User talk:Gwen Gale/archive1

archive

Hey... I see you've decimated the Edward F. Sands article, which is fine, I suppose, given that most of it WAS unsourced. The thing is, though, without anymore detail, it is no longer apparent why Sands is/was considered a suspect. I hate all the technical formatting on Wikipedia, but for the record, most of my sources when writing the initial article were this article from Taylorology ( http://silent-movies.com/Taylorology/Taylor19.txt ), which is hosted by silent-movies.com, one of the few realiable sources on early Hollywood, and Betty H. Fussell's biography of Mabel Normand. Frankly, I have no idea how reliable Fussell is as a source; I have read some transparently inaccurrate early Hollywood biographies though, and if Fussell was fudging with history, she at least did it well. Anyway, don't be surprised if I restore and/or expand the Sands article in the next few days, complete with sources.

It looks like you're new to Wikipedia, but even if you're not, rather than removing every unsourced thing you find on every page (because things AREN'T sourced), it's okay just to throw a tag at the top of the page saying that the article doesn't cite its sources. A lot of people will monitor those tags and research the claims on the page. This tends to be a lot more helpful than simply removing all unsourced materail, as a great many of the unsourced information on Wikipedia IS true.

Cheers! Wencer 05:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed about Sands was unsupported or PoV and in conflict with the documented record I've seen. Sands was a petty criminal with an arrest record and was a deserter from the US Coast Guard. He had stolen from Taylor and subsequently taunted the director. Given this, he was quite readily seen as a strong suspect.

While Taylorology is highly reliable as a repository of contemporary primary and secondary sources, many of the secondary (and a few primary) sources it duplicates are, on their own, quite unreliable (being tabloid newspaper accounts which were replete with fabrications and meaningless speculation). Much of the scandal was manufactured by newspaper writers in Chicago who were a) still "jealous" Hollywood had taken so much film business away from Chicago and b) were themselves often addicted to opiates.

Please cite your sources and bear in mind that shoddy tabloid text shouldn't be given undue weight in a short encyclopedia article, since this can quickly mislead readers.

Also please bear in mind that while many of us think Margaret Gibson's confession is credible, making her by far the most likely killer, her confession hasn't been otherwise confirmed by evidence and likely never will be.

Anyway yes, I think she was likely involved in some sort of extortion or drug thing... whatever, involving Taylor (who had so much potentially scandalous stuff happening in his personal life) and one day she dressed up as a man, snuck into his bungalow as he walked Mabel to her car and shot him when he came back inside. IMO either Margaret or some corrupt policeman/bystander wound up with the missing $5,000.

However, the case is still officially open, all of the records and physical evidence appear to be lost and thus, Sands is still a suspect and by the way, Faith did say the person she saw leave Taylor's bungalow could have been a much thinner Sands, along with mentioning it could have been a woman dressed as a man. Gwen Gale 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for the latest cleanup of the article! Having just read Giroux's book - which I find way more lucid than most other works on Taylor or similar subjects - I thought I would source a few extra things. Giroux provides a much more extensive history of Sands' past, including his bizarre military history, although I'm not sure how reliable it is. He also makes the excellent point that Sands had little motive to kill Taylor, as he was still profitting from Taylor's further income and would risk being caught if he returned.

I very much like the "contract killing" theory of Giroux's, and believe the murder was likely committed by a hired gun acting on orders from gangland drug figures (with my backup theory involving someone committing the deed on the part of Charlotte Shelby). In any event, Sands' tale, while interesting, is probably full of red herrings. But isn't that part of what makes the case so fascinating? Cheers, Wencer 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Gibson's confession is credible, there is some strong evidence she was involved in both opium trade and an extortion ring so yeah, her likely involvement could plausibly have been a "contract" killing. I don't think Shelby had anything to do with it, most of her behviour can be interpreted as a reaction to the potential scandal and her detoriorating relationship with her daughters (she was, by all accounts, a manipulative, lying, greedy stage mother and it's understandable her daughters suspected her). As for Sands, petty criminal, likely with "identity issues," likely knew skeins about both Taylor's past and the director's wide ranging interests in erotic stuff blah blah. Truth be told, Sands likely "pimped" for Taylor until their relationship went bad. Hollywood still attracts both types of people. Meanwhile when Taylor was murdered Sands likely realized that with the burglaries and taunting he'd already done, if they caught him he'd wind up in prison (or dead) either way, so the moment he heard about the murder he ran so far they never found him. Meanwhile Gibson was an accomplished professional actress and a neighbour said she thought the killer could have been a woman dressed as a man. Now... could Shelby have hired Gibson to do the deed? It's plausible. The two have common, documented connections within the film colony and it's very likely they had at least met each other (Gibson even worked on at least one Mary Miles Minter film after the murder) but... beyond this not a shred of supporting evidence has emerged. Personally, I have no doubt several people went to their graves with knowledge about this murder which shall likely never be fully understood. Gwen Gale 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts --Trödel 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The really funny thing is that the people who were reverting you think you're version is too pro-LDS, I wonder how they felt about being described as Lee's children :) --Trödel 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol they could still be grand-kids, trying to shift blame from John D. to Brigham :)

Gwen Gale 12:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply for me as a mediator, and any future mediator to see where everyone stands. it will be kept within those who contributed to the page. WikieZach| talk 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? Someone has vandalised my page [1]. Will you tell him/her to stop please? WikieZach| talk 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. WikieZach| talk 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a middle school boy... Gwen Gale 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [2]WikieZach| talk 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[3]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 13:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a mistake to name me as a party to that dispute, however, I'm willing to support Wikipedia policy and pitch in to collaborate on stabilizing the article. Gwen Gale 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know I meant what I said - I respect your efforts at MMM. I'm just so sick of seeing folks from both sidess get so heated about a topic they've not spent more than ten mintues reading about. There has to be a way to get people to research more, rather that just opine about something they are ignorant about. You seem to do your homework, and I want you to know that I want to work with you on improving the article, but not so sure Duke53 and Tinosa want to do anything other than fight, based on their being controversial in nearly every other article they've worked on (well, Tinosa has only edited one, and suprisingly has recieved two awards for it, hmmm.). Looking forward to working through the mediation with you. -Visorstuff 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, Wikipedia by design is not a scholarly project, it's a high traffic alphabetized meta blog and online community, kinda like a MUD. Yawn. Editors who seem belligerent and PoV driven are part of the landscape. This makes editing articles to a scholarly level (and by that I do not mean to a "PC" level) extraordinarily inefficient. Hundreds (if not thousands) of highly skilled and knowledgeable editors have been driven away from Wikipedia by this. With these "controversial" topics, the only way to deal with them is to cite and characterize everything as to provenance and source. It is typical that those who resist letting the tale tell itself in strictly encyclopedic language also wouldn't grok that a polemic narrative, however true, would by its tone alone be so lacking in credibility that their desire to alert the world (and careful readers) to these murders would be almost wholly thwarted. Gwen Gale 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of scholarly level research and POV pushing reverting (along with death threats I've recieved) is one reason (of many) why I spend most of my time on talk pages, rather than articles themselves, hoping to point out and educate on the academic process. I feel it my duty as a historian not to leave Wikipedia, but to help correct such errors in the historical process. I do think that Brooks works are the most neutral (and blame placing) of any of the works, and she definitely places blame on Lee and others where it rightfully belongs. But she also stops short of drawing conclusions where there is no evidence, something that we should watch for in this article (on both sides of the argument). The massacre is/was an awful event, that is for sure. I just wish there was more openness of it at the time, rather than oaths of secrecy of the participants and an appeal for clerical confidentiality to Young. I'm glad you have a level head and are a gifted writer. Look foward to working with you. -Visorstuff 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frickin death threats? By email or what?

MMM was horrific and the ensuing coverup was utter corruptness. In my humble view this history hints at the essential weaknesses, both intellectual and otherwise, of LDS's founders. I've met so many wonderful Mormons and have found that their faith and spiritualism has little to do with what Joseph Smith had in mind (which was mostly a way to enable men to get into plural marriages with young girls, often spritually and otherwise abused cousins or daughters of acquaintances, who had both little control over their fates and not enough experience to grok they were being scammed). About a year ago I was waiting for the tram in a park here in the European city where I live and was approached by a very friendly, clean cut American guy doing Mormon missionary work. After a bit of chit chat I told him that my response to Mormom prosthelytizing is always the same three words... Mountain Meadows Massacre. He'd never even heard of it of course and I wasn't about to be the one to tell him. Look it up on the Internet, I said, but don't let it sway your faith. Truth be told, the LDS has adapted for survival so much over the past 150 years that it's not even the same religion. Even the wacky pseudo-Masonic secret rituals have been gradually played down through the years (and this continues). Personally my outlook is naturalist, I don't think religion is as helpful as a thorough, balanced secular education and a stable family upbringing but whatever. Gwen Gale 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, via email for my work on Exmormon. It was horrible - my wife made me take a wikiholiday due to the threats.

I can completely understand your viewpoint. As a historian, I realize that men are men, and all make mistakes. As a believer of Mormonism, however, I also believe men can be inspired. It tends to be that way with historical US figures Jefferson may have had illigitmate child, Benjamin Franklin may have had mistresses, but what they did was, in my opinion still great. As for Smith and Young, they definitely made mistakes, but the more I study about what they did in regard to religion, the more I am convinced of how inspired it was. There are too many coincidences that add up to be coincidences for me. But of course for me, that is not why I believe, yet just more evidence to support my experiences that leads to my belief.

I think that when you study mormonism, you have to remember two things. First, when Smith walked out of the Sacred Grove, he didn't know everything about the religion he restored, and it morphed and changed over time (and still does - that's why Mormons believe in continuing revelation). It changed a lot, and if things weren't specified by revelation, they were usually tested until they were either adopted or rejected (sounds like catholicism's cultural adoption, no?). Hence I don't think smith founded mormonism for plural marriage, but it was practiced and right or wrong, it was hard for everyone involved in nearly every source I've read (yes, even hard for most men - financially and sexually and emotionally - although there were some who definitely did it for the sex), and it was definitely a part of mormonism for many years. Many criticise the church for not speaking much of it today, however, church leaders are prohibited from doing so (as to not appear to teach in support of the doctrine) according to the official declaration, which states if elders teach of it, they should be promptly reproved.

The second thing is you have to seperate the Mormon civic authority from the Mormon religious authority. This is not an easy thing to do, as in many cases they are intertwined. Certainly, in the case of the MMM, the civic leader of the local militia and the religious authority were the same, and religious promises were made for civic "duty" which in my opinion is deporable - especially when it leads to tragedies such as this. Young, who was territorial governor should have taken responsibility IMHO for it, however, as Church President Young was "protected" by his followers which made matters worse in the long run. I think this is merely one reason that the church does all it can to seperate itself from the political arena when it comes to leaders running for office and participating in civic duties. It could be miscontstrued (and has been) that all Mormons should be part of a certain political party, etc. This, from a historians point of view is very difficult, but I believe sheds great light on the motivations of followers of Mormonism.

Thanks again for the dialogue - it has been much appreciated. I am not a naturalistic historian as you are, I am a faith-based historian. I take accounts at their face value including the children at Fatima, Joan of Arc, Moses, Muhammed and Joseph Smith. I have no reason to doubt supernatural events, I may not understand them, or agree with them, but I have no reason to doubt. While I do not understand how all of these fit into my own world view, I treat them all as historical events, rather than taking a naturalistic point of view. Sorry for such long posts. -Visorstuff 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. By the bye, whilst I understand (and have) strong spiritual feelings, my take on them is a naturalistic one. I mean, most people I know think Joan of Arc had hallucinations because of the way her body chemistry reacted to something in the local food. Meanwhile don't even get me started on Joseph Smith and his gold plated scam and anyone who doesn't understand he wanted to be king of the United States... should. :) Gwen Gale 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwen,
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I took a fresh look at the link in Mary Miles Minter. I'm afraid that it does look like the interview is copyrighted and I don't see any kind of indication that it was uploaded by the actual copyright holder. Some of the movie clips used in the montage look like they might be public domain, but I don't know when those B&W movies were shot. The interview itself could be public domain, but I don't see any indication of that at all. According to the YouTube page the interview was taken in 1970.

Basically it seems to be a copy-vio to me. I think the best course of action is to see if you can find some kind of official upload from the interviewer.

Thanks for checking on it. I'd appreciate if you could re-remove it... (hopefully you can find a suitable replacement.) ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What specific evidence do you have that the interview is copyrighted and that the clip is a copyvio? Gwen Gale 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by default nearly everything is technically copyrighted by the person who produced it. The audio of the interview would be, by default, a copyrighted work. Now, the rights may have been released under public domain, permission given for re-use in the video, or the up-loader is the actual person who conducted the interview (or otherwise owns the rights). I just can't find any indication of that. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like, but I wouldn't delete an informative external link without actual evidence it was a copyvio. Gwen Gale 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the interview from the YouTube video in question was conducted by Charles Higham for his book "Murder in Hollywood." The individual who posted the video is more than likely Bruce Long, given the username. He's the editor of Taylorology. I suspect he has had contact and/or permission from Higham. If you want to email him to confirm, the address is at the bottom of his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.163.8 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please make an effort to make all consecutive changes to a given article in a single edit, and not several consecutive ones. It complicates the article's history needlessly, especially when the article is fairly short and does not have many wiki-sections. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wontedly do but that article is such a mess, especially with the revert warriors doing blanket reverts. I'm looking forward to seeing its content supported by scholarly citations sometime soon. Gwen Gale 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please agree to mediate in the mediation case for the mountains massacure case? WikieZach| talk 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks for your willingness to work through things at Mountain Meadows massacre and for your attempts to help guide the discussion. Its been painful to watch and I feel that there is no move toward compromise by Duke53. It seems everyone else is willing to work together. Wanted to get your thoughts - if you think we should move this conflict to artibration or try a mediation again? You may want to look at the results of previous arbitrations. See Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. Let me know your thoughts. -Visorstuff 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please understand, I will not be a party to bringing any request for arbitration, end of the tale. Arbcomm views all parties to an arbitration as having failed and more often than not delivers sanctions and probations against everyone who has been named. Arbitration is never ever about content, but behaviour and online community. The solution to dispute by any active editor on MMM is a) to remember that WP policy supports consensus and b) one can always demand secondary source citations for every assertion and wording in the article, it's the only way. If someone wants the word "kidnapping" used, for example, I'm ok with that so long as the usage is supported by a published secondary source, preferably a history book or a peer reviewed journal but any published screed will do so long as it is cited as to provenance. Mediation's ok, I'd support another go at that but the last attempt at it was botched, I mean, so I was offline for a few days, they could have waited, whatever. The big lack with this article is its muddled and evasive prose. If I wasn't already familiar with MMM and read through it once, I wouldn't have much of a clue as to what it was about but then, Wikipedia does fall to its knees when it comes to controversial topics in the humanities and social sciences. Gwen Gale 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, thank you for your support on moving the myths section to another article that will link to the main article on Amelia Earhart's life and legacy. I still think you may want to revisit the "Flight for Freedom" connection to the common belief in a "spy mission" against the Japanese. The film was in production in 1942 and not released till 1943 but in the days following Amelia's disappearance in 1937, her mother heard the first of many rumours that alleged that the world flight was a spying mission. The source you have used for a citation is the TIGHAR information site, not the first place to go for reliable and verifiable information on Earhart. The math alone does not work- the Japanese connection was already firmly established by the time of film and was the basis for the plot not the other way around. On another part of the TIGHAR site is this note:"Flight for Freedom" - 1943, starring Rosalind Russell and Fred MacMurray...this film did much to promote the theory that Amelia was on a spy mission for the government. As you can see that is much more an ambigious statement. I have checked the sources on the film and found this quote from a 1943 NY Times review: "The film's ending expands on speculation regarding Amelia Earhart's disappearance during a 1937 flight." Again, the reviewer mentions the film's exploiting of conjecture not creating it. From another source: " The idea that Earhart was working for US intelligence was dramatised in the 1943 film Flight For Freedom. It's not clear how much this film created the conspiracy theory as opposed to reflecting it. Even if the theory was already in circulation, the film popularised it." [[4]] Another source dealing with the creation of the Amelia myth, states: "Conspiracy Theories Appear: In the first few days following the disappearance, there were some 300 reports of messages being received from Earhart's crashed plane. Undoubtedly, most, if not all of them were either hoaxes or misunderstandings. The conflict that would become World War II was brewing in the Pacific and soon after her disappearance it became a popular idea that she had been captured by the Japanese, or that Japanese forces had shot down her plane, or that she was working with the U.S. government on a secret mission against the Japanese."[[5]] Finally, the most reputable sources including Goldstein and Dillon provide evidence that the conspiracy theories had their origins mere days after Amelia's disppearance. BTW Have a Happy New Year. Bzuk 06:14 2 January 2007 (UTC).

TIGHAR is widely regarded as the most reliable, peer reviewed and scholarly source in existence regarding Earhart, their primary source documentation is easily the most complete anywhere and they know how to cite it. Perhaps you've misunderstood something you've read or heard about them but I respectfully suggest you have another look (their website alone takes a few days to get through, please take your time). As for the "Japan" and other pop culture codswallop, my interest in editing such material is strictly limited to thoroughly isolating it from content which is supported by scholarly citatations. Gwen Gale 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you think you could start including a bit more information in your edit summaries? Just looking at your edits to some articles about Christmas carols, for example, all you've said is 'rv'. Now, that may be true (all you've done is revert), but could you add what you have reverted and why, very briefly? For example, I can guess a couple of reasons why you would remove the pieces of music that were added to the examples of serious music often played at Christmastime, but other people might be puzzled. It could even lead to people adding stuff back, because they don't know why it was removed in the first place, and that could lead to edit wars *horrors*. So, basically, please add more info to your edit summaries :-) If it's clear vandalism you're reverting, 'rvv' or 'rv vandalism' helps; if it's a clear test edit you're reverting, please say that too! Hope to see your edits around some time. Skittle 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those were simple reverts of stealth vandalism by a relatively prolific anon (who had been previously warned). I didn't mark them as rvv because I was simply sweeping up after his tracks. Sorry for any misunderstanding but personally I see zero risk of any edit warring over this, the anon's edits are rather loopy, after all. Gwen Gale 17:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In List of Christmas carols, adding wikilinks to some of the carols (whether read or blue links) didn't seem that loopy to me. If you'd said in the edit summary 'rvv by known vandal IP', that would have helped me, at least :-) And I try never to underestimate the potential for an edit war. I was once involved in one over whether an article should say 'full stop', 'period', 'full stop/period', 'period/full stop', 'full stop', 'period' or I forget what else. Skittle 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Trust me, we agree. I would've tried halt. Sorry again 'bout bein a lazy bitch :) Gwen Gale 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note - I just thought it was a complaint by those looking for problems that could easily be changed - thanks for sticking through the reversions as I know you usually like to avoid such things (don't we all :) --Trödel 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I ask you politely to tone down the sarcasm there? We can disagree without being rude, I think. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I guess you mean this. To read it without the intended irony then, please imagine the word helpful as unhelpful. Gwen Gale 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, that was what I meant. Imagining the word as unhelpful (as I had been doing) still leads me to read your message as implying that I was suggesting "Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people", or that my polite disagreement with your view on how to improve the article was somehow comparable with what you wrote.

As I had already made clear I wanted to improve the article, this seems to rather unhelpfully assume bad faith on my part. In fact, while I can easily explain at length my reasoning for not wanting to split the article at this time in terms of Wiki policy, there is a far easier reason not to do it, as you have already found; trimming some of the undue weight from the weird theories part of the article, thus improving the article, avoiding the creation of a pretty worthless article (that would grow and grow and need to be maintained, and attract no end of trolling), and avoiding the creation of an undesirable content fork. I applaud you for what you've done.

