, the article text must also claim notability, said text being backed up by the cited sources, to keep from being speedily deleted straight off, which already happened to the article thrice (both four and six years ago).
Two more Wikipedia tips: When posting on a talk page, please put your text at the bottom of the topic section if there is one (not at the very bottom of the page). Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). That'll put in your username and a timestamp, as you see at the end of my post here, which is so helpful to other editors, it's more or less thought of as a "must do" here. If you wind up spending much time editing on Wikipedia (which you are welcome to do, say on more than one article), you'll quickly understand why :) Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Nomination of The Kremlin Letter (plot) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Kremlin Letter (plot) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kremlin Letter (plot) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Happy New Year!

Dear Gwen Gale,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:Mullervikt.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mullervikt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Request for a 3rd opinion

Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pinging me on this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Still problems at the Abba article

Could you take a second look at the whole thing. The other guy is still insisting on that somewhat random 300 million figures for reasons that make no sense to me. I don't think he will stop that unless a larger number of other editors tells him to do so. Do you know any other project pages, where I could request 3rd opinions and are to find editors willing to bother with the issue (short of starting an official dispute resolution process)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kmhkmh, as I posted earlier on the talk page, the hitch is, it may be that nobody knows how many records ABBA has sold. This is mostly owing to their thoroughly, widely international sales not always having been documented as to units. While my own "informed" guess on the tally so far is that they're closer to nudging 500 million albums and singles, I know of no way to source this and I don't think reliable sources are out there. Moreover, I'd think that the English-speaking world has always had a kind of "blind spot" for ABBA, which makes it tougher to source even published "guesses" along the lines of my own. This is a weakness of any tertiary-source encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
Meamwhile I don't see anyone blatantly edit-warring and either way I don't think this comes even close to something needing dispute resolution. I was going to say you might want to put up a note somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music but you already have done! My outlook is that this may sooner or later come down to editor consensus on how to handle not the sources, but the lack of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well there is not point in determining the "real" figure, that is a most likely futile effort. The issue is how about appropriately summarizing the currently available sources as whole (considering different publication dates and varying degrees reputation and authority). The problem that I have with the other editor, is that he wants a figure in the article that he personally feels is the most "real" amount, but that is exactly what we shouldn't do. We should summarize the sources appropriately and not simply pick an individual figure that an editor believes to be the real one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gwen Gale. I just want to explain another 1 sentence: I don't think nor write that it's the real figure. I believe real figure is unknown. It's just one of the figures supported by few sources. I don't know which is real. Greetings. :) TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh and TaurenMoonlighting, sounds to me like there may be an editor consensus between you two that the tally is unknown. In my post on the talk page, I did say that putting some wording about that in the intro, that overall unit sales are unknown, would be helpful to readers. I think Universal's 375 million guess was also low but that they couldn't back up anything higher at the time (many sales weren't at all through Universal, for starters). I think the tally is closer to 500 million than 300 million but can't be sourced, as I've said, because of how unit sales logs were handled (or not) in Stockholm and many spots elsewhere in the world 30-40 years ago. I think if the two of you could find a new intro wording you both can agree upon (ouch! I know, :) that would be great! Once more, bottom line, I can humbly say, "nobody" knows how many records ABBA has sold since 'Ring Ring' 42 years ago. But, they sold a docking lot of them and for a fleetingly short time in the early 80s may have even "beat" the Beatles. Please also keep in mind that "blind spot" I brought up about ABBA among English speakers and how that has most likely made sourcing, in English, even tougher. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

