Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:51, 17 October 2009 view sourceWaitingForConnection (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,212 editsm →1999 Football League First Division play-off Final: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 14:12, 17 October 2009 view source MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Gwen Gale/archive15.Next edit →
Line 50: Line 50:


<!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks --> <!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks -->

== ANI thread ==

Hello, you seem to be an uninvolved admin on this issue, could you please have a look at ] and evaluate as appropriate? Thank you for your time, ''']''' (]) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:. ] (]) 12:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

== An invitation to comment ==

A few users, notably ], have begun a process to move the very visible and somewhat contentious ] article back toward A-class review and eventual FAC. In the past, you and I have sparred on sources and fringe additions to this page, but I wanted to call your attention to ]. You have long withheld fire on this subject, though you make general comments from time to time about the page. I invite you to bring any issues you see to this thread so that we may be able to improve the article and reduce any pro-US bias in page coverage. User has raised the very serious issue of completeness. The page might not pass A-class review without your valuable and seasoned input. There would be some small symmetry in you and I cooperating on improving this important pagespace. Bring your fresh eyes over. ] (]) 14:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:Hey! Thanks for asking. I haven't had that article on my watchlist in two years. I see that until lately the article has been as ever, a bloated and unhelpful ]. It now reads like a somewhat trimmed, unhelpful hagiography. There are plenty of reliable and verifiable American sources which show Mr Lincoln, clever lawyer from Illinois, dragged the states into war wholly over the financial interests of those northern industrialists who put him in office (the feared loss of tariffs from the southern states were a big slice of this, since they were the US federal government's biggest source of <s>income</s> confiscated wealth and production back then). Slavery was used as a propaganda ploy, much as WMD, terrorism, drugs, global warming and other topics are used today. The utterly evil institution of chattel slavery faded away elsewhere in most of the world, without violence, throughout the 19th century. Most southerners didn't own slaves, the latter being (mistakenly thought of as) a cheap labour force for what we would call "big agriculture" today. Lincoln was quite willing to support slavery in the southern states so long as they didn't secede, but secede they did, not over slavery, but states' rights, brought to a head by tariffs. This need not be the article's narrative, but it should be put forth as a verifiable outlook. This is bound to happen sooner or later. Has the time come? I haven't a clue. Trying to fix this too early could stir up all kinds and sundry kerfluffles, with which I'll have nothing to do. For now my thinking is this: If the external link to is at last put back as a show of good faith, I'm willing to help out in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Please let me have your thoughts, if you like. ] (]) 13:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

:Update. . So far, ] is the same wanton ], what I take to be unencyclopedic, very emotional name calling and personal attacks on published authors, wholly mistaken citing of the sloppy guideline ] and what I read as meaningless talk about what might be "acceptable" criticism (along the highly paraphrased lines of "he was only human, after all, so he must have made some itsy bitsy, teensy weensy mistakes here and there but bringing them up might make the article too long"). I'll not go near it until en.Misplaced Pages's core ] is given sway there. ] (]) 15:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


== 98.100.198.100 == == 98.100.198.100 ==

Revision as of 14:12, 17 October 2009

This user has been loved!This user has been loved!
This user has been loved!
Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.
If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.


Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18


98.100.198.100

Gwen, you blocked 98.100.198.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about a month ago for vandalism to Jimbo's userpage. Looking at the previous contribs before the sudden vandalism, there seems to have been some good faith edits in there, which leaves me to believe that the IP the vandal was on has probably been reassigned by now, especially after about three weeks of the current block. I'd be willing to unblock if this has occurred. What do you think? MuZemike 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, it's worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thinking of blocks, how's this appeal? No, I'm not suggesting that you act on it -- indeed, it's clear that you shouldn't, precisely because I was the blocqueur and am bringing it to your attention -- but there's something remarkable, I think, about an appeal that is no more than a quotation from Jonathan Swift but, uh, manages to be (a) gruesomely mangled and (b) attributed to a misspelled Swift. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Neat coincidence: guess what book I was just starting to re-read. Indeed: Swift's original was a bit better worded. Antandrus (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Stylish! -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I once dropped by a showbiz office in Century City which had what they called a "dunce desk," a tawdry little thing on wheels where the lazy, heedless and/or clueless were banished for one last go at redeeming themselves. By the bye, I was told only men ever wound up there (I glark not because women can't be dunces, but rather more likely because nobody ever had the guts to send one there :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hello. As I understand it, WP:BLP asks us to remove potentially libellous or problematic material about a person from anywhere, but not to remove comments about an article itself from the talk page (which is what it's for). Also, it's best to ignore trolls rather than encourage them by reverting, isn't it? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI. WP:BLP. Unsourced negative content about living persons is scythed wherever and whenever it shows up on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but WP:RBI is about vandalism, and that comment was a legitimate (if paranoid) comment about the article-writing process; there was nothing there that could be construed as libellous about the living person in question (RMS). I'd imagine that reverting will only increase the paranoia. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You're the one who said troll, not me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yes — but with an "also", to clarify that it is a general question and disclaim any direct bearing on the current issue. ;-) My question is, is it ok to just remove complaining comments like this one from talk pages just because they are on articles about people? It would make things a whole lot easier, but somehow it doesn't seem right. (On the other hand, I guess this comment could be considered a "personal attack" on other editors. I still don't see the BLP connection, though, since the "cult followers" are unnamed and vague.) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced negative content about living persons is scythed wherever and whenever it shows up on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, I hope I'm not annoying you, but that is exactly what I'm asking. Has that happened here? Was there "unsourced negative content" about RMS in that comment? I don't see it, but if you think so, then yes, it should be removed (but should the rest of the comment be removed as well?) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. WP:NOTAFORUM. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your extraordinary patience and willingness to explain. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11 - quick block.

wow, I wish I could do that so quickly!

Hope you're well.

Regards. Leaky Caldron 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Very short, low key block, looked like giggling kids having a lark with "test edits." Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1999 Football League First Division play-off Final

Hi there. I was looking to re-create this article, but thought I'd check with you first.

My guess is that the article you deleted was little more than a trivial mention of the match, with at most the scoreline, the two teams and the lineups, and therefore was correctly deleted. Provided it is properly sourced and substantial enough, I believe it is notable enough to have an article, as evidenced by equivalent matches linked to from this template. I also believe that if I start the article, I will add enough to it for it to be meaningful- this and this are examples of articles I've created. I'm planning on starting work on it in my Sandbox over the next day or so, but just thought it best to notify you before putting it onto the mainspace. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The deleted article had no text, only some categories and a transclusion. Ten months ago, an editor tagged it and I did the speedy. If you think an article can be had there, please do as you think fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought as much. As it was deleted I thought it was worth double-checking anyway. Thanks, WFCforLife (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions Add topic