I just wanted to remind you (and I very, very seldom do this) that there are human beings behind these posts, even ones you disagree with. I do appreciate your good work on the article, and I'm not aggrieved or offended or anything. Just "a word to the wise" as we say in Scotland. Best wishes, --Guinnog 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Thanks for letting me know you're not a bot :) Either way, I'd already left a note on your talk page. As for the codswallop, I'm openly hardcore about some stuff. I don't think a reference to Fred Goerner's unscholarly, retirement funding project has any place in an encyclopedia. However, I also recognize that in collaborative efforts like a public wiki, there is more than one flight path to Howland Island, so to speak. Gwen Gale 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm I am a carbon- rather than a silicon-based intelligence, yes. :) I do appreciate what you are doing here; maybe I can help you, even. Your last sentence encapsulates perfectly what I was trying to say. It is by far the single hardest thing about this project, in my opinion, working collegially with others. Best wishes, and keep up the good work. --Guinnog 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten me- where is the POV and lack of clarity in my writing the following?

"Amelia Mary Earhart (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing. She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance." Bzuk 12:22 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok.

• She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing

This is a paraphrase of a quote in another author's book and represents the public impression of the feat.

The article can list these accomplishments. Besides, the achievements are garbled and very misleading, never mind the mention of Lindbergh, whilst perhaps an attempt to boost her image or whatever, in truth distracts. I mean, Lindbergh in the Earhart article header?

Amelia was influenced by the attention that Lindbergh received,

• She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization.

The 99s are a wonderful and meed group but hardly one of Earhart's more noted/famous/known accomplishments. This sounds like a blatant advertisement for the 99s. Put them in the article, cool, but not in the header. Her association with Purdue was at least as influential and it has no place in the header either.

Amelia was their first president and was involved in the early meetings to create the organization; although there are other instances of her participation in womens' groups, this is the clearest example of her influence on women pilots. It is the largest organization of women flyers worldwide and there are numerous connections to the Earhart legacy including the naming of an air race, the Amelia Earhart Memorial Trophy Race, that had been instigated by her friends in The Ninety-Nines. To this day, the most prestigious award given to a woman flyer is the Amelia Earhart Award bestowed by the "99's." As to Purdue, she was a faculty advisor who took a great interest in promoting and supporting women and women's issues, but her work there was not primarily with aviation.

• Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive...

She was a celebrity, an icon, intelligent, charismatic, so so cool, a cultural trailblazer and so on, I gush for Amelia but she was only a competent pilot and the aviation community remembers her for the former, not the latter. The above implies she received scads of awards for highly skilled flying which is not the case. She got the DFC, that was significant and, as far as I'm concerned, culturally and socially deserved but this extra wording sounds like an Amelia Earhart propaganda piece, a "selling Amelia as the greatest pilot" thing. It's unsupported and PoV.

• After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance."

Amelia's career in the air was remarkably brief as she set seven speed and distance records in 1930-1933 but a great deal of time was spent in other pursuits.

Distorted time implied, distorted context for the second world flight attempt (which was botched in several widely documented ways, culminating with her and Noonan's tragic disappearance). The entire "near mythical" phrase spins like Amelia-selling original research, conclusion and interpretation to me. I'd want to see citations supporting the use of "near-mythical" along with support for the notion that the public has been specifically "fascinated" with "her life" and "career." I'd suggest I could find many more citations referring to this fascination as a tabloid thing mostly focused on her image, youth and disappearance. The only myths involved have been the wild inaccuracies spread about her.

The grouping of her aviation achievements with the abortive final flight connects her setting out on a last vain-glorious attempt to remain in the public eye. I am not unware that Amelia's drive and ambition in the last years clouded her judgement and ovrwhelmed her skills, which were adequate but not superlative. She left the trailing antenna off because she was not just offloading weight, she was unable to use it properly and thought it was a distraction. Her arguments with Noonan on the last flight caused a navigational error that landed her miles off course in reaching Africa. Her tutoring from Paul Mantz left him exasperated as he wrestled with her obstinent refusal to learn modern radio communication. There are some theories that the jumbled radio messages resulted from the use of the wrong frequencies between the Electra and the Itasca.

Lastly, I must say again that the writing tone here reads like cheerleading and advocacy. I think that's also true for some of the article sub-section titles. All of this greatly detracts from both the article's accuracy and credibility. None of this is encyclopedic. Gwen Gale 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a surprise to you that I am a professional writer and editor and I chuckled at your assertions that I am not establishing a "neutral" asessment of the Amelia Earhart mystique. I have providied substantial citations where merited and did not assume that the introductory paragraph, albeit, "dashed" off, contained any contentious issues, but if you insist, I will provide a complete citation list as to where these statements were derived. BTW none of the statements are mine originally, and checking the article history, you will find that my entries concentrated on "tweaking" other editors' work- fact-checking, elaborating and expanding. Bzuk 13:12 23 January 2007 (UTC).

So do you write encyclopedia articles for a living? Peer reveiewed scholarly journal articles? Tabloid articles? Sports articles? Political speeches? Ad copy? What. Anyway, going by your responses, I don't think you read my replies carefully. My concerns (I think) are limited mostly to the main header and some subsection titles. Gwen Gale 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, your method of posting replies is too time wasting (you intersperse them in my posts and don't even skip a line to demark them) so let's say I don't accept your reasoning. Please take any further discussion of this to the talk page where others can see your reasoning too, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Amelia Earhart discussion page

Gwen, if you haven't seen these yet, these are my final comments on the introduction to the Amelia Earhart article:

Length

The notation "This page is 51 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." has now placed the Amelia Earhart Wikipedia article into the category of a major article at least in length. Compared to other significant figures' biographical articles, here are some following statistics: Thomas Jefferson: 75 kilobytes long, Abraham Lincoln: 84 kilobytes long, Charles Lindbergh: 46 kilobytes and Wright Brothers: 62 kilobytes long. The introductory paragraphs of each of these major biographies are similar: Thomas Jefferson: 250 words, Abraham Lincoln: 147 words, Charles Lindbergh: 81 words, Wright Brothers: 199 words. Previous to the current edit, the introductory paragraph in the Amelia Earhart article was 49 words. The current revision is 97 words which is entirely consistent with the length of other biographical articles on Wikipedia.

Content

The qualifications for a well-researched, scholarly article may partly be attributed to the use of verifiable statements. In the Amelia Earhart article, 50 statements are cited with proper citations (Harvard Style) with 22 books listed as references (MLA style). In addition, 12 websites/internet sources have been provided. This list of resources is entirely consistent with the other aforementioned biographical articles. Anyone who wants to check the Wikipedia articles can do the count, but generally, there are substantive reference lists including primary sources.

Intent

There are "five pillars" of Wikipedia contributions. Briefly (or not so briefly), they are:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
2. Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
3. Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
4. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
5. Wikipedia has a code of conduct:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians
• Be civil
• Be open and welcoming
• Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot
• Avoid edit wars
• Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others
• Follow the three-revert rule
• Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I consider all the edits in the Amelia Earhart article (save the obvious vandalism) to be in "good faith" and have contributed to making the document a more scholarly and interesting account of an iconic figure in history. If necessary, When a conflict arises as to which editorial version is the most neutral, we (as a group) can declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed and hammer out details on this talk/discussion page and, if needed, follow dispute resolution.

I sincerly regret the influx of commentary that has arisen over a very minor edit of the introductory paragraph into two paragraphs. I have attempted to redress this via a citing of my sources that will hopefully address any issues of errors, ommissions, inaccurate, overly verbiose statements or lack of neutrality in my editorial submissions. Again, I welcome any other editor "writing over" the entry. FYI, I will now revert to my other life as a writer and come back to this article when things are a little "cooler."Bzuk 20:37 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment

Thanks Bzuk! For my part, I noticed that one of my initial posts about the header, whilst intended to be good natured and pithy, could have come off as a bit snippy. I thought you understood my non-interference in your many helpful edits in the text was total approval (or whatever, you know what I mean). When we have the time (and yeah, things have maybe settled down a bit) I hope we can further discuss my nit-picking, bitchy concerns about the header :) Gwen Gale 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only say, me too, I wrote that stupid comment and your nomination for "bad faith" editing in haste and never intended to post it (as you can tell by the mediocre spelling and typos there) and hit post or save by accident. I couldn't change it and immediately tried to post a new comment to try to be more civil and give you a truer indication of my attempt merely to expand on the first thing that a reader would see in looking at the life of a particularily interesting person. Bzuk 22:19 24 January 2007 (UTC).

That's cool :) Meanwhile my only worry has been the very same thing... it's that "first thing" the reader sees which can sway her subsequent interpretation of the body text. Gwen Gale 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one likes accusations of things. I also don't need your repeated warnings. If you don't stop I guess I'll have to make a complaint out of it. Sqrjn 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using sockpuppets. Please stop violating 3rr. The only reason I haven't posted difflinks of your behaviour to the admin notice board is I'm not much of a grass. Gwen Gale 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sqrjn was subsequently blocked for 3rr and no, I didn't grass on him. Gwen Gale 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I overwrote your edit there. I will make sure to put your changes back. --Guinnog 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I took care of it. Gwen Gale 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I should let you get finished before I make any more changes. It could be a nice article I think. --Guinnog 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck, I've swept and scrubbed my way through the whole thing. Hope it's ok. Gwen Gale 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your edits. I've seen it several times, and while it captivates me, one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, I don't know that I actually _absorb_ enough of it to be coherent-glad you can. :) Chris

Happily, it works away at the mind on several levels, so the plot (which is indeed quite coherent) can wait if need be. Meanwhile Lynch salvaged a failed TV pilot (which, given its budget, would have represented a disaster for most directors) into a stunning cinematic work about Hollywood. Gwen Gale 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your user page and used a slightly modified version for my own User:Netuser500. Please let me know whether that's okay with you.

I've noticed that you've used the verb "to grass" here on your talk page. I had no idea what it meant, but I've found it defined on http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/g.htm. It seems to be the UK equivalent of "to rat" in older American slang. Netuser500 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it means "snitch on." I saw you swapped the word Wikipedia with encyclopedia. I must say, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a wildly popular, alphabetized metablog and online community which is given high priority in Google search results. The non-controversial math, computer and science-related entries are wontedly helpful and trustworthy. Social science entries can be quite dodgy though and the controversial ones are often misleading. Gwen Gale 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to add that to my user page, but I won't attribute it to you unless you want me to. Netuser500 (who forgot to log on again) 68.89.149.2 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a number of articles that will link to the story of Amelia Earhart. The first is about Anita "Neta" Snook Southern who was Amelia's first flight instructor. Please check the page Neta Snook and tell me what you think. Bzuk 15:00 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It looks wonderful to me! The tone and structure seem mostly balanced and always neutral. Gwen Gale 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fiddling with it...this is entertaining! :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Gwen Gale 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, take a quick look at WP:UTM. Looks like we have a new set of warning messages. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least they're clean and helpful. If only the wonted WP article in the social sciences/humanities could be like that :) Gwen Gale 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator and have noticed your recent postings to an editor's talk page here when I was leaving an unrelated note on the page in question. This got my attention and I looked at the contribution history of this user, and his edits to the article Amelia Earhart which, based upon the context of these messages, I must assume is the article being discussed. In the first posting, you have accused this user of edit summary abuse. I have been unable to find any indication of this in the history of either Amelia Earhart, Talk:Amelia Earhart or this talk page. In your second allegation you are accusing the user of trolling and bad faith edits. Such allegations require some evidence, and based upon all of this user's edits to this article, I see no merit to the accusation of Bad Faith. You have suggested the user read WP:TROLL; I, in turn, recommend you read WP:AGF. 23skidoo 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The messages were justified, the issue has diffused, I've left a slightly longer message on your talk page, welcome to Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 13:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway here is the diff wherein Hayford Peirce made the uninformed and careless accusation. So far as I know the issue has been resolved and there are no hard feelings on my part, I'm only providing this citation to show the basis of my response. Cheers to you both! :) Gwen Gale 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm in agreement with your proposed deletion of Noah Buschel. Is this person really notable at all? Watchlist, sigh... Maury 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Heya, yeah, sigh, apparently he has directed some noted independent films starring actors who have regularly appeared on US national television and moreover seems to have been signed to a significant trade book or screenplay deal. Bzuk bounced his book link when he couldn't find it on Amazon (not a flawless test but it did look like link spam to me too) and his article reads like utter vanity which is why I knee-jerked into an afd and then... gulp... in gathering support for the afd I soon found more or less the opposite. If I misinterpreted what I found by all means let me know, the article is so lamely written! Gwen Gale 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to research the novel beyond cursory efforts to find cataloging information but found scant details anywhere and no ISBN. I agree that Noah Buschel has some cachet as a film director but the novel. That Must Be Yoshino, seems to be an obscure work. The fact that he includes himself in the novel under a psyedenoym and simply names celebrities in the plot still makes me think that a mere mention of Amelia Earhart does not warrant its inclusion as a significant aspect of popular culture affected by AE. Bzuk 16:32 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I do agree, I think it amounts to linkspam for now (which is to say, maybe an early marketing attempt) and until some evidence of wider readership or whatever can be cited it doesn't belong. Gwen Gale 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an open marriage but I guess the term should be supported with a citation. Gwen Gale 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some conjecture not only about the modern concept of the "open marriage" and how it applied to Amelia Earhart as well as some recent revelations from the Putnam Binney family that Amelia's marriage was much more conventional than previously regarded. She was reputedly a good "mother" to her adopted children and there was genuine affection between the two parents, notes one of their children. This information is derived from a television interview with the surviving Putnam children on the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Bzuk 16:32 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Erm, trust me, being a good mother with genuine affection for one's spouse has naught to do with the bounds of an open marriage. As I said though, I've no problem excluding the assertion without a citation. Gwen Gale 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have more clearly stated that one of the grandchildren addressed the issue of infidelity and offered that she had seen no evidence of it. There is a lot of speculation of Amelia's daliances with Gene Vidal and Paul Mantz, but these remain mere conjecture. I cannot find any instances of G.P. Putnam being unfaithful during their marriage although he remarried shortly after Amelia was declared officially dead in 1939.Bzuk 18:17 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Why would a grandkid have seen anything? I mean, f**k. As for GP, I've never heard of him being with anyone else during the marriage but so ...? Some people, especially those accustomed to publicity and image marketing, are way careful about that sort of thing, I've often seen it first hand and the skills of both GP and AE along these lines are widely documented. None of this is meant as criticism of anyone, after all and none of it conflicts with the notion of open marriage which, once more, I see no need to put in the article unless it's supported by a citation. Gwen Gale 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interview subject was Sally Putnam Chapman, the granddaughter of Earhart's husband, George Putnam and one of the foremost scholars on Earhart. You cannot dismiss her testimony as just that of a "kid."(BTW- you still tend to rant a bit, you got to cool it in arguments- you know the first to lose their composure, etc.  :}) This historian has documented Earhart's life with great precision and has recently donated 492 items, including rarely seen personal and private papers from both Amelia Earhart and George Putnam, such as poems, a flight log and a prenuptial agreement to Purdue Libraries' Earhart collection. It is a typewritten copy that was made sometime after the original two-page (four-sided), hand-written letter that Amleia gave GPP (in the letter, an inadvertant slip addresses him as Gyp [sic]). The letter was written in pencil on gray stationary and had many corrections including crossed out words. It had the header "The Square House, Noank, Connecticut" which is also in variance with the typewritten copy. Both GPP and AE had spent the weekend (February 7-8, 1931) together at George's mother's home- "The Square House" and before the judge, Judge Anderson, a family friend, arrived on Saturday, Amelia handed her future spouse the "prenups" letter. Reference: Lovell 1989, p.165-166. Quote: "It was pencilled longhand... a slip or two in spelling meticulously corrected." The later typewritten note has the word medieval incorrectly spelled. The original note has some slight variances in the header, use of commas and the saluation but is spelled correctly. Bzuk 13:33 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Didn't I already mention the importance of citations? Please beware of slipping into original research. Lastly, I think this would be more helpful on the article's talk page, where other editors could see it. Gwen Gale 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the information presented is derived from: Lovell, Mary S. The Sound of Wings. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. ISBN 0-312-03431-8, a comprehensive biography of both Amelia Earhart and George Putnam. The Earhart/Putnam prenuptial agreement is available online from the Purdue Libraries' Earhart collection but as indicated, this Earhart letter is a later copy. Bzuk 21:33 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure this stuff is already cited in the article. Gwen Gale 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are thorough. You helped fixed Klara Hitler's article (shortly after I found it and tried to make it better), and you killed/zapped some tiny (but bad) changes to Amelia Earhart's page. (Netuser500, but not logged on. Hey, why can't I my corrections as minor?) 24.107.194.216 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log in with a WP username and the "minor" checkbox will appear when you edit. Gwen Gale 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would read the last section at Talk:North America (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). What I see are two or three people insisting on keeping a false statement in the article because they've found those words in two sources. Some others have cited other reliable sources which prove (at least to me) that their quotation needs to be qualified. However, they revert all qualifications because (as best I can tell) they believe their sources count and the other sources don't. A warning, over there I've obviously let my frustration show, which I guess I shouldn't have. In your opinion, should I bother with an RfC (if you have an opinion, that is)? Thanks for any advice. It seems really sad that such an important article (it is marked as one of 150 essential articles for an encyclopedia) should contain such a blatant solecism, IMHO. (Well, I doubt you'll think I'm humble if you do go and read what I wrote.) 68.89.149.2 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it is a mega traffic meta blog with alphabetized entries. Strong emotional responses are wonted from noobs until they learn how things work around here. Back off is all, it's not worth it, find some articles where you have a bit of knowledge and there aren't too many PoV warriors and trolls lurking about. Half the people who edit here are crazy. Many of the rest are either writing way beyond their ilk or are trying to sell something. When you have more experience, you may sometimes be able to apply WP dispute methodologies and your understanding of the system to sway an article into something resembling scholarship but beware, you'll end up spending most of your time protecting articles you've helped build from vandals, trolls and fools.

First thing though, get a username now, you don't want your IP showing up all over the place and nobody, including me, gives much heed or trust to an anon. I hope this helps and by the bye, welcome to Wikipedia! :) Gwen Gale 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't recognize my IP addresses? After that time we spent fixing Klara Hitler? I'm crushed! (Well, no, I'm not really crushed, and my mother has always maintained that I better not quit my day job to go into comedy. She also has told me not to try to sing.)

Heck, the whole point of registering was to be able to nominate silly articles for deletion. However, it seems that any three fans can keep any cruft-only article from being deleted. You're starting to convince me that this isn't an encyclopedia. I'd have to hyphenate "mega-traffic meta-blog" though. (I blame my copy-edit mentors for my compulsions to use hyphens.)

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll move on. No one has vandalized (or fixed) my ridiculously short summary for Normative yet. Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas for that article. Netuser500 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Sorry, I truly do ignore IP numbers and no, don't even think about singing unless you've scientifically tested your phrasing, intonation and charisma before a flock of middle school girls, who swooned, nothing else will do, trust me, only they are hard wired to understand these things, but this gets somewhat short-circuited long before one is old enough to vote. I don't like hyphens :) Forget AfD, mostly, it's a waste of time. Let the junior woodchuck club handle them. Normative is not troll bait but give it time. Gwen Gale 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I followed your links (loved wikitruth, btw), and I had to revert vandalism at Elvis! Netuser500 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How hopelessy normative of you. :) Gwen Gale 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page before reverting to badly vandalized versions of this article, especially since it contained four copies of itself and had infobox problems. --PhantomS 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Please check the history more carefully next time. Meanwhile, you might want to talk to the anon who has been endlessly messing about with it, instead of me and if vandalism is intefering with the article's history (which has happened lately and may have happened this time) I do support any effort you might make to fix the article and be done with it, by the bye. Gwen Gale 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I noticed you are a frequent editor to Fred Noonan. I'm curious where your interest stems from. My maternal grandmother was Mary Bea's younger sister. There seems to be so little information about Fred - I'm interested in whatever is out there. Ronnotel 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know a lot about the basic trajectory of his life and there are many letters, some published, most not. Nobody has been able to find his employment history in the Pan AM archives, although his employment there was widely documented externally. He was a highly talented navigator whose place in aviation history has only recently been more widely noted. My interest in Noonan stemmed from an intersection of sundry stuff, archaeology, history, aviation, feminism and so on. WP isn't a place for original research but if you have any materials relating to Fred please email me (see menu). Gwen Gale 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing documentary I'm afraid, just recollections from my mother who was six the only time she met him. All she remembers is that he and Mary Bea were very elegant. Ronnotel 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! Never heard that adjective applied to him. Way to go Fred! Gwen Gale 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that Mary Bea had a very swank salon in Oakland before she married Fred. After Fred died, she married Harry Ireland, a very wealthy financier. She always moved among the elite. I've always been curious how Fred and Mary Bea met. Ronnotel 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know Fred wound up in Los Angeles after successfully navigating the first, widely publicized Pan Am clipper flights (and charting the new Pacific routes himself). Paul Mantz, who was deeply connected into both the showbiz and aviation communities there, already knew Earhart and Fred got snatched up in that heady atmosphere. His hope, apparently, was to get some more publicity from the world flight and then start up a profitable navigation school. Gwen Gale 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment response

Gwen, in response to your comments on my discussion page, I have no interest in feuding either. I am sorry that you find my comments patronizing, these statements are meant to be accurate (I'm not sure what was inaccurate, nonetheless, they are meant to be accurate commentary). I have no abiding interest in any of the articles I write or edit, as I had already indicated, my wikipedia contributions are a hobby not a passion and I, too, have spent too much time on the internet and have to ration my time accordingly.