A new Ted Wilkes, this time from India, seems to have appeared on the scene

Hi Gwen, it seems that a new vandal removes content primarily from Elvis-related articles and the Nick Adams page. See [3] [4] [5] .You may have a look at their contributions. Onefortyone (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 141, there do seem to be some worrisome edits, given the removal of sourced content (however "gossipy") where there may be no consensus to do so. So far as I know, the consensus for allowing many of those sources and the way they're echoed in the articles' texts has stood for many years. There also may be some sockpuppetry afoot. I think it's ok you've been putting the content back. Hopefully, if this carries on, other editors will soon chime in.
Please keep in mind, you shouldn't call those edits vandalism, which is defined on this website as a straightforward bash at hurting the enyclopedia. The editor(s) doing this may think they're being helpful (wp:good faith). Either way, they've likely been hoping nobody would care and their edits would stick. However, removing sourced content without consensus can be mistaken, may become disruptive and as you know, an editor can be warned and blocked for disruption.
Thanks for letting me know about this and giving the diffs. If it keeps up, please let me know here if you want, I'll have another look and maybe leave some kindly-worded warnings, which would be the first step in dealing with disruption. Moreover, any sockpuppetry may get more blatant and can be dealt with as you know. You might want to think about asking them to bring their edits to the talk pages, but that's up to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. Concerning vandalism, you may be right. However, this editor has only removed paragraphs that are not in line with his personal opinion, among them quotations from Guralnick and other reliable sources. And he continues doing so, as his recent edits show. See [6], [7], [8], [9]. This reminds me of one of my former opponents, who has also used different user names and similar arguments. As this user says in one of his edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [10]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars. So some warnings may be necessary in this case. In order to show good faith and to avoid the 3RR, I do not revert his recent edits. However, somebody else may do it. Onefortyone (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the diffs. Having looked at this further, I think you're mostly dealing with an everyday sourcing and content dispute. My own take on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is that while "questionable," rumor-mongering sources like celebrity-market "tell-all" books, tabloids and other "he said, she said" sources are easier to cite in topics not having to do with living persons, this still must be done with meaningful care as to wording and weight. Another way of putting this could be that, while it indeed may be helpful to let readers know that rumors about a given celebrity have been widely published, the text shouldn't lead them to believe that such rumors (gossip) were acknowledged or documented in a meaningful, independent or believable way, such as in autobiography, contemporary news reports, court cases, verified personal correspondence and so on.

Take this edit. While it can be easily verified that Bill Dakota made a claim, it cannot be verified that his claim had basis, so it may be ok to carry the claim in an article, but not fitting for the text to read that the claim was "confirmation" of anything.

If one looks at the sources cited as to the personal lives of non-living celebrities such as Rock Hudson, Liberace, Robert Reed or even Oscar Wilde (along with many others), they are straightforwardly reliable, widely cited elsewhere, believable and seldom, if ever, disputed.

While I think it's ok to cite published rumors about Elvis Presley and Nick Adams (actor), the text should echo that these are, so far, only rumors and not give them undue weight in articles about or linked to them, because the overall strength of these sources don't reach the bar of independence, reliability/believability (or wide citation) of those cited in the articles (and many others like them) linked above.

Now, I could be the first to say that many articles on en.Wikipedia, through editor consensus, do give undue weight to mistaken, dodgy or misleading sources. However, this is most often because those sources have been given undue weight widely in the secondary literature elsewhere and are hence cited and backed up by editor consensus here, in this tertiary source. That's one reason why any encyclopedia, such as this one or any other, has long been taken as an "unreliable" source (see Wikipedia:General_disclaimer).

Please see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_on_Presley (hundreds of editors still watch this talk page).

So, reliable or not, this comes down to editor consensus.

I'm truly neutral on this topic and as an editor, would much rather let the consensus of yourself and other editors have its sway (even if that shifts from time to time).

As an admin, speaking only for myself, I see nothing to do here (other than talking with you about it on this page).

Like I said before, I've seen hints of sockpuppetry by other editors. It may have happened by mistake or unawareness that it's forbidden here. If it gets blatant, after warnings (which you can give yourself) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the way to go.

I hope this helps! You're welcome to let me know what's going on with this now and then, if you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I need help with some user I'm having trouble with.

