User talk:Gwen Gale/archive4

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions

I'm trying to see how this was closed as a "no consensus." Of the responses, there was one keep from someone who gave no evidence to support his response, 3 responses of merge, and one for delete with a note that an appropriate merge would also be good. Seems a clear consensus that it doesn't belong, and that it should be merged to Hiroshi Agasa.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please keep in mind, Afd is not a vote or a tally. The 3 merges, 2 deletes and 1 keep, as expressed in the discussion, look very much like no consensus to me. I'm far happier keeping the article whole until something more straightforward emerges. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion closings of relisted discussions

Good evening. You recently closed a number of deletion discussions which had been relisted for more comment less than 2 days prior. Personally, I rarely consider relisting to be useful and prefer it when an admin makes the tough call after 5 days. If no one cared enough to comment the first time, they're unlikely to care the second time around. But once a discussion has been relisted, it really ought to stay open long enough for the relisting to have an effect. Closing it early is technically allowed but kind of defeats the purpose of the relisting, especially when the call is "no consensus". Please consider letting those go a little longer. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time looking over these and the only unexpired extensions I found had to do with some articles about smaller shopping malls. Since community consensus on these is way mixed and most of these articles will be kept anyway (through no consensus), I don't see the need. I did close one or two as deletes, I'll be happy to restore these on request since as a project we truly don't know what to do with them: Cultural and historic notability is about null for most but the economic impact of even a modest commercial centre can be far more than some towns. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Luv Addict

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Luv Addict. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the link, Moonriddengirl. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG!

The drama you ordered has arrived! SQL^{Query me!} 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, seemed lacking!) SQL^{Query me!} 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's cool... I was wondering when things would pick up again! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh hai

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You know why. east.718 at 00:15, June 1, 2008

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cauda Pavonis

Hi Gwen! The article in the title was deleted by your good self, however I am unable to see why. lack of notability is given in the Deletion log however having read the rules the band in question definately qualify on more than of the criteria, also there were the beginnings of consensus developing on that matter. could you please reconsider, I don't know wether you have access to the article as it was before deletion, but everything that you need to see to prove that the article qualifies is in it. please respond Darqmann (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

oh also I really can't see how this article qualified for a speedy, the articles future was under discussion and a lack of consensus does not constitute grounds to remove. Darqmann (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! The worry is, they were not widely noted, some of their recordings are being sold long after by a record store label but this does not meet WP:Notability (bands), no notable members, so far as I can tell this article was always an A7. I should also say, this article's been A7'd twice before and was first G12'd as a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the article – more than the reference to resurrection records meets WP:Notability (bands),for one the band were the subject of a half hour long TV show in the UK, the reason for the previous deletes was down to the inexperience of the author not understanding how the article should be structured, the article as it stood before you removed it jumped through every WP hoop and cited pretty much every source possible. Darqmann (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about their having been the subject of a television show. If every possible source has been cited, this hints even more that the topic is an A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article to give the exact text but the article does make reference to the band having been the subject of an ITV show called magick eve in 2003 and is also linked up in the reference section of the article, I don't have much experience here, do I need to go to deletion review? also like I said the article was under discussion because it clearly was no longer a candidate for a speedy on account that basic relevance was proven, notability was under discussion and was well on the way to being agreed Darqmann (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the article in a preview window and there is no mention that they were the subject of that ITV show, which is listed at the bottom with one other programme. I can't see how this topic meets the notability standards, but it has nothing to do with any criticism of what they did. You could take it to deletion review, but with 4 speedy deletes in its deletion log (with 3 admins now calling this an A7) I don't see how it would get through. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above the previous speedys were basically of stub articles and it is perfectly understandable that those A7's occurred as the articles presented at the time held very little content. the article as you are seeing it clearly qualifies WP:Notability (bands) also asks for reference in publications, which is met, appearance on compilations, which again is met. in reference to the TV show, if the citation link is followed it says Synopsis: Adam Lea and Emma Jane Portch plunge once again into the weird world of the macabre and unexplained, visiting remote Woodchester Mansion in Stroud to watch goth group Cauda Pavonis perform if this information needs to be in the article, put it back and I'll add the info Darqmann (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gwen would you consider restoring the article content to Darqmann's userspace, where they can work on it and when they believe it meets WP:MUSIC they can then submit it to deletion review for consideration to move back to mainspace. RMHED (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, I was out for awhile but this is spot on what I was going to propose and will do. I have more to say on this but am going to make a coffee first (only now got back in) :D Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The deleted content is now at User:Darqmann/sandbox. Maybe WP:DRV would be the most helpful way to go. However, I don't think the existing article references to TV appearances, compilations or CD distribution meet WP:Notability (bands). The strongest hope seems to be the TV appearance. To make this not an A7, the lead paragraph must assert some significance. "Cauda Pavonis was featured on an episode of the ITV television show Magick Eve in 2003" would do it. I don't know if it would get this article through another AfD, but it would get it past any speedy tag I saw. The article title is currently protected but I'll unprotect on request from any editor and am also ok with any admin lifting it as they please. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, I have modified my article such that it should no longer be susceptible to A7, it is in my sandbox where you put it, if you would like to look it over and then un-salt the name so that I can put the article back that would be appreciated Darqmann (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I made a slight tweak to the punctuation and flow of the lead paragraph. Please feel free to either revert it back, or keep it. I agree the article is not an A7 as now written. I have unsalted the article page and will watch it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)]