I happened upon the Amelia Earhart article in passing but it seemed to be constantly under siege with vandals attacking it. The same attack/revert/attack syndrome was like the Charles Lindbergh article I had been editing that also has undergone a lot of vandalism. In much the same method as store owners do, if you create a meaningful piece of work (say a mural on the side of the building) it sometimes keeps the thoughtless people away, I determined that if the articles were as well-written as possible, vandals may leave them alone. (HAHA, that sure didn't happen.) As for Fred, I think he is a very valid part of the story of Amelia Earhart and like Jacqueline Cochran and Neta Snook which I have also edited, as much detail and well-researched information will merely strengthen the final article. And then again, it's only a Wikipedia article after all. Did you notice the above comment by Ronnotel? :} Bzuk 22:40 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The vandalism at AE was no different than at any article covering a topic widely referenced in popular culture, was mostly of the "drive by middle schooler" variety and was wholly under control. Wikipedia is replete with vandalism, it's a public wiki, after all and as you've hopefully learned, vandals don't wontedly read stuff before they garble it. Gwen Gale 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i accept the entire removal of the passage...none of my edits were original research though...all i ever did was phrase that sentence summing up that la times article in slightly "less disparaging of NASA" terms...the la times clubbed them about it almost as a "ha ha...lets see how paragonesque ur astronauts are now" type of attitude with some of their coverage...i felt direct quote from a newspaper sentence like this was beyond wikipedia and more for the news pages on the web...it has to be paraphrased and taken in context as "some felt" showing the newspaper opinion that this was so...Benjiwolf 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You use the term "psycho" for this section heading and deny you're engaging in OR? You used the words "strange" and "sensational" in the article which were not supported by the citation. Your edits were pure original research and your uninformed input has caused the article to be diminished. I assume you're editing in good faith but I have no interest in disputing this with you. Gwen Gale 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen: I think that, in the long run, those early gestures to get the judge to grant Lisa bail are going to look unimportant. As the story evolves, I invite you to re-evaluate the mention of other astronauts and NASA in her latest section. BTW: I rarely remove references, but I do sometimes relocate them. Those news articcles will be there for a while, and then start to fade out. Remember! Wikipedia is not a newspaper. (WP:NOT)--199.33.32.40 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! You might want to get a username, then start reading up on Wikipedia policy rather than only citing it. Gwen Gale 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the tortured history of the Barbaro article for an example of a story that was steadily diluted via news (and sports) accounts. Now that the story is mostly over, it has settled down quite a bit. For a while there, it did not seem to matter "what happened" with the injury and aftermath; what seemed to matter was, in quotes, what this or that media person had to say about the situation. If you want article stability (without stupid tricks like protecting it) focus on the subject of the article in a narrow fashion. And when something more important happens, review the relative importance of past events and start trimming, just out of respect for the reader's time.--199.33.32.40 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lecture. When something more important happens, I'm sure the article will, after much inefficiency, well-meaning but clueless input by noob or agenda-warding editors and anons along with endless gnashing of teeth, be adapted more or less accordingly by WP editors following WP policy in good faith. Meanwhile, please post this stuff over on the article's talk page and whilst you're not required to, it might help if you got a user name. Gwen Gale 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, the page is absolutely not for advocacy, it is to make the person suffering from severe love obsession (I've sometimes been in the same situation, it is unbearable feeling) feel better. let people write her that they love her. Please, restore the link. I already wrote to Plek.

Regards, Ilya Shapiro ([email protected])

Yeah yeah, love makes you crazy. Politely put, what you propose is an advocacy link. In WP jargon, it's linkspam. Gwen Gale 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is severely sick person, and first at all need psychiatrical support...and support of the people who've been in the same situation. we very often need to hear that somebody love us, that somebody understands, even from strangers...In legal area, whatever happens-happens, nobody will contest that. This is therapy.

Erm, that's so sweet, but this is not the place for your original research. Gwen Gale 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

didn't get it...what research do you mean?

You did not support your remarks about Nowak with citations from reliable secondary sources. Gwen Gale 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what remarks are unsupported? Maybe you think that she wanted to rob her? There were her testimony and a lot of evidence...Anyway, if there will be evidence from secondary sources, will you put my link back?

Maybe you'll advise me to change the text on the page so it'll be acceptable for WP?

First, this is the English Wikipedia and I don't think your English is up to editing here yet (for example, the verb conjugations in your last comment were rather missed). Meanwhile, please brush up over at WP:Original research, thanks. Gwen Gale 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the great tradition of stating the obvious, I'd like to say that you're doing a great job on the Lisa Nowak article. Keep it up and don't let the WP:TROLLs bite you! Cheers. --Plek 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mu'nin! I have removed the tidbit about her (focus-group-tested, obviously) amateur radio hobby and her callsign. To me, it looks like an undue invasion of privacy, akin to publishing her cell phone number. Just let me know what you think. Cheers. --Plek 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again! I must congratulate you on your uncannily accurate prescient powers.[6] See: Talk:Lisa Nowak#The conspiracy angle. Say, can I enlist your help in picking next week's winning lottery numbers? :-) Happy editing! --Plek 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha not so much prescience as experience is all :) There'll cheap runs of down market books about her and alien spacehips (a modern thoroughly version of angels and religious visions) for years. Anyway so far as the lottery goes, as my mum used to say, it's a house game, stick to blackjack, you'll lose less. Gwen Gale 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ghosts of Lisa McPherson and Ayn Rand are looking over your shoulder as you type. Type cheerfully!--71.141.237.249 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Tell the Wikitruth! Gwen Gale 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited a source anywhere near the assertion, nor have you demonstrated that your source -- whatever it is -- is reliable. And please discuss on the relevant talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AuntieMormom (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're mistaken. The source is cited in the article. He's a flight communications contractor at JSC. Parenthood.com got it wrong, misinterpreting what Nowak said during an interview. I left a message on your talk page because I think this goes beyond article content. Gwen Gale 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state your edit was trivial. I stated that the fact that two people appearing on her behalf wore "brown leather jackets" was trivial compared to enormity of the charges and her actions. Now your expanded claim that they were wearing brand-new, identical jackets is potentially less trivial as it could be seen to be an attempt to influence the court by showing that astronauts have the Right Stuff. Provide a citation that they were brand-new and let's keep the discussion going. Rillian 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's cool. Believe me, I've been looking but so far (sigh), I only have the visual content of the hearing videos which at least support the simple descriptive statement. I think lots of people who read the Nowak article intuitively grok the significance of the reference and it's not PoV at all (but would be, over the top, if the text read "there they were in their brand new, identical Chuck Yeager circa 1948 costumes of brown leather jackets with black fur trim, looking for all the world like they'd been nicked from the prop archives for the movie The Right Stuff) which is why nobody deleted it before. That's it. I'll keep looking for a text cite confirming what is starkly apparent in the news videos oh and by the bye, the article text doesn't say they were new or identical... yet anyway. Gwen Gale 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Agreed that choosing their attire to make a "Right Stuff" impression on the court is not POV and relevant to the article. Rillian 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly irrelevant fluff that they wore jackets. But.. no reason to remove it from the article other than to avoid the appearance of being overly anal retentive. --Blue Tie 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've put Image:NASA lisa nowak1.jpg up for deletion since we have a better version available (Image:Lisa Nowak.jpg). Evil Monkey - Hello 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! On my talk page I'll say, I like that pic of her :) Gwen Gale 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all the hard work on that Nowak mess. :) - Denny 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very rare current events intersection of my editing interests, is all... thanks! :) Gwen Gale 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gotten kind of aggressive about tossing out examples after watching "in popular culture" sections grow to Tokyo-eating size in article after article... everyone wants their own favorites in, and pretty soon the important points are lost in all the detail. As long as there is a good list article for the excess examples to go to, they can be trimmed down to those that illustrate a point of some kind, in my opinion. —Celithemis 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye 'n the article's getting ripe for it. Gwen Gale 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, nay, sir! The sentence in question is explaining why Captain Nowak decided to make the drive to Orlando in adult diapers: "...so that she would not have to stop to urinate." "Did" does not cover her motivation. And by the way, no one (except Capt. Nowak) knows whether she "did" in fact stop to urinate; perhaps she decided to, just once, somewhere around Tallahassee, perhaps.

Your deletion of my "that", which simply makes your understood "that" clause explicit, is petty.

The above unsigned message was left by User:Writtenright

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Anyway you're wholly mistaken about the syntax thing and I wasn't talking about her motivation at all. Meanwhile the lack of a that as a conjunction where the context is self-evident is widely described.[7] If you're going to be hopping around Wikipedia with a username like that (here it's a demonstrative pronoun and anyway the context is not self-evident, in more ways than one by the bye) you might a) learn how to read carefully (you seem to skim and interpret words as synonyms which are not) and b) learn some more grammar and syntax. Begone. Gwen Gale 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me: "Madam", not "Sir". We are talking about Captain Nowak's motivation for wearing the diapers. She wore them so that she would not have to stop to urinate. You do not know whether or not she actually did stop to urinate. It is all right to leave out an understood "that", but I put it in to make the meaning more clear to readers who are not as fluent in English as we. What's your excuse for removing it: pique? Also, where is the "quote"? There are no quotation marks. I won't keep going back to reverting your reverts; you seem to be very attached to your views of things and like to prevail in any dispute. I won't say, "Begone"; that's for persons who like to have the last word. That way, they get to "win" the argument.Writtenright 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

• Like Baba, you seem to have wholly missed that there were two edits involved in many of these diffs. One had to do with the diapers, the other further down, in quotes, which you altered.

• I stand by what I've said about the verb conjugation and the conjunction both here (above and below) and on the article's talk page.

On your user page you say, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy from Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada and a Master's Degree in English for Speakers of Other Languages from Nazareth College, Rochester, New York. I have taught as an Adjunct Instructor at Monroe Community College, Rochester, New York and also served as a Writing Tutor there. I have edited technical writing in a professional capacity. I have tutored non-native speakers of English on a freelance basis for a number of years.

If any of this is true, I don't see evidence of it in your use of the English language. For example, having browsed some of your "drive-by grammar corrections," I think your suggestions regarding verb usage, whilst nominally correct, are sometimes inappropriate to meaning and hint at a narrow understanding of either English or language as a whole. I'm sorry I had to say this, but you've persisted so I had to answer. Gwen Gale 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are impolite. What do you mean vandalize? Instead threatening people explain what is you pain.--204.13.69.220 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Somebody using your IP did this is all, many times from different IPs. I'm sorry if the message I left for that individual startled you or made you feel unwelcome. You can avoid seeing those if you get a username, but that's not required. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers :) Gwen Gale 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. That is not me who changed the Nowak article.--204.13.69.220 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't think so. Sorry again for any misunderstanding :) There's a generic message explaining how this can happen at the bottom of IP-only talk pages like the one you have but folks sometimes don't read it haha! Gwen Gale 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for your help with the Fidelity, IL article. You sound like a faily upbeat editor. My name is Steve, I live in New York, NY. Glad to meet another positive wikipedian Please feel free to add any other ideas. See you. --Sm8900 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Truth be told I'm a misandric, PMSing f**king bitch with a snarling caffeine addiction but thanks for the kind words anyway, I can dream. Looky! Someone says I'm upbeat! :) Gwen Gale 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive by humor, eh?" ....Ayup. :-) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether a "sense of adventure" or a "sense of daring" works better, a bit of semantics here, since I had actually used "daring" in the first line, that's why adventure seemed to fit since she did have an adventurous childhood. I will work on it some more. Bzuk 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes the word repetition sucks but I think daring is far more helpful than "adventure" which also sounds to me like a human interest, go go Amelia magazine article. Erm, the notion being, I think her life speaks skeins of go go stuff without any need for (wholly unintended) bits of spin. Gwen Gale 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I derive my commentary/observations from research; Earhart historians have previously commented on her childhood sense of adventure. Again, to make things clear, the Amelia Earhart article is interesting to me but not an all-consuming passion. I have no abiding interest in this topic, I edit over 200 Wikipedia aviation-related articles at the same time for "fun." Bzuk 23:12 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Whatever. You've claimed the article as your own. I don't do revert wars. Gwen Gale 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lisa Nowak. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. BJ^Talk 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to high profile article editing on Wikipedia. And here I thought I was discussing everything patiently. Sigh. Thanks BJ for trying to help in good faith. Gwen Gale 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the most civil response I have ever received for giving somebody a warning, thanks. I can easily tell you are acting in good faith but I counted 4 reverts in 4 hours, clearly over the 3RR limit. What I try to do when I need to revert things other than vandalism and I'm getting near the revert limit I often ask other editors to have a look and revert for me. I have added the page to my watchlist so I can help you keep the article in good shape. BJ^Talk 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you look at the diffs carefully you'll see they weren't 3rr, since content varied and I was carefully trying to talk about every point calmly at each turn but yeah, I know what you mean anyway. So far as asking other editors to jump in and help, that's cool and it's within Wikipedia policy but I think it can easily become "gaming the system," or whatever (let's not even talk about admins 'n wheel wars :) ...in that if I call for help from an editor who doesn't know the topic, it's not scholarly. Did I say scholarly? Wikipedia? Yeah, haha, there are tonnes of lower profile and non-controversial articles on WP which are. Don't you hate that feeling when you know you're falling into an editing fight but think/know it's not your doing and get too wrapped up in it anyway? Gwen Gale 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you mean but quoting the policy "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." BJ^Talk 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh f***. I was the bitch then. They've changed the wording. Thought I was dealing with editors who were under the old "mirror" rule. Thanks for taking the time to read my reply and tell me. Argh. Gwen Gale 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you perform this edit? If it were part of a quote, you can put the grammer fix in brackets to denote that it is not the exact words spoken. In this case, though, it is not part of a direct quote. --Baba gump 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained that and yes it is part of a direct quote. Are you deliberately misrepresenting or are your reading skills lacking? Meanwhile please stop gaming the system by badgering me in the hope you'll sway a couple of articles to your PoV. Gwen Gale 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your reading skills are indeed lacking (get those eyes checked, please). The phrase in question is not inside quotation marks. Even if it was, there is a way to fix grammer for the appropriate context. Please stop inserting incorrect grammer. You are bordering on 3RR violations. --Baba gump 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My drive-by edit of the day: the word you're trying to use is probably "grammar"; not "grammer". Thank you. --Plek 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baba gump, please see WP:Troll. Gwen Gale 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You seem to fit the profile of a troll. --Baba gump 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Baba gump. Gwen Gale 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to readers, Baba gump may not have noticed that there are two edits in that diff, it's the second one that's in quotes, the first edit involves a verb conjugation to describe both (documented) intent and outcome along with the widely supported avoidance of a superfluous conjunction.[8] Gwen Gale 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the AE page: "Carly called me up and said she'd like that tidbit to remain a secret"- actually cracked me up. I didn't figure you for a wicked sense of humour-(I still write in Canajan style)– good stuff! Have a Happy Valentine's Day. Bzuk 5:30 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha, I was gonna say she was cruising over Roswell New Mexico in an alien spaceship when she called but... I didn't have room in the edit summary. A happy VD to you too! (Erm, Valentine's day, that is ;) Gwen Gale 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the vandalism mess at Amelia Earhart. I was in the process of trying to sort that out but you got there first... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry if I stepped on your toes. I still can't figure it all out, there were stealthy bits to it. Gwen Gale 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my bad. I hit the rollback button w/o realizing there was more in there - that just confuses things even more. Problem is there are constructive edits going on at the same time as vandalism and the constructive editors are missing that there's a vandal right in the bed with them!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback button can be a dodgy thing and yes, the helpful stuff is getting mixed up with the grafitti. I do think it's the season again, for AE to have come up in middle school history classes in the states :) Gwen Gale 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, the vandalism seems to be greater than ever. Is there any way of "locking" this article for a while or "blocking" these mind-midgets? I'm not sure why February is such a bad time for vandalism of this article as it was traditionally "Black History Month" not "Women Aviators who are Iconic Feminist Figures Month" going back to my time as a high school librarian. BTW, I'm glad to see you're talking to me again, I missed you. |:[ Bzuk 15:13 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I think it's come up again in some canned, standardized learning modules in middle schools (time of year), topics wouldn't only be limited to BHM stuff. I'll look into it. By the bye, I sincerely think you've done wonders for the article, I still have a big probby with the word "adventure" is all. :) Gwen Gale 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked for and got semi-protection for it, expires in a month. Gwen Gale 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that restriction will make a huge difference, judging by the number of ip addressess that had been the originators of the majority of the mischief. BTW, do you know anything about aircraft, specifically, the de Havilland Comet?Bzuk 21:02 15 February (UTC).

Wow, I looked at the article and found a big, uncited account of a conspiracy theory! Haha. From what I know about it this was a well-designed plane but built before metal fatigue in big jets was adequately described. Boeing benefited, I guess. Gwen Gale 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwen. I hoped you would come to that conclusion even after a cursory observation. I have tried unsuccessfully to challenge some of the spurious claims to no avail being called all sorts of names- it's even worse on the Messerschmitt Me 262 and Gloster Meteor articles where my submissions have been dismissed by the same editor as the work of a Nazi or Nazi-lover?! Any suggestions, I have already had the editor blocked but he has returned with a vengeance. Any suggestions? Bzuk 21:45 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk? A nazi? Codswallop. Everyone knows you're a CIA dupe. haha, only kidding. Fixing those articles will require two things: a) an investment of many, many hours' work stretching through weeks and b) steady, unwaivering requests for citations from reliable secondary sources, line by line if needed. These are examples of articles abandoned by experts who long ago were chased off by cranks and trolls. Welcome to the rotten underside of Wikipedia. By the bye they may not truly think you're a nazi lover, if they thought calling you a racist or pedophile would work they'd do it. They're likely trying to sell books or promote websites. Gwen Gale 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant to say RCMP dupe since I am of the Canajan persuasion. You are probably right about the methodology to employ to ressurect a flawed piece of research, the first two articles (Gloster Meteor and Messerschmitt Me 262) have been essentially rescued but the de Havilland Comet seems inextricably mired in conspiracy theories. The editor who has submitted this batch of subjective and highly partisan commentary has a back-story full of controversy and wild accusations ranging from 9-11 links to Iraqui interests to a claim that a British ex-cabinet minister was murdered by some clandestine organizations. This editor is a highly esteemed barrister and yet he holds highly controversial views that colour much of his wikipedia contributions. I have attempted to do the line-by-line edit much like I had done in the Earhart article (you should have seen it before!!) but have been faced with "chop shop" editing reverts that remove even the cited references and as a consequence, I have almost given up. I posted a request on the Comet discussion page regarding the need for sourced and well-documented research and hope that other editors rather than just myself undertake the task of rewriting the "POV" material. That is what happened in the Earhart article and with your help and that of other knowledgable editors, great inroads have been made. I am not so sure this method will work in the case of the Comet article. Bzuk 01:27 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Are his edits supported by any other editors? Gwen Gale 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, which at least makes me think he is a "voice in the wilderness" type of editor. In at least two earlier instances on other websites and forums, he has also elucidated the same convictions only to find other users politely but firmly state the opposite, usually quoting or referencing bonafide sources or personal background information. Sigh... I think I will leave a period of grace then slowly contribute sourced statements. Thanks for the shoulder... Bzuk 02: 29 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The red x on the locator is way too far east. Howland is on the other side of the dateline, for starters. Gwen Gale 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where it is supposed to be, but you can move it by editing the x and y coordinates of Template:Howland Island Locator. Good catch. -- Beland 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I had to use my eyeballs since the XY thingy isn't Long/Lat but I think it's close enough now. Gwen Gale 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H, I have new-found respect for the tiger that was unleashed. Go girl.Bzuk 22: 41 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Hold your head up, I don't think you did anything wrong; in fact, I think you exposed a charlatan if anything. Bzuk22:36 20 February 2007 (UTC).