OK, there is this guy that is continuously blocking my effort to change information in order to balance things apart. I only have one friend to back me up, but i don't think it's enough. He is well established and has a bunch of friends backing him up or administrators that simply agree what the user said. Whatever I tried to reason with him, he just ignore it like usual and just input whatever he feel is a general consensus. Since this is rather going to be long information, it might be better if we message each other on email. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You can email me using the "Email this user" link in the menu. Please include diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Got your email. Is there any reason we can't talk about this here on my talk page? Also, I'm going to need diffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Diff) to some of the edits, not links to the articles. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Cause I don't want the user to know what we're talking about since he has done this for years and in addition how the talk page is constructed when it comes to discussions (e.g. links and stuff) so by emailing, it is a lot more easier and straight forward. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to help out. What I see so far is a long-standing content dispute on a high traffic article (perhaps more than one), with some worries about edit warring. So far I don't see a need for email off-wiki. I'm aware of who the editor is. I'd much rather keep this here, on the open wiki. Doing so could also help other editors. If you're willing, the first step would be that I need diffs from you, WP:DIFF. Do you know how to link diffs? It's very easy BTW. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a long explanation of the dispute which goes back at least 23 months. See Talk:Civilian casualties#Binksternet, stop keep on removing balance information on lesser-well known articles. I believe I have shown that XXzoonamiXX has been trying to evade a particular talk page consensus for the last 16 months. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that more or less matches up with what I'd seen so far. Statistics given in a main article should (tend strongly to) match those in articles which overlap the topic. From what I've long understood, sources do more or less agree that those totals are unknown other than being within the given bounds. Hopefully XXzoonamiXX will come back here and let me know why he's been making those edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, I got your second email. In my outlook this should all be talked about openly, on-wiki, not by email, for which I still don't see a need. Also, again, the links in your email were not diffs. I will need diffs which lead straight to the edits you're talking about: I don't have time to hunt for the edits, diffs are very easy to link and very widely used here on-wiki. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Continuing to where we left off.

Since last week's talk page has been in the archives, it looks like I have to start a new one where we left off. I have made a recent reply in the article to the guy asking what's going on and a reply to Binksnet. It's at the very bottom of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civilian_casualties#Arriving_at_a_consensus_on_.22My_position_is_that_we_use_the_same_death_estimate_range_every_time_the_number_comes_up.22 XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi XXzoonamiXX,
Speaking as an admin here, I think you should:
Please stick mostly to the page you linked above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civilian_casualties#Arriving_at_a_consensus_on_.22My_position_is_that_we_use_the_same_death_estimate_range_every_time_the_number_comes_up.22) and try to gather consensus there, for what want. You will most likely need to be much more clear about your outlook on the sources and why you think your edits should have consensus.
Please stop editing the articles until a consensus has been reached. In other words, please do not edit war anymore (see WP:EW). Edit warring isn't allowed, even if it's not 3rr (see also WP:3rr).
If after some time, you cannot reach a consensus for your edits, you might post a request for comment on the editing dispute (see WP:RFC). Either way, without a consensus for your edits (see WP:consensus), you should not make any further edits to the articles, having to do with those statistics.
Please bear in mind that the statistics should indeed match up throughout all the linked/sub articles.
Please stop forum shopping (see WP:Consensus#FORUMSHOP).
Lastly, it is very common here for editors to not get what they want as to content in an article. This has happened to me, as an editor, many times and still does. However, even if one truly and in good faith believes that something about an article is dead wrong, one must still gather consensus for the edits one wants to make. If you haven't read it, please read WP:Consensus now. On this web site, we all must abide by consensus, there is no way to skirt that. Also try to keep in mind that enyclopedias are by their nature not considered to be reliable sources. As tertiary sources they are only as good as the (mostly) secondary sources they cite and moreover, how their writers and editors echo those cites. Hence, their content can be biased, mistaken or otherwise muddled and often is. Please see WP:Disclaimer and read what's written at the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying because I know these consensus, but to me, it's just like you want me to fend off to my own device and just arguing with the same guy, as if he's some of God and have right to input what he wants. Everytime I argue with him, he just ignored what I said and just pose what you think is a general consensus, then accuses me of edit-warring when it's not really the case because somehow he act like his own these kind of articles. I added these edits in the lesser-known traffic articles in order to add the balance to the issue so as not to confuse the readers who really wants to know, not to go out and spread that information all over and over when you're not considering the balancing issue. Consensus is reasonable, but I don't think that it should eliminate any important circumstances for balancing evidenced information. I asked him why does he want to keep it as a general consensus, but he never actually explains why he wants to do that. He just keeps getting aggressive and repeating this and that all over without even agreeing with me. That's the main reason why I avoided talking to him for 16 months because arguing with him always get nowhere until I found a perfect place to settle the issue with. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mis-matching statistics in lower traffic articles, to achieve what you think might be "balance," is not the way to go and has very likely made things harder, not easier, for you, as I hope you can see now. Please don't do that again. If you haven't spoken with the editor in 16 months, that's also no way to settle things, much less gather some kind of consensus with other editors. If you want to keep trying, I think you'll need to start talking with him, without sinking into "arguing" or saying things like "as if he's some [kind] of God." From what I've seen, I don't think you've been clear enough in explaining what you want, or why you want it.