Thanks 163.156.240.17 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, the missing a in that quote was my mistake, I have checked it out and the original copy does in deed have the appropriate indefinite article, just letting you know before I remove the parenthesis 82.32.39.42 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Forgot to log in :) Darqmann (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the brackets out for ya :D Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey can you look and see if it doesn't say "Dark duo from the UK with a bright future"? Cheers Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get back from work Darqmann (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We're in agreeance about New Zealand's coolness,

but we're in disagreenace about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normality (roleplaying game). According to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Normality (roleplaying game) falls squarly within the foregoing guideline. The article is unverfiable original research. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Swayed, deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to get back to you. Thanks, good job. Wow, someone who is willing to change their mind! Cool! --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sims talk Page

The Sims talk pages should not of been deleted. It had the Wikiporject Sims Banner on it. ElectricalExperiment 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything had CSD housekeeping tags of one kind or another. However, there may have been some malformed transclusions of templates which caused odd behaviour in the software. Please give me the full name(s) and I'll have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please Excuse the Format I coppied It form the WP:Sims Log.

• The Sims 2: Nightlife (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims 2: Open for Business (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims 2: University (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Hot Date (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Livin' Large (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Makin' Magic (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Superstar (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Unleashed (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: Vacation (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) removed.
• The Sims: House Party (talk) Stub-Class (High-Class) removed.

Thankyou, ElectricalExperiment 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This was odd, a likely template transclusion coding error caused these talk pages to be deleted when it was the empty template(s) which carried CSD delete housekeeping tags. Looks like everything's fixed now, pls let me know if you need more help and you might want to have whoever does the template coding for your project check the code, since this could easily happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou:)ElectricalExperiment 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythos Media

I am extremely disappointed and irritated at the deletion of Mythos Media. Apparently producing notable products isn't enough for a company to be notable? Of course, this is despite Mythos Media being mentioned in those reviews. So notable sources can review a product to make it notable – and even mention the company – but that isn't enough for the company to be notable and remain in Wikipedia?

What mostly irritates me, however, is that my comments on the deletion page not only pointed out how the company and its products were notable, but I also asked the opinion of anybody willing to give it, what they would like to see in order for it to pass their idea of "notability." My request, of course, went unanswered. Nobody wanted to work with me to make the page "better" by their standards. Then I show up today and it's deleted. No reason why. No help to make it better. Nothing. I understand the necessity for quality control, but in my comments I made every attempt to work with people to make it better, and got no help in return. Aren't encyclopedias supposed to be helpful? Szul2012 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this can be daunting, but encyclopedias are most helpful when they are trusted, which means carrying rather high standards for inclusion based on notability and sourcing. After 10 days in AfD (which is meant to last only 5, but there has been a backlog), a link to which was displayed in a big box at the top of the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythos Media showed a strong consensus, with policy support cited, for a close of delete, maybe later because as described in the article along with some additional source checking, the company fails WP:CORP. One editor did comment that some of the company's products may be notable though, which means perhaps an article or two could be built on products (not the company). Meanwhile, have you reviewed Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beer Blow

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beer Blow, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Blow. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat unhappily, this is the only way to be rid of non-commercial OR games like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's creator is rather upset with me; I have no wish to offend him any further, since he seems to think I'm being personally vindictive. (You know, like so many other cases, if we WERE to get a useful article out of this, I'd be the first one to applaud.) I just wish he'd turn the enthusiasm that he brings to defending a frat-boy drinking game to contributing something useful within our guidelines. <sigh> Thanks for your contribution. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dominic Mulvany

Hi, I had this article tagged as a copyvio of [1], both contain the same text the wording is just slightly different sometimes, but long phrases like "recording projects, producing some tracks for singer-songwriter Tim Ambler" appear in both. Can you clarify why this isn't a copyvio? thanks. --Rividian (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Keep up the wonderful work ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Biado