You know it, n I know it, but I'm gettin stalked for it. Gwen Gale 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound like the bureaucratic wiki-admins I myself detest, but your recent post on the Comet talk page borders on wikistalking and is not suitable for posting in public areas. I understand the concerns you (and I) have with MS's credentials, but airing them out here is not the proper way to move forward. I have removed the text in question, please don't take it personally. We need to remain on the high ground here. Maury 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He fully disclosed his identity and made claims about his "credentials." Your interpretation of my edit is mistaken. In the future, please discuss before reverting one of my comments on a talk page. Likewise your hint about "high ground" or whatever. Since I assume you did this in good faith and Ĩ have no wish to stir anything up, let's forget it. Gwen Gale 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were we talking about? Maury 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Maury, dunno. :) Gwen Gale 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what browser are you using? I'm guessing either IE or Safari? I guess this because in the past I was very quick on the Save page button and made lots of little edits, because I'd lost too many large edits due to the most ridiculous little things, like hitting backspace at the wrong time. You seem to have the same editing pattern as I did. If this is the case, you might want to try FireFox. It took me a while to start trusting it, but since then my edits have survived practically everything, even reboots! For Safari there is an add-on that does the same thing (can't recall the name though), which is what I use at home. And I can't live without the spell checker either. Maury 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Firefox for three years, on a BSD. No probbies on WP at all, nor with worries about losing stuff. I hit the save button when I think it's helpful, is all, :) Gwen Gale 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat this: posting any sort of personal information about another editor, no matter how on-topic or cogent, is quite simply against the rules. I don't think you understand the seriousness of the issue -- those statements and links are a blockable offense and could get you banned. If you are upset that I removed them fine, I'll give you this chance to do it yourself, but understand that they cannot be allowed to stay on that page!

Maury 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I haven't posted any personal information about anyone. Please stop misrepresenting my edits. Moreover, your interpretation of WP policy is mistaken but ok, since I have zero interest in disputes, I'll rm it. Meantime, please stop and think about who is wikistalking whom. Gwen Gale 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that with the transsexual/transgender mistake. I didn't look as carefully as I should have. I do love the way we all work together to create an accurate and clear encyclopedia. Best, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me :) I'd like to work more on that article more but a few editors are, so, so understandably, very keen on presenting that utter tragedy in a way that maximizes a social message they deeply and sincerely believe in and they thus support the article content with citations from advocacy sources. Although I think the article is weak and unscholarly, having gotten to know how they feel I have no wish to nettle them cuz Brandon's story still comes through. Meanwhile I don't mind tweaking things to at least steadfastly follow the references they've cited. Gwen Gale 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note...I noticed that your usertalk page is beginning to get long. You will likely decide at some point to archive your talk page, like I have here [9]. When you do, if you need any help, just let me know. I would be happy to assist. Best, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. I know how to do it but I like it this way :) ...lets folks know more about my bitchy editing haha! Gwen Gale 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Amelia Earhart twice in the past 24 hours. 3rr is in effect. Gwen Gale 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being wikistalked! Gwen Gale 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk:Brandon Teena: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your comment: "I have been unable to convince the editors here that mainstream sources support either using a female pronoun or avoiding it altogether. ... Never mind I don't want to needlessly nettle them since a) they may be Lesbian Avengers who I think are cool even when I don't agree with them and b) whatever pronouns are used, the tale told by this very short article comes through so I'm ok with it."

The sexuality of your fellow editors isn't the issue, so don't make it the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told it was a total compliment and a discussion of article content. I'm sorry you misunderstood it. I don't think WP:No personal attacks applies, although I do think you have contacted me about this in good faith. Only to show my good faith in return, I will revise my comment on the talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your good faith. To be quite clear, whether you like Lesbians or not isn't the issue - speculating about the sexual identity of your fellow editors is a personal attack and is not acceptable conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack, you are deeply mistaken about that. Moreover, it was not a speculation on anyone's self-identification but a remark about context and wholly related to article content. Since you have misunderstood my post and expressed serious concern about it, I have retracted it in full and am happy to do it, please take the hint :) Thanks again and feel free to share any lingering or additional concerns with me. Gwen Gale 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been intended as a personal attack but could easily be interpreted as one. A good rule of thumb is to avoid discussion about contributors and focus on content. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I hastened to rm it. Sorry again it was taken wholly wrong though :) Gwen Gale 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Ok then. Gwen Gale 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are u sorry about last edit Mythbusters 11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but why you did it and then asked someone how to become an admin is beyond me. Gwen Gale 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't remove the posts of other editors even if you disagree strongly with them. I have restored the comments in question. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're spam, same text repeated many times. Gwen Gale 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter - they aren't your comments to delete and its a valid POV - Polls are evil and by removing objections to that you are effectively saying there is no room any other views except yes or no. We need dicussion and consensus building, not a ballot. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left one of them in. Otherwise you seem to be objecting because you agree with the PoV "polls are evil" and like seeing it spammed across the page. Truth be told polls can be very unhelpful. The worry here is that Jimbo has approved of Essjay's behaviour and editors have chosen this way (among others) to express themselves. Gwen Gale 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's why I think an RFC would be a better venue for this discussion. Its a far more valid way of measuring the community view and would consequently have more effectiveness in expressing any outrage felt by the community. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel any outrage. Meanwhile I think folks are a bit rattled to hear Jimbo thinks a WP representative faking a CV for a major publication is ok. Gwen Gale 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different removal, this one, great work. And bonus points for using "codswollop". William Pietri 10:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Speaking of words, on that other removal (which I "lost" haha) I'd have let it be, spammed repetition and all, if the section had been called "Voting is unhelpful" instead of "Voting is evil" :) Gwen Gale 10:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your 'first tip' about apostrophes. I actually am a professor, with a real Ph.D., at a real university. In my youth, I had absolutely flawless spelling and grammar, without effort. About 5 years ago, I started spelling phonetically for no apparent reason -- here/hear & there/their & its/it's. I lost basic grammar skills as well -- which/that & subjunctive mood & comma use. I have to proof-read everything I write now. This drives me nuts. I honestly think it's too much Internet eating my brain. Should I simply resign (just wrote that as 'reason') and retire (in my 30's) on grammatical disability? Or is there hope for me, doc? Derex 11:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you should resign and take up woodworking :) Haha! Truth be told I know a few PhDs whose grammar and spelling are a bit dodgy in emails but somehow, mostly, when they write a report or whatever it's rather clean (though sometimes a bit wordy with too much Latin but that's another tale). My idle remark was only that the "its/it's" botch is one of my trusty red flags for sizing up a first take on a writer. Someone with tonnes of academic background might slip up that way too but much less often. By the bye I do due diligence professionally, which includes reading lots of stuff written by folks claiming sundry degrees and whatnot so I've got a few of these "tips to the wary" shortcuts up my sleeve, so to speak. They're steadfast little hints to have a closer look is all! Gwen Gale 11:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's crazy. I think my other grammar skills are in good shape, but I had that same transition a few years back. I never made homonym errors. Not out of caution; I'd still make other mistakes. But not a bit of there/their stuff. Now I find them creeping in frequently. My personal interpretation is that it matches another shift going on. For most of my life, when I read, I didn't hear the words in my head; it was an entirely visual process. I could make it through a whole book and never wonder how to pronounce a strange place name. As part of appreciating dialog and poetry more, though, I've been practicing. And now that I think about it, I've also tried to make my writing style more conversational, so I might be thinking the sounds harder on output as well. Does that jibe at all with your experience, Derex? Thanks, William Pietri 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, actually it does. I tend to 'speak' phrases in my head before writing them down. I believe that was not the case in the past. I'm told my academic writing has greatly improved from several years back. So, maybe the two are related. Anyway it's strange realizing that your brain has changed the way it processes such a routine task, without your consent. Derex 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Consent, or even a courtesy notification! William Pietri 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up speaking French and English, went to English schools mostly and read tonnes of English, sometimes more than I spoke so now and then I'd pronounce something utterly twisted, never ever having heard anyone like, say it. All through school I was ok with spelling but later, when I began truly writing, spinning stuff to have the spoken lilt or whatever, which for me has to do with imagining a voice, I started makin' homonym spelling errors 'n I still do it. Must be a wiring thingy in the head. Gwen Gale 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been able to master the 'its' issue instinctively (I have to consciously stop my flow to correct or remember the right use) and have noticed the same trend in a loss of grammatically-correct 'instinctiveness'. Perhaps writing and typing employs, exercises and atrophies grammar differently somehow. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha don't feel bad, sometimes I do have to stop and think about that one too. I guess typing does bring out different errors than longhand, for me it's partly the speed thing (much faster typing) but I wouldn't be startled if there were unique error patterns in each aside from that. :) Gwen Gale 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your comment on his page as unproductive and violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't violated either WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. You might want to reread those policies with a bit of heed. However, only as a courtesy to your sensitivities I have reworded my comment. Thank you for your input :) Gwen Gale 08:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had thought you'd written that. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards. Trebor 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was afraid of :) Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that after... I was mistakenly editing a post RV version where you guys had already Rm'd the blogs out and mistook them as the valid state of the article. Too many RMs/Rvs, etc. - Denny 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a bit off topic, may I ask what you meant by [10]? Right now, exactly one admin action has occured- the deletion of the article. That isn't wheel warring, it's just out of process. JoshuaZ 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me about it. I think both our takes on this whole thing are different enough that what I call wheel warring over this isn't the same as what you'd agree with. I've seen several high-sway admins do what they could to bury this tale fast. I feel bad for Essjay, I think he got sucked into Wikipedia's MUDdy side and for whatever reason didn't have a clue how deep the shite he'd gotten himself into was, until it all went too far. Some editors have been sincerely concerned about Essjay with no other agenda, others have been in gleefull grudge mode, some like me have worries about credibility and dodgy CVs on userpages since meanwhile I think there are editors here and there who've long been doing WP stuff with fake assertions about their background and credentials and to put it mildly, they're not happy. For me, none of this is about Essjay, I wish him well and would even hope he can work his way back into the fold here (under a new username). Gwen Gale 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, abuse of admin powers isn't in general wheel warring. Wheel warring is (I think) a subset of abuse where admins repeatedly revert each others admin actions. Especially when dealing with contentious issues like this precision is good.JoshuaZ 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen bits of that but it hasn't been too bad. Nonetheless I saw it as wheel warring. I don't want to make a big thing out of it though other than to say I didn't appreciate the comments some were making about lynch mobs and so on. Mostly the AfD was closed too early. Gwen Gale 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed my vote to merge the article by the bye. Gwen Gale 08:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I would fully support your idea of making credential-waving in content disputes a blockable offense. Jokestress 10:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to bring it up again now and then. Gwen Gale 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it deals with the problem without getting into validating claimed credentials – I was diverted into reading the talk about your Comet capers, and the thought of certifying the learned Professor's claims is scary. Sorry for getting all existential on the Grand Truth diversion, it's something I've noticed in relation to Creationism, that religious Truth and scientific truth come from completely different angles, to mutual incomprehension. Afraid no verifiable sources just to hand for that point ;) ... dave souza, talk 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think any serious certification of credentials is more or less a dead end. I'd rather ban 'em altogether but I'd be ok with them on user pages so long as there's some sort of "vetting light" way of verifying them. If someone gets into a sensitive position of trust then let WMF or JW have a more thorough, policy-authorized and defined look, is all, like any other responsible org I've ever heard of.

However, no little stars by edit summaries (!) and if someone starts asserting their authority, why not a short block? It's not so different from a legal threat, after all and a trained academic will already be so too familiar with strong citation practices, which I've found truly do sway the day most of the time on this wiki.

And to flog that aside a bit too much and only for fun, my own PoV is there's only ever one truth but observing and describing it's a whole 'nother tale, fraught with opportunities to get things muddled :) Gwen Gale 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll have seen, I think the credentials thing is a bit of red herring, or at least a lower priority. If Essjay had had to give his personal details to the Foundation back when he was running to be a bureaucrat, he would have had a great disincentive to continue his fabrication. I think that some kind of vetting -maybe not for all admins, but certainly as a prerequisite for anyone who wants to be more than that - would be a better line of defence.

But anyway, I mainly came here to say thank you for the positive role you're playing in the current debates. You're getting my respect - I wasn't aware of you before this - even when you make points that I don't agree with. And besides, I actually agree with most of them. Metamagician3000 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, truly. I'm sayin' what I can anyway :) Meanwhile there are so many admins with MUD credentials and who knows what else lurking about, which is only the reason by half why one gets the whiff of panic in the air. Gwen Gale 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth ladies, I agree this would be a great idea. - Denny 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding his comments are inept at best. You can read a more balanced appraisal of his comments here:

• Citizendium1
• Citizendium2

What we need at Wikipedia are REAL standards for Administrators, such as resumes, real names and reference checks...who knows who these people REALLY are ? upstanding citizens? criminals? unemployed druggies? liars like Essjay? there obviously needs to be a NEW set of standards...

Haha I didn't say Wales was handling this helpfully overall :) This has been a big docking botch. I'm trying to be constructive is all. As for admins, I think mostly there should be no assertions as to academic or employment background at all and if an admin makes such a claim it should be verified. I also think the admin selection process sucks, it's more or less a popularity contest and buddy system that encourages endless wheel-warring. Gwen Gale 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did agree with your comment here Diff which brought me to your homepage. Take care G.G. you seem like a nice person. Yours very truly Headphonos 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for droppin' by :) Gwen Gale 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly be this cute, can you be? Or why would you spend time on Wikipedia?:)Proabivouac 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha oh yes it's me! It's me me me me! Erm, (sigh) I do kinda look like her which is one reason why I picked it but... sad to say, I'd need lotsa pre-Raphaelite lighting with a stylist standing by to look that cute :) As for why I spend so much time on Wikipedia, I cheat, I'm at work. Gwen Gale 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I'm ten, maybe fifteen years older too :/ Gwen Gale 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, so am I. Yikes.Proabivouac 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention I'm a misandric, PMSing bitch? :) (Don't mind me, I'm havin fun with ya!) Gwen Gale 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in reading your comments in various places about the Essjay affair, I keep coming across the term MUD. I've looked it up here, but I remain unenlightened. What does it mean? ElinorD (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is known to have and is managed to retain many characteristics of a Multi-User_Dungeon, which accounts for much of the appeal of its project space to young, socially isolated males, among others. Gwen Gale 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I saw that article, but it wasn't immediately relevant as having anything to do with degrees and diplomas, so I didn't read it through. ElinorD (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with Essjay's. Gwen Gale 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Mud article as I have been wondering also what that meant. And I think you wrote somewhere else that Wikipedia was being run by teenagers (males, I've been told). Thanks for your insights. I'm learning. It helps to understand as I have been mostly mystified by what happens at Wikipedia. I had stopped taking it seriously. This whole event and the ensuing conversations have been a huge insight. (I'm not crazy after all.) Sincerely, --Mattisse 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's "largely" run at the middle level by teens and yeah, it's a MUD. The thing is, it has thrown off thousands of more or less helpful articles, which tend to be in math, the sciences, IT and so on. In the humanities, it can be catch as catch can since those topics aren't nearly as quantifiable. Gwen Gale 15:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "thrown off" articles which tend to be in math, the sciences, IT, etc., do you mean making them inaccurate? Or do you mean they were helpful in creating them? Mattisse 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter :) Gwen Gale 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bot suggestion. I read the instructions on the how-to page but it escapes me what exactly I should do to get my pages archived. The great thing about Essjay bot is that I just asked him and he made it happen. (I'm not a tech person and but I do try to remember what transclude means.) Would you be willing to break down what I need to do in five easy steps? Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'k.

• 1) Create a page in your user space like User:Mattisse/archive_x

• 2) Paste this string into the very tippy top of your user talk page:

{{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=14|target=User:Mattisse/archive_x|dounreplied=dounreplied}}

• 3) Wait 24 hours for Werdnabot to grab anything 14 days or more old and throw it into User:Mattisse/archive_x. You can change that archive page to anything you like in your user space, of course. You can change the 14 in the string to any age you want, too.

• 4) If you need to change an option, don't edit what it put into your user page. Re-paste the string over what it has written there.

I hope this helps...? I can do this for you if you want. Gwen Gale 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

P.S. I agree with the comment I believe you made somewhere, that citing one's credentials is irrelevant to editing as it is the credibility of the sourcing that counts, not who added it to the article. Besides, credentialing is a laborious task involving documentation of transcripts and the (in my case) whether the school's program and subsequent internship was approved by a national organisation etc. I believe the real abuse comes from the wanton and arbitrary behavior of bureaucrats and administrators and others with special powers as there seems to be a the lack of supervision and oversight, or even any meaningful standards of behavior. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole admin thing needs a big docking overhaul. I'm not holding my breath. Gwen Gale 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Create a page in your user space like User:Mattisse/archive_x - do the archives I've already created count?

Essjay bot automatically was archiving to Archive 10 and presumably would have gone on to Archive 11 (already created by me before the bot started).

4) If you need to change an option, don't edit what it put into your user page. Re-paste the string over what it has written there.

Not sure what this means. Repaste the the new corrected string over what the bot wrote on my page? I hadn't noticed that Essjay bot wrote anything on my page. (Maybe I should look.) When I changed from 14 to 7 days I tried changing the template on my page, but in the end Essjay fixed it, just has he set it up originally. If you would set it up that would be great! I do wish I could learn these things though. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I put the code in your talk page. I would say, give it 24 hours to do an archive and let's see what happens. Looks like they've changed the template a bit, shouldn't be a probby though. Gwen Gale 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear though on:

1. what I do if I want to change the number of days to 7
2. do I create the archives and the bot decides when it is time to move on to the next one?

Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repaste the following code over the Werdnabot code in your usepage, which will change it to 7 days.