As for fending off on your own, I see nothing so far for an admin to do with this, other than try to help you understand the policies here and how to deal with that. Don't attack the editor. Please talk to the editor in a neutral way: Broadly put, talk only about your sources and how they support what you want to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not so happy with the recent arbcom case, as I have been warned on my talk page, but my opponent, who was by far more disruptive, hasn't. As Checkuser has shown that User:Excelse and User:Related0877 are confirmed sockpuppets (see [11]) and it is likely that Excelse has also used this IP in order to remove the same content, although he has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [12]), I am of the opinion that the future edits of this user should be checked with care. He has only been blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry. See also his unblock request here. May I ask you to have a look at the recent removals from a neutral point of view. See [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The Graceland page may be a good starting point for reaching consensus, as Talk:Graceland is the only page where Excelse has cited some reliable sources in order to support his opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Excelse has been blocked for sockpuppeting. Their unblock request was turned down because they haven't yet acknowledged they understand why they were blocked. I see hints that, perhaps, there's another account behind Excelse but there may not be. Either way, Excelse was blocked for socking, not for the content of their edits.
The arbitration enforcement warning is straightforward. As an aside, no editor should call other editors names like "vandal" or "fan" (and so on) as a means of besmirching edits they may have made. The two admins who came up with that warning think you should stop doing that and from a policy outlook, having nothing at all to do with content, I did say more or less the same thing to you (as to calling editors "vandals") a few weeks ago. True, ongoing vandals (WP:Vandalism) are very swiftly blocked. In the end, on Wikipedia, calling other editors names can bounce back and often will make the name-caller themself look bad.
It could be that Excelse's removals have "stuck" because, so far, there is no consensus (WP:Consensus) to undo them.
The arb enforcement warning means you're going to need a clear consensus from other editors for the kinds of edits you've been making. You can still try to gather consensus on the article talk pages as you know. Keep it short, though and talk only about your sources and what you want to do with them (doing this will only help you).
Meanwhile, if you believe you've run into a sockpuppet, whatever you do, don't bring it up on the talk page. If you ask an admin to help look into it, don't talk about the editorial content, but only the signs of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry). You can also go straight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
If you can't get input on the talk pages (or you aren't happy with what input you do get), you can file an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment), not on other editors, but on article and/or topic content, sources and the like. You can do that now, or later, or never, as you please. In the end, editor consensus will tend to have sway and sometimes, that consensus can shift. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Request for Advice

Hi, you are listed as semi-active. First, I inquire if what I am asking is ok to ask. Second, I ask if you would have the time to advise me about an incident in which I was acussed (I think, unfairly) of violating WP rules? The case is not moving forward, apparently. But this is my first time being dragged into this type of dispute while I was trying to deter vandalism (newbie at that), and I am, sincerely, at loss. I simply want to know what are my options now and what can I learn from this? Are there steps I could take in order to give it a satisfying completion? The urgency lies in the need to plan my future relationship to WP. Thanks for your time Historiador (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to give me a short rundown along with some diffs I'll be happy to have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; of course. These are the diffs of my reverts:
  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
This is reverting my own change back to the original, but with a tag:
  1. [21]


The entire saga is here, next in line to be archived, but without a result. The user accused me of edit warring, incompetence, and of making him, and the other supposed editors, feel like idiots.