{{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=7|target=User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_11|dounreplied=dounreplied}}

Gwen Gale 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as later archives go, haha I'm kinda curious about that myself! You've already got tonnes of empty archive pages setup, I'd wait and see how it handles that but... always feel free to ask and if there's something I don't know and you must know, I'll find out. :) Gwen Gale 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! How about that. And working so quickly too. Now I hope this one doesn't disappear. I've been reading more of your comments. Uncommon good sense, you have, at least on the citation/credentialing issue. I have never run across a situation where an editor asserts credentials in article editing. --Mattisse 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We got lucky there, first time I put the code in for it I had to wait almost a whole day to see if it worked. Yep, most editors have the helpful understanding not to assert credentials in edits but many still do and I must say, they are wontedly the ones pushing a thinly supported PoV. Gwen Gale 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that I do have an amazing amount of archives - forty some. Essjay's bot must have done that. What a good little bot it was. I borrowed you input box at the top. Hope it stops people from posting messages I can't find. Thanks again for your wonderful help. --Mattisse 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing your edits, I reverted back to a previous edit by error. 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Bluetooth954

Thanks for telling me, I did wonder. Gwen Gale 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to delete this fallout portion from the article:

In addition, Jimmy Wales, has requested further discussion about increasing the standards for checking credentials of editors at Wikipedia, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability Wikipedia:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Wikipedia:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I copyedited it. You might have a more heedfull look at diffs before blindly reverting stuff though. Thanks. Gwen Gale 10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks...things are disappearing quickly from this article...my mistake :) Arcticdawg 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I know how that happens, we can all be a bit quick with the edit button now and then :) Gwen Gale 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see them, I guess. They are irrelevant in any case when they are violated, or maybe if the person violating is important enough they don't apply. In any event, I know there is nothing a person like me can do, so would it even benefit me to know? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two links then.[11] [12]

Mind, trolls and cranks wontedly nettle admins with empty cries of abuse so one should approach the whole topic so gently and with plenty of diffs (links to specific edits) to show what happened. One might think of asking about quietly before launching any sort of accusation. Truth be told though, there are ways to wholly get around a dodgy admin without stirring up a fuss. Let me know if you need a hint or three. Gwen Gale 16:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought it up to the admin involved (no response); another user brought it up to admin involved (no response); it has been brought up by two other users in an Arbitration proceeding (no response and was not addressed). I requested an Advocate regarding the issue. At that point the admin sent me a post basically angry with me for asking but not explaining anything, saying he did not remember the details. What would you suggest as the next step? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That one action last summer/fall by that admin, has resulted in an endless and still ongoing mediation, an RFC/Mattisse, an endless and still ongoing Arbitration, endless and still ongoing accusations, filings on ANI etc., constant harassment and stalking of me, open proxy attacks on me and articles I work on . . . Mattisse 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First question then, did these all belong to you before you had a clue it wasn't the thing to do? Gwen Gale 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they do all belong to me. That is the problem. I need to know who really is and who isn't. How was this established? A list was left on my talk page. I know my granddaughter made an account but I don't think hers is included in that list. I would prefer to email you if you want to get into this. My stalkers currently are blocked/banned for the time being, but they still may be monitoring me and will use this conversation against me in the future. --Mattisse 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email me then (there's a link on the menu at left). Understanding what's what with that would be the first step. Gwen Gale 18:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you a short note. I wrote a long explanation but it really did not fit well in the wiki email (no spell check etc.) plus the whole story is long. It probably would be better for you to ask the parts you want to know. --Mattisse 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on this article. Working with people like you is what makes Wikipedia such a joy! If I belived in Barnstars, I'd try to find a good one to fit. So I just want to thank you for "writing for the enemy", keeping a cool head in a ver controversial subject, and for the mild approach you took the entire process. I especially am glad you supported my wholesale swap of your initial language for the prior contentious article. Thanks --Trödel 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha what swap? I thought you (and the others who edited here and there) integrated my framework/new start wholly and wonderfully! Anyway I think all those kind words could be looking-glassed straight back to you. Truth be told this article is an example of dispute resolution through rigorous citations, no "arbitrary authority" needed, as is being discussed now on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Cheers to you! Gwen Gale 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On User talk:Jimbo Wales, you wrote that Birgitte and I had misinterpreted what you said about original research. I'm not completely surprised, because I did have a little bit of a feeling that we were talking past each other. I hope you elaborate, either there or here. JamesMLane t c 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it here. First, I agree with everything you say more or less. Editing stuff for chronology, tone, general word choice and so on has nothing to do with original research (unless it's used to spin meanings and contexts unsupported by citable sources but that takes true wankering and is easy to spot). Now here's an editing tactic for you, if you want to include some pithy nugget from your head which you can't for the life of you run down a cite for but you reasonably know it to be true (NPoV or PoV, both are ok in WP articles), stick one of these thingies ^{[citation needed]} on it. Meanwhile though, the way to drive off cranks is to ask for citations at every turn. I mean every sentence or even clause if need be. They'll often cite blogs or dodgy personal websites, which you can turn down under WP policy. If it's a book, is it peer reviewed or in your case a recognized law review or journal? What are the qualifications of the author? You can go after all this stuff. At last resort you can isolate thinly supported codswallop under a subsection with a title like "controversial views" or whatever. There's always a way. There's never a need to assert arbitrary authority in true scholarship, never mind here. Gwen Gale 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another tactic of cranks is to insist on raw text dumps of published quotes from other cranks. These are tiresome but can be skived way down as being wholly anti-narrative. Insist on including a short snippet into a declarative sentence and then ask for more citations to back it up, so as to avoid "undue weight." Drives them out of their minds. Gwen Gale 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Erm, if it still seems like I'm "talking past" you, pls tell me so, I don't mean to.) Gwen Gale 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used that phrase because you're talking about this situation: "if you want to include some pithy nugget from your head which you can't for the life of you run down a cite for but you reasonably know it to be true...." I'm not talking about including an explicit assertion in an article; for that, I agree a source is necessary, not just the opinion of a Wikipedian (even a Wikipedian whose law school has faxed a copy of his diploma to the Foundation). I meant, instead, a situation where a particular assertion wouldn't appear in the article, but would inform editors' judgments about what should appear: Is it notable, and worth mentioning, that the Supreme Court's analysis of a particular issue was terse? Should the Economics article devote a section to picoeconomics? In the former case, the POV warrior didn't go so far as wanting the article to state expressly that the one-sentence blowoff was an indication that the Court knew its position was wrong, but that was certainly his personal opinion. Because he held that opinion, he thought that the shortness of the discussion was an important feature that was worth mentioning in our article.

In some disputes of that sort, an informed opinion about what's commonly known in the field can play a role in the discussion. It's not always amenable to the demand for citation. I don't know how a professional economist like Derex could be expected to find a reliable source saying "Picoeconomics isn't important enough to merit its own section in the Wikipedia article." I thought that Jimbo's proposal for verified credentials might be of some use in situations like that. JamesMLane t c 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up all the time, it's called undue weight and is easy to handle without any assertion of authority. Gwen Gale 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's where we differ. I have not found it so. JamesMLane t c 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Ok. So, my hardcore take on this is that editors who can't rid an article of nettlesome cranks might brush up on WP policies like WP:Verifiable, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and procedural stuff like WP:Edit_war, WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks. Mind, getting a handle on using these policies is not trivial. One has to read them through (argh! boring! a f*king drag!) and get some practice using them as tools in a tactical (did someone say terse?) way. Gwen Gale 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the hilarity, just to confess I'm sort of in the Cult of Mac (though not a priest) and was just diverted into this Freelance article leading me to this blog. Which I'm unkind enough to find hilarious, as well as thankful that the new laptop my son's girlfriend got recently runs XP. All silly stuff.. dave souza, talk 11:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. A Mac-ite. You know tonnes about religion then haha. Never mind, at least yer not floggin' Vista with platipustudes like, "It works." I'm a FreeBSD witch meself. By the bye I hear OS X nicked a bunch of code from FreeBSD, so understandable. :) Gwen Gale 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comrades in BSD, then? The good side of Apple has contributed back to the open source community, the bad proprietary side has some advantages, and at least they DRM with a light touch. Just use the thing meself, code is indistinguishable from magic :) ... dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, meanwhile that's like Wikipedia's MUD side, it's drawn lots of traffic and free administrative labour but along with it a lack of trust. I glark there's a narrow path somewhere though. DRM sucks, the bane of all but gangsters, those middlemen and politicians who live by theft alone, naughty boyz. Proprietary in a truly free market's ok if anyone wants to buy it, some will, that's cool. I like my software free and open, but I'm daft. Gwen Gale 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible and able, I'd have said. Us incompetents get along with what's in the shops. Agree generally, particularly about DRM: have yet to buy anything from iTunes, but was meaning to get a couple of singles and have just been reminded to try looking for "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" thinking it was Van Morrison did the desired version, but it seems to have been the Yardbirds. Will ponder that before giving them any credit card numbers. Ah, the fun. .. dave souza, talk 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were a bit before my time you know, though I know the Yardbirds from Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup...! Gwen Gale 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blowup!! When that came out us students were on an outing to York and after seeing the film we went daft, taking photos of everything! . .. 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I first saw it after a photographer friend told me she'd worked as a young lass with David Bailey. Later another friend cracked me up with her tale about being scammed by David Hemmings in a limo sometime in the early 90s. Gwen Gale 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your take on the free vs proprietary issue. I used to work for SGI (in light of recent events let me emphasis for, I worked at a company Adacel (darn that darstedly redlink) that was contracted to maintain large slabs of SGI code including their X server) so I really appreciate the difficulty that vendors are faced with trying to make a buck on the back of Unix and wish Apple all the best. Proprietary Unix has to be better than the best (whether that be the BSDs or Linux) and so even tho I prefer open source for my own uses, i'm partial to encouraging proprietary efforts as it makes the free world better. John Vandenberg 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know folks who make very good livings writing custom and proprietary code which runs on the BSDs. With wide open source code and a BSD license one can do truly wonderful and helpful things never mind make money along the way. I have seen the future, said the witch, and it is open source :) (erm, so to speak, I mean, I'm not claimin' any friggin' crystal balls or anything!) Gwen Gale 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt sure how to read your recent comment; are you pointing out that certain admins are wikilawyering or saying that I am?? I've run across the term but not the essay that was being referred to. I was very amused by this edit that it uses as an example; perhaps that means I am prone to enjoy a bit wikilaywering. Anyway, I am not at all happy with this "controversy" having been covered by an encyclopedia. It is recursively WP:SELF (news about wikipedia about news about wikipedia, ... and none of it encyclopedic) and as a result the news will feed on this and detract from the positives of our efforts. That is painful to watch, perhaps appropriately which is why I voted for keep, but it shouldn't be characterised as "right" in any circumstances (in my two going on three beer induced opinion). In my mind, the multiplicities of out of process and "messy" decisions can be excused (however inappropriate) by the out of order creation of this article. btw, I read your Essjay thing essay yesterday and think you are right on the mark on all points. John Vandenberg 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for the very kind words, guess I was hinting I thought you were skirting the suburbs of wikiwonkthorpe but in a good faith kinda way. Truth be told, I was indifferent to the existence of an Essjay article in the encyclopedia space until I saw the RfC being luzzed down the memory hole against overwhelming desire among the community to talk about it openly. That effort to erase WP history in itself drove the newsworthiness and significance of the incident, both in WP:Space and the media, since it gave WP's critics something big 'n fat to chew on. Wales made a big, docking botch from start to finish on this one which he has admitted and apologized for. We can disagree on whether or not the creation of the article was out of order but either way, talking about that in this context is IMHO, a wonk. Meanwhile, I agree it's so painful to watch when one thinks of how Essjay must feel. Here are some of my thoughts on that. Gwen Gale 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. it really has gone. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay has been "archived" [13], and the talk page with it. I knew it was out of process but ... has it been moved somewhere without the redirect ? If it has been outright deleted, I guess that is one way to stop the recursion, abruptly but sparking more controversy, instigating another recursive process. John Vandenberg 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's there, or click on the link below the notice. I don't mind telling you there was quite the struggle to keep it in the project space and I don't think it should have been closed but that's another tale. Gwen Gale 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a rant on the DRV; thanks for pointing me in that direction. fyi, the link on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay should be updated to point to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/User:Essjay/RFC.

Also, in case you haven't seen it already, a well written balanced piece on essjay has emerged. [14] I smiled/giggled a few times while reading it. John Vandenberg 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I stumbled across that one meself earlier today 'n I agree. I liked your twist on the lynch mob thing, I think it's true by the bye. Gwen Gale 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up, though you'll have probably noticed, that I've posted some links at Talk:Essjay controversy#Guardian coverage. The first one seemed to me to be analysing the MUD issue you've been describing, though others may also have mentioned it, while the others show more positive ideas. This is getting a bit much for me to keep up with, so will try to get back to my part in the continuing British Isles war. Anyway, time for walkies first! .. dave souza, talk 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave. Here's a better link to it.

Yeah, it's a MUD and some folks likely need to learn a thing or three about personal responsibility. For starters, don't lie about your CV online, that's mean. For seconds, don't do volunteer work at WP if you expect to get something back from it other than a bit of personal growth and experience or the happiness which can derive from knowing you've helped spread a bit of supported knowledge into free and open text oh and thirds, somebody may make a tonne of money off this, but when it happens don't be mad if Jimbo doesn't call you up with a cushy paid job managing RCPatrol. Gwen Gale 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have to say today about the wonders of open source. Gwen Gale 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your message on Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_accountability#Admin_identities_-_how_many_will_we_lose.3F that there are sockpuppet admins. Please provide examples so we can begin an investigation immediately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make any charges against anyone, it's not worth the burn. Meanwhile, there are dozens of helpful admins. Moreover, nothing I've said should be taken as an accusation against any admin with whom I've had contact throughout my edit history. I've replied in full at the above project page but I'll repeat here, thanks for caring, that's cool :) Gwen Gale 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a pass or two at this article on RegisterFly and let me know what you think needs adjusting? I had asked Hipocrite a week or two ago to look, and he seemed to think it was alright, but he is gone now from Wikipedia... I think I did a good structural job on it (it's a bit complex, with two interweaving lawsuits across four parties, and fairly absurd allegations--see the $6,000 chihuahua) and it's all 101% sourced... but there is really little postive press/news on them unfortunately. I keep looking at it, thinking it might be an attack piece, but I think I may be looking too hard. Seems like a low-notability super successful company that imploded and is getting lots of fame for that, ala Enron (but smaller scale)... please let me know what you think, and make tweaks as needed if you have time or the inclination, or if you can share any advice. This was the most complex thing I've done on here yet--like 99% of the edits are me. thanks! - Denny 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) It seemed accurate, balanced and wholly sourced but the narrative was an utter docking mess, which is understandable for a fast unfolding saga, so I did a sweeping copy-edit is all. See Wikipe-tan above haha! Gwen Gale 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks for the help, Gwen. :) Your edits were great... - Denny 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an anon at Lisa Nowak twice thrice over unduly weighted PoV in a section heading. 3rr is in effect. I will not be an edit-warring bitch 100x on the green board, my fingers dusted with chalk. Gwen Gale 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. --71.106.148.28 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks mr anon, you too then :) Gwen Gale 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization or organisation, realized or realised and so on. Ok, so last year I was writing a techincal paper and a French person ran it through an American spell checker (I mean, guess what word processor he had, ick) which changed tonnes of my esses to zeds. I was about to change them back in a snitty flurry when it hit me, I'd grown up spelling with these UK "esses" like anyone else but, also having spoken French from childhood that bit of English had always seemed rather French to me, only a hint, mind, but with that nagging thought and a few minutes on the Internet I found an article (I believe it was at the Oxford English Dictionary site) which explained in thorough detail how the zed spellings were indeed the true Anglo-Saxon, that after the Yanks decided to have a go of it on their own some old wrinkly wankers in the British intelligensia deliberately began spelling all sorts of English words with esses only to show how bloody French and cultured they were next to those rustic, upstart colonists. So esses we got on this side of the pond because of a bunch of snobby old farts. That would never do. I left in the zeds and have done ever since :) Gwen Gale 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an interesting tale. One of these spelling quirks that I tend to end up changing for Brit-type articles, but find that my paper style dictionary gives the other as an acceptable option – though my system-wide spellchecker adds wee red dotted underlining unless it's strictly UK spelling. Sort of like the date thing, where I insist on UK biographies etc. having the day first, while the newspaper I have before me helpfully says "The Guardian | Friday March 9 2007". Ça va eh no? .. dave souza, talk 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha ça y est! Meanwhile it's like my thing for UNIX dates, 2007 03 10 in a spreadsheet sorts wickedly :) Gwen Gale 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest - I interchange my spellings all the time but mostly tend to go for Zs rather than Ss. Maybe it's my dyslexia, maybe I have American heritige or maybe I'm a lazy sod :) Thanks for that though - interesting story - is there anything on Wiki about it? - Munta

See American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise_.2F_-ize. ElinorD (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I remember now, zed's Greek 'n ess is Latin. Too much Latin in English anyway, I say, I skive it wherever I can. Gwen Gale 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gwen, just remove it all. The quote is from an anonymous poster responding in the "comments" area and has no standing as a reliable source. User:QuackGuru's trying to pull the wool over your eyes. (→Netscott) 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye AGF got me there but never mind, it's easy to rv :) Gwen Gale 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your first revert removing it all was correct. (→Netscott) 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ;-) Gwen! (→Netscott) 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that blog is likely passable. Normally blogs that are under the editorial control of an established reliable source can generally be considered as reliable themselves. Personal blogs (which that really isn't) are not passable though. (→Netscott) 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. If you think the writer's under ZDnet's editorial control I'd say put it in and be done with it. Gwen Gale 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well by the person writing under the auspices of a reliable source (which I think ZDNet is considered) pretty much by default that person carries the "seal of approval" of that source. Essentially by the source allowing them to write under their name they are vouching for the content that the author produces. (→Netscott) 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on your part getting that source and defusing the situation. ;-) (→Netscott) 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! :) Gwen Gale 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not sure what to tell you... I'm going to coin the term "Primary sourcers"... :-) It is odd to see an editor with the name QuackGuru push so hard to utilize unreliable sources. Doing that so corresponds to quackery. (→Netscott) 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Makes me think of self-reference deniers! Gwen Gale 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least it is protected with the not-wrong version...Good work on the images. Risker 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You saw that too huh? :) I will fool myself into thinking it was blind luck. Gwen Gale 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me paranoid, but I get the sense this article has made it to an awful lot of watchlists, even if there aren't that many people actively contributing right now. Risker 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'ever try walkin' on a tree limb? Same trick. :) Gwen Gale 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What a lovely bit of editing to wake up to. *sigh* I knew the Sanger stuff was going to wind up in there eventually. Have you checked out Criticism of Wikipedia? Risker 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an even better bit of editing now - very nice job, definitely improves the flow of the article. Risker 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Quack hates it because without the pre-defined factoring he's asking for, he can't fill in the blanks with, erm, what he wants to do. Gwen Gale 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's been quite chatty but not particularly bold; heck, even I've worked up my courage to use proper citations, which I've never had to do before in any of the relatively insignificant articles I usually keep my eye on. Incidentally, the images were readded by Malber, not the SPA. Risker 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only cuz Trebor threatened to block him if he so much as hinted at an edit war (so to speak). Thanks for telling me about who re-added the gallery, I mis-read the diff. So far as citations go, they sway. Gwen Gale 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You violated 3RR on this article (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:71.106.148.28 (Result: Warned)), by performing 4 reverts in 24 hours, although over two different issues. However, since you appeared to take care in limiting yourself to 3 reverts, I'm assuming it was a mistake (in that you didn't remember the first revert). Consider this as a warning against edit warring in future, as I'm sure you're aware of the consequences. Regards. Trebor 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only for the record, I don't think I broke 3rr but I understand your take on it and I knew I was tottering on the bleeding edge. Sigh. My weakness either way. Wish I hadn't done it at all, truth be told. I will not be an edit warring bitch, even with grass anons. I'm sorry. Gwen Gale 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the 3RR: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time", so I think you did break it (unless you can explain otherwise). But, either way, I can see you get the message which is good enough for me. I wasn't thrilled with the idea of blocking such a useful editor as yourself. Regards. Trebor 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree in spirit with the warning and wish I hadn't warred over that edit, I was a snit. However, the first edit the anon listed has nothing to do with the anon or the sub-heading he was trying to change. I truthfully don't see a 3rr there. Gwen Gale 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy, that doesn't matter: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted" (I didn't realise this either until it was pointed out to me). So even though the content of the first revert was unrelated, it still counts as one. Just so you know for the future. Trebor 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It's been changed then. Thanks for patiently explaining it to me again. Truth be told I think the new spin on 3rr is helpful. Gwen Gale 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, You don't suppose that our new friend is a re-incarnation of Sjqrn or Duke53 do you? Something ain't adding up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is that an accusation that someone is using sockpuppets? I have been busy, but will drop back into the article when time allows; it seems to be pretty 'sanitary' for now ... hardly NPOV, IMO. If you feel that sockpuppets are being used then you know the drill, otherwise stop with the insinuations. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Gwen Gale 11:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway the new user doesn't seem like either of them, though he does seem like an experienced WP user. There are lots of people who are angry with the LDS and wish to use MMM as a tool to indict the whole org for their own reasons (I mean, as if an NPoV take on it doesn't, but whatever). For me personally, it's simply unfair to hundreds of thousands of ordinary, family oriented LDS folks, with many, many women among them, to hammer away at the selfish deeds of their ancestors. Happily, for a WP editor, this fits neatly with a neutral narrative, which still depicts a mass murder ordered by a church (either in CC or SLC). I do think it's a fitting tale for these times though and letting it stray off from encyclopedic support and tone would make the article less helpful for that, which is what some of these editors seemingly don't grasp although I must say, if I were a clever LDS zealot, I might try to make the article such a strident, LDS bashing screed that nobody with a brain would pay any heed to it. Gwen Gale 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd came back to see if you'd answered my question from yesterday and now see the above - and presumptuously think you're talking about me? If so, no I'm yet another critic and a brand new contributor!

Anyway, Gwen (true story): I was sitting there meditating upon the names and ages of the victims (as an MMM editor has stored on a stub), thinking how my great-great-grand father is reported to have followed orders to murder some of them. (Thinking how I'm alive because my human-race progenitors killed while others are unborn whose progentors were killed, the capacity for human agression an aspect of the survival of the fittest.) Then I returned to the text I was writing (to be one of my first submissions to the Wikipedia)....and you'd preemptively deleted it before I could get back to it!!! (Shrugs to myself, still mulling on what I was thinking: And noting that my very first statement on the talk page was how history is written by its victors!) You see, I was raised from earliest childhood hearing about the Meadows and took the tales of bad men having been among the victims (who'd either bragged about past atrocities or had poisoning a stream) at face value. Back then I'd read Brooks' biography of John D. Lee that was on our bookshelf at home and was impressed by his religious devotion and thought it tragic that wartime events pressing on the Mormons caused him somehow to murder and then felt it tragic he alone had been given up by the Brethren to be prosecuted. Then (but you divine this part) I became disillusioned with the Church and, alas, my studies of the massacre had new lessons for me. So yeah I plead guilty to my inner turmoils being projected into my interest in the massacre, for sure. But enough about me!

About the article (sinceI'm learning the ways of Wikipedia and I'm beginning to be able to form my negative reactions to it a little more apropos(?sp)): The statement about there being no evidence Young ordered it I think needs to be changed to state who finds no evidence - viz. what historian says no substantive evidence has not been found (which is different from zero evidence). That Bagley (as well as those such as myself now, apparently, who've been painted with the brush of an "anti-Mormon" taint) interpret the available evidence - e/g Young's closing the borders and withdrawing protection unauthorized travelers and then ordering militia to assist the Paiutes - to draw suspicion towards Young's role, such suspicion or slandar (if you will) should be given encyclpedic coverage, if only in a note. (Which I know that you do, in a note. But your emphasis is on "no evidence" which seems more advocacy than a balanced presentation of both views.)

(To get all nineteenth century on ya, lol): I remain,

believing us united by aspirations toward ideals we humans honors above all --Justmeherenow 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Justme, trust me, there are lots of grandkids from both sides watchin' this article and most are cake to spot. I can also understand the emotional turmoil which can be unleashed by finding out that some stuff wasn't quite like what we were taught when we were little.

Please be aware that doing edits on Wikipedia is not the most helpful way to rid oneself of ghosts (and we all have them :)

• Try to keep your talk page posts short 'n sweet.

• Nobody needs to be lectured about the wider moral implications and LDS involvement. "We all know" it sucked beyond words. "We all know" Brigham likely ordered it. "We all know" lots of those men flocked to LDS because it was a way of getting into socially acceptable plural marriage with teenaged girls. "We all know" that one thing leads to another when people are involved.

• Article content must be rigorously cited, neutral in tone, pithy in its narrative and absent any adjectives of moral indignation. (Any WP article should be heavily referenced but it's the only way to be had with controversial topics like this one)

So far as Brigham's involvement goes, there is no evidence, only dodgy hearsay and not much of it. My take is, lots of papers relating to this have been burned and scattered to the wind in Utah over the last 150 years. The article already makes the doubts clear. Gwen Gale 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the word "However" POV? Justify yourself. --71.160.72.36 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The however implies she lied to police. What Oefelein told them later confirms she wasn't lying, "more than a working... less than a romantic..." spot on for having recently broken up. Gwen Gale 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, thanks for your comments. I acted at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre to defuse the situation, not to choose sides. I know Duke53 was using strong language about those who carried out the massacre, but I didn't see him call anyone here evil, or even imply that anyone on the other side of the debate was evil. Maybe I missed it, but to me it seemed that for all his past incivility and boorishness, Duke53 was here not at fault, and Storm Rider was the incivil one. But I will not press the issue further at this point; hopefully Duke53 will refrain from responding in kind. And, for the record, I bear no grudge about your different take on this. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha trust me, I understood, spot on! Duke was droppin' his hints but to me, he seems to take heed (and WP policy) about edits to the article itself so I think the context he gives is way helpful as we find the narrow line to walk as editors. Gwen Gale 18:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Off-topic, thanks for introducing me to the word "luzz". I am not very current on my slang and it's good to be brought up-to-speed on occasion. I will now proceed to misuse it horribly for a few months until my friends stage an intervention. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee, mind, I've been sayin that word since I was 10 or whatever (more than 20 years ago now aRgh!) but who cares, I guess like you I've sundry words which must somehow be wontedly, wontonly luzzed about. :) Gwen Gale 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't see him call anyone here evil, or even imply that anyone on the other side of the debate was evil. Maybe I missed it, but to me it seemed that for all his past incivility and boorishness, Duke53 was here not at fault, and Storm Rider was the incivil one." Alanyst, did you make any "past incivility and boorishness" comments about any others still editing that article, or is it just me? Inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps a note on his user talk page was warranted? It seems to me that this has all come down to who is pro-LDS and who isn't pro-LDS ... sides have been taken on many articles here for quite a while nowDuke53 | ^Talk 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there ya go again Duke, sayin' I'm either pro or "isn't pro" LDS or whatever. Please stop that! Gwen Gale 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note on my edit to Essjay controversy about Florence. I was a little surprised that she disagreed so publicly with Jimbo. But the article should make it clear that it was only her personal opinion, not some official statement from Wikimedia. Thanks again. Casey Abell 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Moreover I agree with her and hope JW gets there too. Gwen Gale 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Please provide verifiable citations from reliable sources if you wish to assert that the assembled militia at MM was NL, thanks." Whatcha mean by assembled militia as I sincerely can't make heads or tails of that! Since I'm sure you would go to the article itself and read its first sentence, where it says that the territorial militia in Utah went by the monicker of Nauvoo Legion until 1870. Since I'm sure it only looks like you're gaming the system or engaging in procedural obstructions (i/e those that so uniformly aid the apologetic camp) to the untrained eye, please help me to understand not only whatever the technical rationale for your delete but, more importantly, what really motivates such deletes! Thx in advance! :^) --Justmeherenow 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source for the MMM article.
• Please don't even hint at accusing me of WP:Wikilawyering and please review WP:No personal attacks
• You're making the assertion that the militia at MM was the Nauvoo Legion. Please support that assertion with verifiable citations from reliable sources.
• Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page like everyone else. If this is too tough for you, please use the button provided for that purpose which you will find at the top of this page. Thanks.

That's it. Provide the citations or stop making the assertion. Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the reply on my page, but am pasting it here as well:

See comments on Essjay discussion. I feel that your edit was disingenious by reverting back to a pre-compromise version, and hence re-verted it back to the version that has been around since that compromise was made. And, generally I try to leave people to their own fights, however, I will at times toss my opinion into the ring, regarding 'bitchy remarks' or any other type of negative charges towards someone. :) -- Kavri 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it was my botch is all, looks like I went back to the wrong version (all I can say is that with all the edit warring it's hard to keep track of them sometimes). I'm happy you fixed it :) Gwen Gale 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit insulting to declare that I have a consensus of one when you do not have any greater consensus. The fact is, your edit is contrary to wikipedia policy. I note that you have no problem insisting on citations from others which is entirely reasonable. Yet when your own edit is held up to that standard, you become upset. If you were to provide cites per WP:VER and WP:RS, then my only objection would be that it is crufty and non-encyclopedic minutia, included only because of some peculiar idea of a "message" being sent. Yet, at that point, if I raised that objection, the inclusion would be a reasonable debate under consensus rules because the facts would not be under dispute, only their meaning. However, that has not happened. --Blue Tie 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset at all. If you want to go on about it, then please carefully review my posts on this and do what you like. As I said in them, I don't think it's a big deal, have it your way, I'm ok with whatever the consensus is now. Meanwhile, please also review WP:No personal attacks. Thanks. Gwen Gale 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You request:

Meanwhile, please also review WP:No personal attacks.

Could you explain why, specifically, you want me to review this? It is confusing since I have not violated that in any way. Perhaps you want me to identify it in others more frequently? --Blue Tie 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above, among other stuff (never mind copy-pasting raw but still incomplete text from the archives onto a talk page instead of using diffs, never mind laying out your post in a very misleading way to imply I'm unfair and inconsistent in my approach to citations, never mind I'd previously provided them to the satisfaction of other editors):

I note that you have no problem insisting on citations from others which is entirely reasonable. Yet when your own edit is held up to that standard, you become upset.

By making a comment about your wholly botched take on my emotional state, you stopped commenting on content and started attacking me. While you're at it, have a shufti at WP:Civil. Having no wish to fight with you, I've dropped this, why can't you? You got your edit, I starkly said I'm ok with whatever the consensus is now. Are you trying to stir things up or what. Gwen Gale 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. by posting "Are you trying to stir things up or what?" you apparently have engaged in personal attack rather than focusing on the content of some article. Oh well! I Do not believe my take was botched, but I do agree that by bringing this behavior to your attention, I was not just sticking to content. However, I think your take on what constitutes personal attack is extreme. It is not unreasonable for wikipedians to call others on unacceptable behavior. Indeed, it is expected at times. Even you expect it because you do it frequently, sometimes without apparent cause. I do not know what a shufti is but am aware of wikipedia policies. I think it is a bit presumptuous of you to presume that I am unaware of the policies and it is presumptuous of you to lecture on obedience to those policies when you do not abide by them, if we use your personal views as a measure of how they should be obeyed. With all that, I apologize for offending you. At the same time, I would advise that you re-consider the slights that offend you ... and build some capacity for normal human exchange on wikipedia. --Blue Tie 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, one more little thing (never mind you wholly misunderstood what was going on there): If I see this kind of thing grow into a trend of wikistalking my edits, I will speak up about it. Thank you. I hope you can learn from your mistakes and carry on as a helpful Wikipedia editor. Gwen Gale 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly tip: The Internet is replete with handy online dictionaries. Oh! Here's a definition of shufti! 'Tis UK slang :) Gwen Gale 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uhmm.. you responded to my post with the comment of "histrionics". If there is some misunderstanding, it would not be unreasonable to clear it up. On the other hand, if you do not want to, thats ok with me also. But, note... it was you responding to my post. Would that be YOU wikistalking my edits? So you know... I am not paying attention to your specific edits. I have my own interests.

I agree, that I hope I can learn from my mistakes, but I also hope you can learn from yours. And ... thanks for the info on shufti. --Blue Tie 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had clicked on the diffs I provided above you would know by now that I never responded to any post of yours with the comment "histrionics." I mean, there are other editors on this public wiki aside from you, ya know? You might want to take more heed before assuming a post is directed at you. Erm and no, trying to accuse me of something back doesn't change the edit histories. As I said though, I was only bringing up my wariness about seeing a pattern emerge later. Gwen Gale 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you intended to respond to someone else. But you responded to me. It was my comment and it was indented under me. That's a signal you were addressing my comment. Sorry that I misunderstood your intentions. I figured you were using wikipedia conventions. --Blue Tie 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing on that user account for three months. No worries, I glark you'll grok more a few thousand edits from now. Gwen Gale 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes a difference, I have been editing on this account for almost a year. But my first edit was in 2003. On this user name I have 2780 edits. On your user name you have about 4400 if I count right. We probably have more than most editors on wikipedia... because so many leave so quickly. --Blue Tie 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, now I see your first edit on that account. I'm sleepy. By the bye they were wearing brown leather jackets but no worries, as I said I'm no longer supporting that edit. Cheers :) Gwen Gale 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind watchlisting this? I added a couple of facts to the lead, which I suspect could lead in the next couple days to some nonsense. the info is on... what was the ultimate/real cause of the corporate break up. I will be short on time the next 3-5 days and I don't know how many other people may be watching this article... thanks Gwen, if you can. :) - Denny 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already watching it but was waiting for things to settle down before sweepin' by :) Gwen Gale 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen this somewhere, and read it being discussed on AN/I and AN a few times, but I just can't seem to find a definitive, specific answer to this one, and hope you can point me in the right direction. Links to userspace (user page and user talk page) - I understand they are not permitted in articles themselves, even if they use the URL address to make them appear to be external links. Is this right? Thanks. Risker 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects to this.

First, with the Essjay controversy the question has been notability and context, hence the utter need to avoid self-reference in building the narrative. For example, a detail which could be supported only by reference to Wikipedia's article or project space is likely not notable enough to be mentioned in the article.

Second, a list of links is something else altogether. It's ok for an article about Wikipedia to carry links back into the WP space.

So, although the Essjay controversy article's notability is established by its support drawn from independent, external sources, it's about Wikipedia, after all and can at least carry links (but not footnotes/references) leading back to the article space. Calling them "external links" is misleading though. I'd call them "internal links" or whatever :)

Lastly, the inclusion of internal links would still fall under policies like WP:BLP and WP:NPOV but less strictly so and they would still need to give the reader meaningful information which for whatever reason couldn't be had in the article.

Are the screenshots meaningful? No way. The info they contain even contradicts the article text. Essjay's userpage photo however is something else. Speaking only for myself, I'd likely never rm a link to it, though as I said on the article's talk page, all these hints of strong PoV and so on make me think that WP's policies about living person bios and neutrality would deprecate anything borderline from being used as a tool to skirt them.

That's my take on it anyway, in a "more or less" kind of way. Cheers! Gwen Gale 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think. Someone put links to Essjay's userpage and user talk page, under the heading "external links" and using the URL address rather than the straight wikilink. I removed them because really they aren't external links, and I understood that userspace was a no-no just as a general rule. Someone else reverted me on that, calling my summary "disingenuous." Ah well...it has been a long day...Risker 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was ok with putting them back, I was not ok with "disingenuous." Gwen Gale 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. Given that the sourced passage is specifically about that link that I linked to, would that make it OK? If not, I can pull it myself and leave the link to the article itself in the references since they link back from there as well. - Denny 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told it shouldn't be in the text at all. Given the context, any editor would be a true meanie to rm an external link to it though. Gwen Gale 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had reverted my edit on Essjay controversy. However, you are aware that Wikipedia's style on quoting is not the same as common styles like MLA? If the punctuation isn't part of the quote, it goes outside of the quote on Wikipedia. See Wp:mos#Quotation marks. So after making sure you knew that, do you still think that revert is correct? If so, I'll leave it alone. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ĩ do understand. With all due respect to your good faith and to Wikipedia Policy, which I support, I humbly stand by my wee edit. Thanks for asking me about it though. Cheers! :) Gwen Gale 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've disagreed in the past but I wanted to pass along a bit of advice to help you out. Don't get roped into anything close to 3RR's 'cause even if there's a pretty solid case that what you're doing is reverting destructive edits or vandalism, you are likely to be blocked as well by dispassionate admins seeking resolution of disputes, and complaints are likely to be seen as 'wrong version' style gripes and largely ignored.

Step back, let other editors have a look, give it air, etc. Don't bring yourself down to the level of an edit warrior. Assert that you won't continue to revert war on the article in question and you'll likely avoid a block (since they are preventative, not punitive in nature). Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're spot on with that. Truth be told, we were about to go out for a walk! My report on the 3rr page was rather much my last fling at it, as you say, to draw attention. I did sincerely try to reach an agreeable wording, which I think the diffs show but whatever. Sigh :/ Cheers anyway! Gwen Gale 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at William Oefelein. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or use dispute resolution if necessary, rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent this admin an email. Gwen Gale 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your agreement to refrain from edit-warring, I have unblocked you. I am sorry if I offended you, however, both sides were participating in the edit war on this article. (By the way, you missed my age by several years.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There still seems to be an autoblock though. Cheers. Gwen Gale 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared the autoblock. You should be able to edit now. Musical Linguist 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too quick

It is clear that you violated 3rr. Here are the four reverts -- in less than 24 hours. Just focus on the single word "however" and you will see how you removed it:

#1

#2

#3

#4

3rr is not necessarily based upon the removal of an exact word but upon the edit warring between two editors over issues and reverting the other editor. However, in this case, it fits even the most narrow definition of the rule. So I would not expect to get an apology if I were in your shoes. Issuing an ultimatum sort of backs everyone in a corner, including yourself. Not such a good idea.

You could also give the admin a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he or she was not on. Or busy. It happens.

Finally, you might have one excuse for the 3rr's that you could fall back on -- you could cite "Ignore all Rules" (which is sort of stupid... but it is out there) and you could cite "Biography of Living Persons" as a source of justification. It would not be as though you did not violate 3rr, but did so for superior reasons. If you can make that argument. I'm not sure that the word "however" meets that criteria, but it might work. I wouldn't expect an apology, but perhaps you could claim a "tie" rather than a loss and suffer less injury to your esteem and reputation.

You seem like a tireless editor and that's often a good thing for wikipedia. Why not stay? --Blue Tie 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie posted the above, trying to help in good faith, after reading this.

Thanks Blue Tie. Gwen Gale 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, and thank you for being gracious as well, glad it could be resolved, and please take it as such. Have you considered asking for a third opinion? Sometimes, a third set of eyes is helpful to clearing up a logjam between two editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way. I told him on his talk page I'd likely be asking for an RfC. This is so trivial yet given WP:BLP I'm keen on keeping uncited, snarky OR "hints" out of the text. Funny thing, if he could come up with a citation I wouldn't think twice about it being in there. Gwen Gale 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. Given that the sourced passage is specifically about that link that I linked to, would that make it OK? If not, I can pull it myself and leave the link to the article itself in the references since they link back from there as well. - Denny 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told it shouldn't be in the text at all. Given the context, any editor would be a true meanie to rm an external link to it though. Gwen Gale 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had reverted my edit on Essjay controversy. However, you are aware that Wikipedia's style on quoting is not the same as common styles like MLA? If the punctuation isn't part of the quote, it goes outside of the quote on Wikipedia. See Wp:mos#Quotation marks. So after making sure you knew that, do you still think that revert is correct? If so, I'll leave it alone. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ĩ do understand. With all due respect to your good faith and to Wikipedia Policy, which I support, I humbly stand by my wee edit. Thanks for asking me about it though. Cheers! :) Gwen Gale 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've disagreed in the past but I wanted to pass along a bit of advice to help you out. Don't get roped into anything close to 3RR's 'cause even if there's a pretty solid case that what you're doing is reverting destructive edits or vandalism, you are likely to be blocked as well by dispassionate admins seeking resolution of disputes, and complaints are likely to be seen as 'wrong version' style gripes and largely ignored.

Step back, let other editors have a look, give it air, etc. Don't bring yourself down to the level of an edit warrior. Assert that you won't continue to revert war on the article in question and you'll likely avoid a block (since they are preventative, not punitive in nature). Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're spot on with that. Truth be told, we were about to go out for a walk! My report on the 3rr page was rather much my last fling at it, as you say, to draw attention. I did sincerely try to reach an agreeable wording, which I think the diffs show but whatever. Sigh :/ Cheers anyway! Gwen Gale 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at William Oefelein. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or use dispute resolution if necessary, rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent this admin an email. Gwen Gale 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your agreement to refrain from edit-warring, I have unblocked you. I am sorry if I offended you, however, both sides were participating in the edit war on this article. (By the way, you missed my age by several years.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There still seems to be an autoblock though. Cheers. Gwen Gale 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared the autoblock. You should be able to edit now. Musical Linguist 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too quick

It is clear that you violated 3rr. Here are the four reverts -- in less than 24 hours. Just focus on the single word "however" and you will see how you removed it:

#1

#2

#3

#4

3rr is not necessarily based upon the removal of an exact word but upon the edit warring between two editors over issues and reverting the other editor. However, in this case, it fits even the most narrow definition of the rule. So I would not expect to get an apology if I were in your shoes. Issuing an ultimatum sort of backs everyone in a corner, including yourself. Not such a good idea.