You can skip to the end. The following two paragraphs explain the diffs and so repeat information found in the urls; the last two are important:


  • This is what happened from my side. I was using STiki, and the page came up with a case of potential vandalism or new user's mistake. The user was very new (in the last 24 hours), with a warning from a bot already on his Talk Page. This user had inserted a sentence, and a change in numbers, but without a summary explanation, no source connected to the sentence, and no follow up in the article's Talk Page. So, I reverted it in good faith and asked the user to provide sources (it was the automated response from STiki).
  • User Andy quickly reverted it back with a comment that did not make sense to me: "That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference." Though it made sense to me much later, it was still incomplete and confusing (and sarcastic), because the introduced sentence had no source linked to it. So, I reverted it but with a much longer message, and pleading for help: "If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?" Andy then revert it with this also cryptic message and no explanation: "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content" (I did not know what Rv meant). So in my 3rd and last revert I wrote: "One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed." It took me less than 12 minutes to realize that the problem was poor communication, and I went back to the article and reverted my own doings, and placed a tag for citation at the end of the sentence hoping the editors would see what why I did not see a source (nor an explanation). Eleven minutes later, without warning nor an attempt to communication through Talk Pages, I was being called to the Edit Warring forum.
When Andy said he felt offended, I apologized for giving him and the editors that impression. I also accepted that I was moving both rather quickly (Andy was too). But I was hoping to leave for work with a page safer than before.
I feel that Andy did not follow procedure when he failed to communicate with me and did not follow good practice when he quickly sent me to the Edit Warring committee. And in the subsequent conversations, he was rude and disrespectful. The saga took much energy and time, for nothing to be solved, and being left insulted for trying to do my work. The event was unfair, I feel, and it is being left unattended. Perhaps, however, there is something that else that I am not seeing (besides the haste).
Would very much appreciate your view of my actions.
Forgot to sign my post here for December 8, 2015. It happens very rarely. I am signing here the next day. Historiador (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


You forgot to sign your post above, please do!

Ok. Wikipedia:Edit warring says this: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

Edit warring here is any kind of back and forth over content. Beginning with that second revert, you did edit war. Now you know! Also, cheers to you, because in the end you put the content back when you saw that feathers had been ruffled. Doing this also ended any thought that you meant to edit war. It is also why the thread at ANI dwindled. This means it has very likely ended, which is good!

Be careful when editing with tools like STiki, since along with being helpful, they can fog one's outlook here and there and then make it easy to do too much in haste. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. It was indeed resolved this morning with no action stating there was no violation. EdJohnston wrote that my signing with a different name from my username (historiador/Caballero1967) brought some confusion. I wonder, then, if it would be better to change the feature that allows users to sign with different names. I was not meaning to misinform. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your feedback. You taking the time shows good will. I have learned much from this. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I think it's true, some things tend to go much easier for an editor when their signature matches, or comes very close to matching, their username. Wikipedia:Signatures does say: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name...
I'm not keen on customized signatures myself, but some editors like to dress up their usernames a bit with color or by tweaking the text (there may even be a true need for the latter now and then) and I get that. So I think the feature allowing it is ok. The website design here is very much meant to let one swiftly leap in and do stuff straight off, then learn policies and all the other ins and outs "by doing," as needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
One obvious talent you have is to explain rules, policies, and practices. It makes sense.  Thanks Historiador (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

A pie for you!