You could also give the admin a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he or she was not on. Or busy. It happens.

Finally, you might have one excuse for the 3rr's that you could fall back on -- you could cite "Ignore all Rules" (which is sort of stupid... but it is out there) and you could cite "Biography of Living Persons" as a source of justification. It would not be as though you did not violate 3rr, but did so for superior reasons. If you can make that argument. I'm not sure that the word "however" meets that criteria, but it might work. I wouldn't expect an apology, but perhaps you could claim a "tie" rather than a loss and suffer less injury to your esteem and reputation.

You seem like a tireless editor and that's often a good thing for wikipedia. Why not stay? --Blue Tie 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie posted the above, trying to help in good faith, after reading this.

Thanks Blue Tie. Gwen Gale 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, and thank you for being gracious as well, glad it could be resolved, and please take it as such. Have you considered asking for a third opinion? Sometimes, a third set of eyes is helpful to clearing up a logjam between two editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way. I told him on his talk page I'd likely be asking for an RfC. This is so trivial yet given WP:BLP I'm keen on keeping uncited, snarky OR "hints" out of the text. Funny thing, if he could come up with a citation I wouldn't think twice about it being in there. Gwen Gale 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G/H, I remember that you instituted a type of protection for the Amelia Earhart article in February. Is there any way to put that back into effect; I am getting tired of reverting high school kids' notions of fun and frolic?! I can also use some advice to protect another page that is having problems with vandalism, albeit from an adult. How does the "sprotect" as you once styled it, work? Bzuk 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection prevents edits by anons and new users. Unless there are more than 4 or 5 true pranks a day there is much reluctance to sprotect an article since helpful "drive by" edits by helpful anons do happen. Truth be told the AE article is rather quiet for now, given its higher profile topic. If you're having vandalism worries with a single user, you might want to bring it up at WP:ANI. Mind, it must be true vandalism, not crankiness, which must and can only be handled by asking for reliable citations. Gwen Gale 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have only limited computer access, so I haven't been keeping up with the discussion about Jimbo's "vetting lite" proposal and related pages. I do note, howver, that you've referred several times to the idea of banning reference to credentials in edit discussions (or maybe just in disputes?), and making it a blockable offense.

I think that any such policy would be an absolute nightmare to administer and, even if administered, would do more harm than good. Would it mean that I couldn't say "My experience as an attorney is that...."? What about if I said, "Based on the thousands of judicial decisions I've read...."? How about, "I admit that, as an attorney, I may be overemphasizing the legal aspect...."? Does blockability depend on whether the assertion is a boast, an admission, or a casual reference? To return to the distinction I mentioned in my earlier comment here, what if the point isn't an attempt to sidestep WP:ATT for an assertion to be included in the article, but is rather an observation about optimum organization, or what constitutes undue weight, or the like? What's a "credential"? My user page discloses my race and gender, which in some circumstances might be considered credentials.

I don't think it's realistic to try to see every Wikipedian as nothing more than the sum of his or her edits. We all have our orientations, our biases, our strengths, our weaknesses. My brief autobiography on my user page is intended less as flaunting credentials than as disclosing potential sources of bias.

Trying to enforce a ban on any such statements on user pages or even in edit disputes would consume huge amounts of administrative time without bettering the encyclopedia. Heck, a lot of time would be consumed just in writing the policy, so that it gave clear indication to users about what was prohibited (there's my bias as a lawyer -- the most important thing is that the rule be clear).

If any such idea ever seems to be gaining traction, please let me know so that I can hasten to the appropriate page and denounce it.  :) JamesMLane t c 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall get to the pith of it then, while your thoughts on this are understandable I think it would be fairly easy to define "credentials" for the purpose of WP policy and even with JW's "vet lite" proposal this will have to be done. In my experience here I've found that a thoroughly sourced article, abiding by verifiable references from reliable sources (along with confirmable primary sources) trumps any assertion of authority and truth be told, if some nuance needs tweaking by an expert, it may indeed be too granular for an encyclopedia. Casting a class of "credentialed" editors would be fraught not only with endless paths to gaming the site, but would drive experts who wish to remain anonymous away in droves. Meanwhile I still think academically qualified experts are more likely than anyone to tend towards the skills which enable them to quickly and handily source whatever they have in mind (yes, I think we disagree on this one). With no snarkiness meant here, perhaps an editor who wishes to assert their edits more or less on their disclosed credentials rather than relying wholly on their sourcing skill should think about doing so at Citizendium. I've thought about it but so far, for many and sundry reasons, I like it here :) Cheers! Gwen Gale 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it looks like Wales is sticking with his "vetting lite" CV scheme so it seems you have no worries about bringing up your CV for now :) Gwen Gale 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if that plan is instituted, I probably won't bother making any efforts to have my credentials verified. As I mentioned on the talk page Jimbo set up, my main concern is that the POV warriors and arrogant know-it-alls would pay no attention either way, so why bother.

You wrote, "I think it would be fairly easy to define 'credentials' for the purpose of WP policy and even with JW's 'vet lite' proposal this will have to be done." No, there's a big difference. The vetting would be voluntary. If I wanted to use Jimbo's procedure to establish that I really am a lawyer, or for that matter a white male, I could. Alternatively, I could ask people to take some or all of these points on faith. On the other hand, if we were to have "Anticredentialism Police" reviewing ES's and talk page comments, looking for an assertion of credentials that would be a basis for a block, then all editors would have to be informed as to exactly what comments were now prohibited. The issue of definition would be a much bigger deal if people could be blocked for guessing wrong. JamesMLane t c 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They could be gently warned first, templates could go up on article talk pages and so on. For example, 3rr has changed twice in the past several months. Each time, I learned about it by breaking the new policy, being politely warned, claiming I hadn't, then having it politely explained (one example can be found above). However, looks like JW is trying to take the "do as little as possible" path which may also work out in the end, dunno, either way a strong citation trumps any assertion, even, to give an an extreme, funny and rare example, a widely noted expert in some field who's gone barmy :) Gwen Gale 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difficulty comes in when expertise is needed to evaluate which source is worthwhile. My feeling is that saying, as I can recall users doing, "this is a great discussion and I'd like to use this with my students" is ok, saying "I've a masters degree in this, and that source you've produced is rubbish" is over the top. And worthy of a gentle warning, or more if the behaviour persists. For my take on it, see this section. ... dave souza, talk 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Essjay did :) Haha! Snark! Anyway trust me, I know how time saving it all can seem to be. I work with PhDs day in and day out. I had lunch with two yesterday. Oh! Fuck! Have I asserted a credential now? I am such a bumpkin! Argh! Gwen Gale 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two! My sympathies. But imagine the horror of having to eat with even just one, but at every single meal, like I must do until I die. ... I've come to the conclusion that it would be best to just leave everything as is, but unfortunately that's not a tenable position for Jimbo. It's very interesting watching his strategy evolve. Derex 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there has been a bit of grumbling over at the WMF it looks like JW will have his wonted way of "doing as little as possible," an old trick of the British Foreign Office which has its bright side :) Gwen Gale 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say again though, if a nuance or spin on a topic has enough sway to make it into an article, then it should be supportable (and wontedly will be supportable) by a reliable independent source. If an expert has something meaningful to say and can't run down a citation she should get it published elsewhere and then footnote it here. WP:OR. Gwen Gale 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asserts a credential in an attempt to override WP:ATT, then I think a reminder of the policy you refer to, accompanied by not allowing the questionable edit to stand, is far better than trying to write a rule, generate a template, issue gentle warnings, block a user, consider the user's request for unblock, etc. It seems like quite a disproportionate effort for a non-problem.

As for getting something published elsewhere, that's often quite a bit of hassle. I've been thinking that, with Wikipedia as big as it is, our NOR policy sometimes results in the tail wagging the dog. Should our articles continue to be totally dependent on whether the South Succotash Daily Bugle has published something? The Foundation might consider hiring an editor who would oversee an online publication aimed at filling gaps -- where a Wikipedia edit dispute might be resolved with a citation to a reputable source, but there are none on either side, because for whatever reason the actual authorities don't address the issue. What if there were a separate WMF publication devoted exclusively to such original research? Wikipedians could then consider it in editing the article -- this publication would have no special preferred status. That probably won't happen soon, though. JamesMLane t c 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind, this is only my own take, but I think a lag between WP and bleeding edge OR (along with expert interpretation which has not yet been published) can be rather a strength. I do like your notion of a separate WMF wiki for OR by vetted experts and knowledgeable editors, mercilessly edited and screened with a weir to keep out the cranks and their codswallop. Gwen Gale 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I wasn't proposing a separate wiki. It would be a separate publication but edited in the old-fashioned non-wiki sense. Its purpose would be to generate "reliable/verifiable source" material, which Wikipedia editors (and everyone else) could use as they pleased. For example, it could include point-counterpoint articles by feuding experts, as well as material along the lines of "here's an expert saying what everybody in the field knows and therefore doesn't bother publishing".

I hadn't even thought of a separate wiki for OR. That's an interesting idea, but you may take full credit for it! JamesMLane t c 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Either way I think it's a cool notion :) Gwen Gale 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help. --Kyoko 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. To me, my explanation felt heavy-handed, but I hope it made it clear why the statements shouldn't' automatically be assumed to be contradictory. --Kyoko 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/However_whatever - Denny 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am such a bumpkin. I can't believe I didn't grok it until now. Gwen Gale 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't think it was totally obvious (and I'm as much a bumpkin as you are...), until you mentioned it as a joke (was it a joke?) and then the wheels started turning, and I looked at the edits without looking at the names. same guy, same wording... - Denny 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way that was no joke. Gwen Gale 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I Googled a bit for similar wording and syntax and then... fwap! It dawned on me, he'd provided a diff straight back to his earlier self in his latest trick at baiting me. Gwen Gale 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the link to that? If he linked to his own sock, saying it was him, add it to the RFCU! - Denny 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one, in which he cites a diff from weeks back, where I'd asked Baba gump to review WP:Troll. I guess he remembered, huh? Anyway he started describing me as a troll today and when I spoke up about it he threw that diff back in my face (saying like, "If she says it, I can say it" blah blah). He didn't say it was him or anything but thinking about both of them at the same time did it for me, is all. Gwen Gale 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Real96 (talk · contribs) the CU clerk, why it was moved. I think it's a regular RFCU case, unless he knows something I don't... - Denny 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. Where there's smoke... Gwen Gale 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) I moved the page down to the IP request section, and speedied the old page. I took off the speedy tag, later, because Luna (or other admin/clerk) could have the page deleted later. Per A, IPs must be listed below in the IP section. Cheers! Real96

Meanwhile I glark there are more where those three came from. Gwen Gale 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in getting involved there, a new perspective would be welcome. In general, there has been recent controversy about various parapsychology/pseudoscience topics such as how they should be defined, which categories are appropriate, etc. --Minderbinder 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have WP:OWN written all over it. I'd rather not guess publicly at what's behind it :) Gwen Gale 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry. Its just i am doing a report on her so i like to have a little fun while doing it (This unsigned message was posted at 22:55, 20 March 2007 by User:Girlfromthebigo)

i actually do help if something is really wrong. why do you take so much offense.

Erm, that doesn't cut it since vandalizing articles isn't helpful. Gwen Gale 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please mail me. i am so sorry. and it is impoliet to ignore a appology:-( . please at least respond

What do you want? Gwen Gale 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, appreciate your input to the article. We are discussing the definition of EVP at the url below, so it may be premature to start changing it. --- LuckyLouie 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Truth be told it's a widely recognized and explained phenomena with a straightforward definition. The only "debate" is whether or not it's sometimes caused by "spooks" (the paranormal claims). Let's see if someone doesn't like my changes and if that happens... whatever! There are many paths to peace on a public wiki. Gwen Gale 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And drop by the mediation discussion if the spirit moves you (pun intended) : ) LuckyLouie 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! wooooo wooooo! :) Gwen Gale 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they don't want to hear about the naturalistic stuff behind it :) Gwen Gale 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I cleaned it up a fair bit more tonight and put it up for both Good Article & a seperate Peer Review. Would you mind taking another pass? the whole article is basically written by you and I and I'd love to see this get full Featured Article status after April, when that... mess ends for them. Its just too interesting/odd of a story! - Denny 08:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Eva_Braun#The_sketch_is_not_by_Hitler

-- Egil 09:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've mv'd it to the talk page then. Gwen Gale 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit warring at Lisa Nowak. Have a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Blue_Tie_reported_by_User:Gwen_Gale_.28Result:24_hours_for_both.29. Please use dispute resolution in the future. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find something else to do then. Have fun violating Wikipedia policy, Dmcdevit :) Gwen Gale 06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments to WP:ANI/3RR. Dmcdevit has erred, and you should be unblocked as soon as possible.Proabivouac 06:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to see you blocked Gwen Gale. Unfortunately counting (ie: rv1, rv2, rv3) one's reversions is severely frowned upon. I hope you'll reconsider departing from the project. Your input is valuable here. (→Netscott) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3rr. Gwen Gale 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that you didn't revert 4 times.... User:Dmcdevit checked your block log and read that a block for 3RR had just been lifted per "User agrees to refrain from future edit wars"... so he blocked you for edit warring (which I'm sure he based on the "rv3" edit summary you left). I haven't looked at the meat of what you were editing on but given what I know about you I suspect you were right. If you had been blocked for 3RR specifically I would argue your case but that is not what you were blocked for. (→Netscott) 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remark "User agrees to refrain from future edit wars" was made by a teenaged admin who'd had sysop powers for only a few days, who was trying to save face after carelessly and erroneously blocking me for reverting a sockpuppet. Not wanting to prolong any conflict or unhelpful feelings, I didn't dispute his mis-characterization of the unblock. Meanwhile this current block is a double violation of Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first time around, I was willing to AGF on you missing my age with that crack. If you must know, I'm actually 27. And there was no "saving face" involved, you did violate 3RR. You were unblocked as you had agreed not to edit war any further, and you did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your commenaty on WP:ANI

Gwen Gale, I'm going to make it possible for you to discuss this on WP:ANI... please read the ANI and respond accordingingly below (edit this section). (→Netscott) 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so bored. Anyway this is what happened:

• An edit warring, likely sockpuppet was wanking about under sundry names at William Oefelein (ex boyfriend of Lisa Nowak).

• It got so unhelpful, I listed the sock (User:However whatever) for 3rr.

• User:Seraphimblade (who I keep thinking is a teenager, don't ask me why, I don't know), a days old admin, blocked both the sock and me.

• I screamed bloody foul, User:Seraphimblade unblocked me.

• Meanwhile User:Blue Tie, who seems to be related to User:However whatever, stalked me from Lisa Nowak over to articles like Mountain Meadows Massacre.

• Moreover, Blue Tie got obsessed about this. Lots of readers understood why it was in the article, it wasn't touched for weeks until Blue Tie came along. Gwen Gale 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I put it back on Saturday, with independent support cited.

• Blue Tie, who has contributed little if anything to the article, immediately began revert warring over it like a robot (or troll or whatever) and I listed Blue Tie for 3rr.

• User:Dmcdevit, who knew nothing about the context and background of any of this, blocked Blue Tie, then blocked me, although I had not violated 3rr (he rather cluelessly and carelessly back-cited Seraphimblade's block which he saw in the log).

• At least two other editors thought this was wholly unfair to me, and said so (one way or another) above.

• In the wonted wikipedia-way, User talk:Ryulong, who also knew nothing about the background, carelessly bamfed in and offered nothing helpful.

• I said what I thought about it in good faith.

• Little did I know that User:Netscott, trying to be help me, had transcluded this thread over to ANI, haha!

• User talk:Ryulong, who didn't like being criticized in the least, never mind on ANI, removed the comment from my talk page (calling it a personal attack, of course) and then blocked any editing to my own talk page for six hours, to prevent me from defending myself. He later reduced it to three hours.

Careless admins enable sockpuppets. How do we fix their abuse? More wikilawyering and platitudes?

Anyway if I don't edit here for awhile (or ever again in any meaningful way), don't be too startled. Meanwhile, I've rm'd everything from my watchlist. Gwen Gale 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Gwen, I do hope you will reconsider. I can entirely understand your frustration. Certainly the selection and mentoring of new admins would benefit from a major shake-up; contrary to the "anyone can edit" mantra, I think Wikipedia is quite user-unfriendly at all levels. I can certainly see evidence of plenty of MUDs, strangely enough even in people editing under what I would guess to be their real names - so much for Larry Sanger's philosophy. (Incidentally, I don't use my own name when editing here because I am the only person in North America with this name, and thus have genuine concerns about my privacy.) Frankly, I think WP needs about 1000 new admins, flooding the market so to speak, so that there isn't enough Admin work to go around and people are forced to go back to editing. Think it will work? --Risker 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could work, truth be told. There are far too many admins about who spend most of their time carelessly editing WP project and user pages, playing in the MUD while contributing only token content to articles, if any at all. Meanwhile I'm still blocked, which in principle is wholly unacceptable and a docking violation of Wikipedia policy. I think User:Dmcdevit, User talk:Ryulong and User:Seraphimblade should get their heads together and fix what they've broken, then maybe we can talk about this other stuff. Gwen Gale 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything that isn't undone anymore. I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia ventures, and I hope we never cross paths, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block expires in 4 hours, btw. And so long as you didn't mention me specifically , I would not have been notified to your commentary nor protected this page for 3 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be de-sysoped for your carelessness. Meanwhile, I find your signature distracting. Please fix it, thank you. Gwen Gale 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of that has to do with any of this. I will not change my signature for any reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is a violation of WP:Signature#Language_and_alphabet. For starters, you are not displaying your true username, which is User:Ryulong. This is distracting and unhelpful. Please bring your signature into conformance with Wikipedia policy, thank you. Gwen Gale 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My signature does contain Latin script, and there is no rule that I cannot put diacritics into my signature.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're masking your true user name behind the diacritics. Moreover, this is the English wikipedia and the Chinese characters in your signature are also unhelpful and distracting. I hope you'll eventually get around to apologizing on WP:ANI for your irresponsible and careless behaviour but either way, please fix your signature. Thanks again. Gwen Gale 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you wrote, "And so long as you didn't mention me specifically , I would not have been notified to your commentary nor protected this page for 3 hours."[15] So if Gwen Gale attacks somebody else, it's not your business, but if she attacks you, then it's time to break out the tools? That is exactly the opposite of how it's supposed to work.Proabivouac 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am notified of edits because Gwen is showing up in the IRC channel through her edits and when she uses my username in the edit summary, I am notified. If I don't get pinged, I don't know she's talking about me. But right now, I am watching my contributions and seeing that there are replies here, despite the fact that it has now delved into attacks for the sake of attacks (bothering me about the two diacritical marks in my signature and the two kanji that I have in parentheses to link to my talk page). On my signature, the two diacritical marks do not "mask my true user name." It's not like I'm signing as Jimbo Wales or George W. Bush. I'm signing as Ryūlóng, where it's still legible that my username is "Ryulong." And that the two Japanese figures have little to do with the signature other than as a link to my user talk page.

Anyway, I do not feel that it is entirely necessary to post a public apology on WP:ANI. My apology to you is that I'm sorry that I had to get involved with this. I redacted all of my statements on ANI, making them null and void. It was not until I saw the comment you put here that I got involved again. As I said before, there is nothing that I did last night that undone by now. My protection is gone. My comments are removed on ANI, other than the notification of the protection, and my replies to it. I have made one change to my signature, and that was solely to make the golden color darker. Other than that, there are no violations of WP:SIG that is being performed.

Once, again, I wish you luck in your future ventures on and off Wikipedia. And I certainly hope that you will not feel the need to hold a grudge for a 3 hour protection and some remarks that I take back completely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Ryulong,

• I accept your apology, of course. That's cool.
• However, I think you should think long and hard about how you use sysop scripts in the future.
• The darker colour sucks, at least the bright yellow-orange looked appealing with the blue.
• I still think you shouldn't be hiding your user name behind diacritics but I've said what I had to say about it.
• I won't be editing meaningfully on this wiki until I've gotten some assurance I'll be more heedfully protected from sockpuppets and trolls, I mean, especially if my edits are showing up on IRC (I have a notion why that's happening, no worries, it's benign enough, I've been discussing some sensitive shite lately).
• Anyway why put up with all this carelessness? Why are sockpuppets and trolls being enabled? Gwen Gale 02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sockpuppets and trolls are hard to catch (unless they scream out that they are who they are). I will try to improve on how I act with these buttons, and I did like the gold better than the goldenrod (I could always do  this  but the code's too big). I'm often online when I shouldn't be (like this morning at 6 and 7 am when I was on ANI discussing). If you find any ducks. Oh, and on IRC, it's a Special:Recentchanges feed, so everyone shows up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad things seem to working themselves out over here.