Thanks for the time and words. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, Caballero, happy to hear I may have been of some help and thanks for the pie. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is still a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics to be resolved. May I ask you for commentaries on Talk:Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths#Elvis.27s_death_on_the_toilet and Talk:Graceland#650.2C000_visitors. Onefortyone (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Following what I wrote here, the pith is, to carry on with this you're most likely going to need meaningful consensus from other editors. Given the Arb enforcement warning there are bounds as to how you might gather that.
I'm neutral as to the content, but can say that from my outlook, it comes down to how weak/hearsay sources might be handled, if at all, in the text of a non-WP:BLP celebrity article. These days, more often than not, such sources are indeed given short shrift. As an aside, I can say that sometimes, the stronger secondary sources are flawed enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, likewise to you and yours! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Gwen Gale. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Gwen Gale.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gwen Gale. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the page The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door was be eliminated?

This page already in the Portuguese and Spanish versions of Wikipedia and I don't believe that they viole the rules and terms of the site!

Saviochristi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted a second time almost ten years ago, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Grim_Adventures_of_the_Kids_Next_Door_(2nd_nomination).
It seems to have been a single, 30-minute "crossover" TV cartoon. Perhaps a line or two about it could be added to the main series article, Codename: Kids Next Door. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted an article on Zahid Sheikh, as A7. Is it related to the version that was kept at the following AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no link between these two topics so far as I can tell. While Zahid Sheikh was deleted A7 some eight years ago, within days it went back up again with a source. Both "Zahid" and "Sheikh" are rather common names in Islamic culture (likely even more so than an Anglo-Saxon name like, say, "Paul Dean"). Moreover Zahid Sheikh is sourced as "Muhammad Zahid Sheikh," a 1970s-era field hockey player, while Zahid Al-Sheikh is cited as having become a charity worker/leader following many years spent doing sundry things way unlike field hockey. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, have a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

The Comic Strips, Charges and Cartoons: The Origins, Meanings and Differences!, Enlarged Explanations.

Comic strip (tira cômica in Portuguese and tira de prensa or tira cómica in Spanish): short duration comics, with the frames (which usually range from one to five, three being the most common) disposed and organized in the form of a strip, such as own name already implies and being or not humorous. The comic strip criticizes the values of society. There are three types of comic strips: daily strips (tiras diárias in Portuguese and tiras diarias in Spanish), usually printed in small quantities because of the pace of publication, in black and white (though some in color) and containing between one and five frames (three being the most common), Sunday boards (pranchas dominicais in Portuguese and planchas dominicales in Spanish), usually printed in large quantities, in color (although some in black and white) and with a larger number of tables occupying a entire page and the yonkomas (yonkomas same in Portuguese and Spanish), of Japanese origin, with four vertical frames (although some in the horizontal) and who always deal with serious matters, but in a humorous form. Etymology: from the American English, comic strip, comic ribbon.

Charge (charge even in Portuguese and Spanish): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (although some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes people and things of the contemporaneity and comes as politic manifest in France against the royalty. Etymology: from the Franco-Belgian French, charger, burden, exaggeration or violent attack. Do not confuse with Chargé (commune of France).

Cartoon (cartón in Spanish and cartum in Portuguese): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (though some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes the situations of the day to day and comes after that was be promoted a drawing concourse in England organized for the royalty where the first cartoons was be produced in large pieces of cardboard. Due to the similarities between the first animated short films and the cartoons printed and published at the time, the animated drawing name in English also refers to cartoon, in full, animated cartoon. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where the cartoon is called, respectively, cartone animato and animierte Cartoon. Etymology: from the British English, cartoon and these of the Italian, cartone, cartone, large piece of cardboard, stub, study, draft or anteproject. Do not confuse with Khartoum (capital of Sudan).

(Collaboration: users Liebre Asesino and Jim from Yahoo! Answers in Spanish.)

Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

In fact, all my editions in this sense are already being reversed, I do not know why, since I understand a lot of comics, so I am a comic drawer, writer and scripter, so that I am no amateur and layman in the Whole subject, see it!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug!

Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive21&oldid=1168301572"