Ryulong, may I ask if Dmcdevit was also on IRC at that time?Proabivouac 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was asking if this matter was discussed on IRC.Proabivouac 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha change it back to gold then, at least, Ryulong :) I don't like twisted signatures cuz one can't do a quick copy paste on them or easily memorize the true username but whatever.

• User:Dmcdevit's block was an irresponsible violation of Wikipedia policy which enabled (I hope only through heedlessness) the games of sockpuppets and trolls.
• I need to hear from User:Dmcdevit.
• I want the block log erased, to stop this carelessness from happening again. Gwen Gale 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Way ahead of you (but I can't do anything about Dmcdevit just yet)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie is now listed on the RFCU here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#However_whatever - Denny 06:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no one's sockpuppet.--User:Blue Tie 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note

Hi Gwen. I know it takes two to tango; we were both at fault. It was a learning experience for me.

In an effort to fix things further, I apologize to you for my part in the problem. I shouldn't have done that. Also, I believe I upset you. If so, I apologize for that as well, because feelings are important. I am sorry for hurt feelings.

And, so you know, I have absolutely no connection with this other user, Howeverwhatever. I do not know who that is or why I should be considered similar to them. Also, it is a personal attack to claim that I stalked you from one page to another. I did not do that. As I have told you before, I have my own interests. As for Mountain Meadows, well, you might notice on my user page that I have Fawn Brodie listed as an interest area. (Thats not my full watchlist, but it is a focus list). She was friends, of a sort, with Juanita Brooks, whose page I monitored and edited once before you were a user on wikipedia. You may know that name, because her work on Mountain Meadows is considered, if not the very best, the very best to its time. You just happened onto a page that I sometimes observe, that's all. Perhaps all of this will help you to not have such negative feelings and get to where you can assume good faith about me. --Blue Tie 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, which I accept in good faith. Gwen Gale 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're interested in reading something other than your user page, you might want to check out WP:MfD for my recent additions. When you get a round tuit. Risker 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gasping! I'm shocked to hear that Wikipedia:Content forking is going on! :) Gwen Gale 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truly amazing, isn't it. I have no idea how such a thing could have happened. Especially the one with the "deleted" tag on it. Goes to take her anti-sarcasm pills Risker 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The block was a wanton violation of Wikipedia policy
• The protection of my talk page was sheer abuse of the tools
• The IP check on User:However whatever was allowed to age until the logs expired
• Denny's inquiry about it got some worrisome answers

I understand. I could say much more but WP:CIVIL does have its sway with me (for starters) so I shan't. Meanwhile this enabling of sockpuppets and trolls by teenaged (yep, teenaged) MUD players has rather much knocked out the thrill of volunteer editing for me. I guess I'll keep watching a very few articles I'm keen on but that's about it. Cheers to all then :) Gwen Gale 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there! I'm sorry to hear that you got such a bad impression of the 'pedia. In general we're all well-meaning volunteers here, but we're as human as the next person so sometimes mistakes happen. In particular, I should point out that we have a rather severe lack of people working on the checkuser requests (and not many people are privileged to do that because of the privacy issues involved), so there are several requests that are never gotten around to. I'll keep an eye out for However Whatever; the other two you mention appear to be throwaway accounts, so there's not much we can do about that. Happy editing! >Radiant< 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many of them for me here, too many role-playing troll admins, too many troll sockpuppet editors. Bye then. Gwen Gale 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not break 3rr.
• Moreover, when I reported Blue Tie for 3rr I made it clear that I would not make any further edits to the article for 24 hours.
• 3rr is meant to be preventative, not punative.

This block is a double violation of Wikipedia policy and is serious abuse of sysop access to the blocking scripts. Gwen Gale 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale is a serious and law-abiding editor with a record of non-trivial contributions to issues of foundation-level importance. User:Dmcdevit's block was in error, and should be reversed as soon as possible, so that the encyclopedia might continue to benefit from her contributions.Proabivouac 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 02:20, April 1, 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gwen Gale (contribs)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring at Lisa Nowak)
• 21:38, March 17, 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) unblocked Gwen Gale (contribs) (User agrees to refrain from future edit wars)
• 15:59, March 17, 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gwen Gale (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on William Oefelein)

  Emphasis mine.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of your personal attacks toward me and Seraphimblade in your last messages, which can easily be seen from the history, here, as well as the small period on which this was transcluded to WP:ANI, I have protected this page for 3 hours after which you will be able to comment here, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, only for the record, I strongly contest this behavior and have made my last comments on it below. Gwen Gale 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a strong correlation between the quality of the written text/content and your editing of an article. I surmise that you are a really excellent editor. --Blue Tie 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		for the work you do all over wikipedia on matters of historial interest. Particularly fine writing style and detailed research Blue Tie 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope in spite of any silliness you stick around long term. Quality writers for content are always awesome (and you're the best I've worked with so far). Glad I e-met you via that Nowak wackiness. - Denny ^(talk) 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit by a likely sockpuppet I still see no reason to bother editing much here until this public wiki starts following its own written policies. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 08:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the sockpuppetfulness of said editor, the edit summary Bad grammer is a bit of a give-away, and the edit introduced one of those ghastly Americanisms. I'd a bit of an argument with building surveyors who'd developed a "door entry system" for primary schools with the button at the entrance door neatly labelled "Press button to access staff". Aaargh! Anyway, found another bit which didn't seem to translate well, and as the references to "films" suggest the article is written in English, had a go at correcting it. Hope all settles down now, .. dave souza, talk 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look then :) Meanwhile I don't want to whine so I won't edit much until I see some hint written policies are being heeded. Gwen Gale 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru, just started. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Quack should have been politely warned a few times, then banned for disruption long ago. Meanwhile until arbcomm member User:Dmcdevit has done something meaningful to fix this, this and, oh yeah, this (erm, never mind this and then the other day, this rather unsettling bit of renewed wikistalking, sockpuppetry and rv warring) there is aught I can do. Cheers though. Gwen Gale 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Threeafterthree (who for some reason hides his username with Tom) copy pasted, from his talk page to my talk page, the following request from me that he stop edit warring:

Please stop edit warring over your apparent wish to delete accurate and verified content from the article, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what your agenda is here? Thanks --Tom 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a diff where I claimed to have an agenda, thanks. Meanwhile, please stop edit warring. Thanks. Gwen Gale 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why else would you keep adding this material without explaining WHY its/it's important to the LEAD sentence? It adds context?? ok, maybe. Seriously, is it of religous significance? I just don't know, but since you are insistent on having it in the article don't you think you owe it to other editors to explain your motivation? --Tom 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained it, please stop trying to imply I haven't. As I said elsewhere, I think you might consider asking for an RfC on this if the inclusion of historically verified and accurate information in the article nettles you so. Gwen Gale 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You finally said that "it adds context" to the article. How does the day of the week of an historical event add context to the article?? IF there is a specific reason that realloy does add context, please provide it. I try to avoid RFCs but we are getting there. --Tom 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I think you're disrupting the article and engaging in personal attacks, never mind edit warring and on the very edge of violating 3rr. Gwen Gale 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, you might want to look at your recent restoration of the rape allegations. The article in its current state is redundant in its mention that the girls may have been raped and sourcing the same paragraph within the Gibbs article. After an anon deleted the rape allegations a few months back, I re-added it but did not use the exact words that were there before. For example I did not feel the need to mention that it was women in St. George that recalled the rapes occurred. I discussed these changes on the talk page under the heading "Rape Allegations revisited" Davemeistermoab 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so keen on removing or downplaying this documented information? Do you find it difficult to believe that in the process of committing a mass murder of men, women, children and infants in a socially and geographically isolated environment, with all the social and moral breakdown this brings, that at least a few of the murderers would take the opportunity to rape some teens before slaughtering them? Why are you troubled by documentation that Mormon women in nearby St George were saying among themselves that this is spot on what happened at MM? Gwen Gale 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hoping that one day one of these frothing hatemongers right-wing loons nutjobs dedicated editors will actually come up with something new, but alas, I remain dissapointed...Doc Tropics 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's background noise is all, but nonetheless one of the reasons I only watch a handful of articles anymore. So long as Wikipedia's leadership encourages this kind of trolling (the mega traffic building MUD side), so this public wiki will be more a MUD. Mind, they get our "help" for free, so we pay for all the waste with our donated time and Wales' investors get the financial benefits of the traffic. Knowing this, I'm still ok with throwing in a wee bit of my time but no more than that. Gwen Gale 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, it appears that Blue Tie has not bothered to inform you of this thread.Proabivouac 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie, I think, is only trying to deflect and distract from a lingering concern that he may be a sockpuppet (or has run them). Blue Tie has been vindictive before. If someone can cite a broken WP policy I'll be happy to stop doing whatever it is I shouldn't be :) Gwen Gale 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, Dmcdevit, who blocked you when you reported Blue Tie's 3RR violation, has called several of your comments "beyond the pale," and appears to be encouraging Blue Tie to open an Arbitration case against you. I think it makes a lot of sense to respond to that thread.

Additionally, as it seems clear that, for whatever reason, you will be held to a significantly more rigorous standard than most editors, I advise you to steer clear of anything that might be even remotely construed as either edit-warring or uncivil, regardless of how many times Blue Tie has reverted or whatever else he has done.Proabivouac 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I'll happily and instantly do whatever the leadership of this public wiki asks me to do. They've been informed, I'll defer to them. Gwen Gale 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've heard back and will do as asked. Thanks for letting me know about this, Proabivouac. Gwen Gale 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was the latest kinda stable Gwen Gale 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather all too much for me, by the bye, this endless folding back upon loops within loops. Gwen Gale 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the discussions on the Admin page. You used three words I don't know and can't seem to find. Could you tell me what "glark" (Is it like Heinlein's grok?), "luzzing" and "docking" mean? I really would like to know. Thank you. Bielle 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• glark=infer from context, hacker slang
• luzz=throw, UK slang
• docking=exceptionally so, as in "docking big", UK slang

Gwen Gale 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who expressed their support to me, both on the wiki and through private email, throughout the worries I had over the past couple of days. It meant something. I'd also like to thank those members of arbcomm and other admins who took the time and trouble to look into the background of what was happening and then take swift, courteous and measured steps to fix things. Everyone involved has behaved helpfully. Please don't ever be shy about contacting me if need be. Your trust is much valued by me. Cheers :) Gwen Gale 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite your comment here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may, I'm kind of waiting to see what happens (shortly) over at MMM since that's been my only dealing with him. However, yeah, I've been following some of the other threads which had some sway when I asked yesterday that the page not be unprotected and endorsed the continued protection when his request was turned down. Either way, I'd be happiest if he could adapt to WP practice and policies and try harder to get along with other editors on this very public wiki. Gwen Gale 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are in violent agreement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) He claimed there was consensus (mis-spelling the word) and may have been sincere but in truth there is a significant question which he has not expressed consensus on and he has not expressed consensus as to cooperation and behaviour. Gwen Gale 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see him make a similar statement over at MMM. Gwen Gale 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the only reason MMM has been protected for many days. Meanwhile he's replying to his indefinite block. Gwen Gale 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to Blue Tie for anything I have said in the past which may have been taken as hurtful, unfair or unhelpful.

Only to provide some context and background, I was initiated as a Wikipedia editor in the Sollog wars, wherein I was encouraged and (I thought strongly) reinforced for an aggressive and confrontational editing style. I had no notion that the Sollog article was rather a fluke and not very typical of how Wikipedia wontedly works. About two years ago, I engaged in that editing style whilst dealing with another problematic editor (who is still under sundry probations and topical bans) and to make a very, very long tale very short, it blew back in my face (so to speak) mostly because of my own lack of understanding about Wikipedia and what makes it work. Since then, I have not very often, but often enough I guess, still been too confrontational with editors whom I thought weren't making edits according to my own interpretations of good faith, WP policy and so on. This has been my botch and mine alone, even if it was in good faith.

I encourage Blue Tie to not let this episode discourage him from expressing any worries he may have about content anywhere on this wiki. I am willing to edit cooperatively with Blue Tie and will assume Blue Tie's good faith. Blue Tie, I'm so sorry. Please let me try to fix any harm I have done. Cheers. Gwen Gale 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Until November 2006 I was User:Wyss. At that time, because of worries we need not get into here, a member of arbcom helpfully suggested that I change my username and I did. He then, at my request, erased my former account's history. I never edited simultaneously under both accounts which is to say, once I began editing as Gwen Gale I never again edited as Wyss. Since none of this was made public on the wiki (which was the whole pith of the account change), there was lately a brief misunderstanding about it. For a bit of background, between those two accounts (first through the old one, then subsequently this one) I glark I've made over 20,000 edits to Wikipedia, mostly to core articles and their talk pages. Few were ever reverted or put another way, had to do with any lingersome dispute. Why the name Gwen Gale? It's pulled from Gaelic and means (erm, kind of) Windy Scottish girl. Twisted tale behind that then. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well. I for one am delighted to see you back, no matter what you call yourself. Don't take any of this too seriously; just edit when it pleases you to do so; walk away at the first sign of boredom. I hope we cross paths again, but if so let's make the worksite neither a "core" (?) article nor a flake article; both seem to attract people of boundless energy who I'd much prefer not to have to deal with. -- Hoary 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed you were Wyss some time in February, but didn't see that you were abusing the account, so didn't feel any need to share my speculations with others. I hope this all dies down. Best wishes. Musical Linguist 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, I have posted the following to Dmcdevit's talk page:[16] Hopefully, this saber rattling about arbitration will cease, so that you might resume contributing in a less hostile environment.Proabivouac 22:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch in Amelia Earhart. I shudder to think what will be added next. Maury 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye :) Gwen Gale 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's edits haven't been reverted (yet?), but if there is a consensus that the changes should not be made and an editor is being disruptive, then I think the better solution would be to deal with the editor rather than fully protecting the article. Honestly, I'm not involved with the page very much at all, but I do see that Merkey has done a lot of edits to it, and it's currently unclear whether the extensive edits are with or without consensus. If you see problems in the changes, please list them on the talk page and we'll see how others feel. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I toned down some wording and he came straight back and put in his old, unsupported PoV spin. Anyway yeah, I do agree with you and only wanted to let you know: The only reason you saw a seeming lack of consensus there to begin with was because of that editor's aggressive, consensusless and source-blind editing. Why he was unblocked I do not know, I see zero change in his behaviour. Though I would rather see him adapt than be blocked, from his edits I don't see any hints of willingness on his part to edit cooperatively or to give heed to WP sourcing policies. Gwen Gale 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I've stopped watching the article for now. There is nothing I can do for it until WP's sourcing policies are given a bit of heed there. Cheers :) Gwen Gale 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment immediately above, Gwen (that is, about your no longer watching the Meadows article - ):

Today I happened to post this link on its talkpage to a NYTimes magazine-insert piece from Sunday? (That's about Baruch Goldstein?: the American-born anti-Palestinian terrorist.) And, anyway, I argue there that the tone of Wikipedia's current MMM article and especially in its current, lengthy background section is pretty evenhanded, really?

Anyway, Gwen, I know you have a reputation of tellin' it as ya sees it and wonder if you'd deign to put in your 2 cents on whether it really is or not? :^)

...Or, for that matter, Glen, with regard to such issues as these? (Or else in the interest of full disclosure, as they say! lol):

1. The rape allegation you championed was pushed to a footnote. (I suppose this was on the grounds of it was but sourced through hearsay that was maybe a few too many removes from "primary"?) And -
2. The factoid regarding the ethnicity of some of Arkansas emigrants' being partially Nat. American was successfully removed from the lede. (Altho it's indeed still retained further down in the article - )

--Justmeherenow 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly don't you agree with? The start-class rating or the fact that it is tagged as part of the Biography project? Or something else? Errabee 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely both. It's a sub-bio article and is certainly more than a "start" on that topic IMHO. Gwen Gale 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont follow me

This edit of yours speaks for itself. Also, please sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~) and please don't end your posts with phrases which could look like a different username. Thanks either way. Gwen Gale 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,you reverted an edit I did and in the edit summary you mentioned copyright violation. I have no problem with the reversion just the edit summary. Please take a look at this Youtube links. --Sandahl 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a copyvio and has been deleted (by others) from the article in the past. Also, since the added text was but a link and added no meaningful info to the article, it struck me as nn. Cheers. Gwen Gale 00:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of disappearance theories related to the Earhart/Noonan flight is an interesting and absorbing one. I contend that all of the theories and hypothesis are relevant and although historians and researchers have mainly focused on a singular theory, the other theories have some interest to a serious observer. Even if some of the theories have dubious claims and scant corroboration, they all have captured the public attention in some way, even if they have served to merely sustain the mythology surrounding Amelia Earhart. That is the main contention behind the linking of the various theories; put them all out, give some context to their claims and provide the reader with an understanding of the mystery that has enveloped Amelia's final moments (whoops I'm letting slip the fact that I think she has departed the scene...) Bzuk 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've responded on the article's talk page, where this belongs. Cheers. Gwen Gale 10:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Header: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Please be aware of the above policy before you re-insert any material into the Carol Kaye article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you this before: What in the text are you specifically disputing? Unless you wish to discuss a specific content dispute, the material isn't "contentious." I've made further comments about this on the article's talk page. Cheers. Gwen Gale 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you keep re-inserting. There are no sources/citations for any of it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued input. Over 80% of this wiki is as yet unsourced according to WP policy. If you were to try blanking 80% of this wiki whilst citing WP sourcing policy, your edits would be reverted. If you are actually disputing the article content, please state your dispute on the article's talk page. Clearly you are editing in good faith, but please stop blanking verifiable Wikipedia content. All the best, and cheers! Gwen Gale 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwen. Just stoping by with a random act of smiles for you, because you just remind me of an old wiki-friend, from the Adolf Hitler article a long time ago. I like your prose, and style of writing, which is what reminded me of her. Hope all is well. :)Giovanni33 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (in your archive on June 6th), you said: "Anyway I've stopped watching the article [namely, MMM--Justmehere] for now. There is nothing I can do for it until WP's sourcing policies are given a bit of heed there. Cheers :)"

Well, today there's been posted a peer review request on the article. Yesterday I happened to post this link on its talkpage to a NYTimes magazine-insert piece from Sunday? (That's about Baruch Goldstein?: the American-born anti-Palestinian terrorist.) And, anyway, I argue there that the tone of Wikipedia's current MMM article (and especially in its current, lengthy background section) is pretty evenhanded, really?

Anyway, Gwen, I know you have a reputation of tellin' it as ya sees it and wonder if you'd deign to put in your 2 cents on whether it really is or not? :^)

...Or, for that matter, with regard to such issues as these? (Or else in the interest of full disclosure, as they say! lol):

1. The rape allegation you championed was pushed to a footnote. (I suppose this was on grounds it was sourced through hearsay maybe a few too many removes from "primary"?) And -
2. The factoid regarding ethnicity of some emigrants' being partially Nat. American was successfully removed from the lede. (Altho it's retained further down in the article - )

--Justmeherenow 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have withdrawn my commentary on this article. I'm sorry for any incovenience. As an alternative, I humbly offer WP:NOT and WP:V. Gwen Gale 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gwen, do you mind if I post your comment immediately above to its talkpage then? --Justmeherenow 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please do remember to say you asked me to comment. Thanks and all the best! Gwen Gale 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can do (...& did) lol :^) --Justmeherenow 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're editing in good faith but on second thought, given this unexpected commentary which you made, I'd rather it be kept on my own talk page, in context. Thanks for your understanding. Gwen Gale 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

np :^) --Justmeherenow 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]