While I agree something is rotten in Denmark in this article, did you see this earlier speedy decline? There's been a lot of of vandalism including this. Also the person who G7 tagged it before you speedied was not the creator. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the deletion (although there were sources that indicated notability) but I don't think it's a clean G7 at all. Thoughts? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Heya! You mean A7, I think :) Not all professional writers are notable. I saw no assertion of significance in the article, only a CV for a free lance writer. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

00:26, 3 June 2008 Gwen Gale (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ed Biado" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (restore) There were a number of sources in a previous version, here are some of his articles and writing for the fourth largest paper is clearly a claim to notability I think. The main reason I'm concernes is not because I'm 100% sure he's notable but rather I don't ttrust that this was a clean tagging in the first place. Just look at the number of times it was tagged for speedy in the last few days. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But does he have wide, independent coverage from independent and reliable sources? He's not notable unless others have written and commented on him. Has this happened? Cheers :D Gwen Gale (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not needed to avoid a speedy. In order to be A7, which this wasn't. I quote from WP:CSD, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. RS coverage is not needed to avoid a speedy. In the mean time, I'm looking for secondary coverage. Part of the vandalism was claiming a hoax, it isn't. He's a published writer. That avoids a speedy. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't see any assertion of significance in the article and think it's A7. However, if you'd like to try and save it, please go ahead :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheel war, I'll get consensus on whether or not to bring it back through DRV. Will give you link in a moment. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha no wheel war could happen here! Restore it if you like, no need to waste time on process in trying to help the encylopedia! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I'd already written it up before I saw this. ANyway, it's here. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 3. Who knows, maybe it will be seen as an A7 -- I've been known on various occasions to be wrong, including today so I could be here too. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, because it indeed does not look speediable. Please don't take this to mean that I think Biado (if he even exists) merits this article or any article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike speedied it again. Truly, this is an A7, never mind it's tagged with an author request for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and OrangeMike immediately deleted it. This article has an interesting history. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is such a mess I'm sorry I touched it. I will say, though, that I don't think, even if it's not a hoax/joke, that it would be exempt from A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Y'all, a published writer who has not gotten wide independent coverage from other writers and commentators is not notable and the article makes no assertion this has happened. I don't think an assertion of having some articles published in the outlets noted is not an assertion of significance, although I'm ok if others think it is. Let it go to AfD if need be, this is not worth the time :) Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OM, I agree. I wish it hadn't landed on my watchlist (removing IP false speedies) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel like Keeper's page with the edit conflicts. It wasn't a G7, the author did not request deletion. It appeared to be more vandalism (including the hoax claims). He exists, I confirmed that with reliable sources. I'm not saying it will pass AfD but asserting notability automagically avoids an A7 in my book. Shall we move this to the DRV? Although I just pointed OM here. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A7! Only to let you know, I don't see any assertion of notability in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, when I restored it, I didn't remove the "Hey, kill me fast!" template from the top. And I didn't remove it because I couldn't be bothered to look again through the article's sad little history to give the nitty gritty on how the person claiming to have started the article might not necessarily be the same as the person who actually did start it.

So, not surprisingly, another admin has just deleted it.

This was (is?) an article on a 24-year-old contributor of humdrum columns to the how-to-spend-yet-more-money-on-yourself-so-you-look-prettier section of some newspaper. Neither he nor the article on him is worth any more of my time. If he even exists, that is.

Gwen, how about slowing down a bit? I don't think I've ever zapped more than three speedies in a single day, and my average is something like one a month. It's not as if admins are rare or anything: there are thousands more of us, and the number's growing all the time. Some of these people have even developed a skill in mass-zapping speedies in ways that rarely if ever get up the noses of anyone aside from the authors. Some even enjoy this kind of work. (Me, I tend to nod off.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, no way I'll put up with this kind of flurry for long haha! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See? It calmed down :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Little red wagon foundation

Hi, I noticed you keep deleting my article about the Little Red Wagon Foundation. I saw that the reason was "blatant advertising." I read through the "speedy deletion" guidelines to find out why.

I'm confused, I wasn't writing the article as an ad and I thought I was writing in a neutral tone. I don't personally work with The Little Red Wagon Foundation. It is a legitimate nonprofit charity and I noticed it didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I thought I'd start one. The article was not meant as an advertisement.

Could you please help me fix up the article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodleluver511994 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some admin advice

I've noticed that you've received several new sections regarding articles that you've "speedy deleted", I used to have the same problem, until I added a subpage to my account, namely User:Keeper76/CSD that explains why I deleted a new page. You are more than welcome to modify the page (and give credit to the original author User:Jonny-mt), to avoid said drama. Cheers, happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! It's already boldy linked at the top of the page, has been for days :) I'm only getting a flurry now, is all, it'll calm down, I don't mind. Thanks so much for noticing though! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Harland Stonecipher.jpg

You deleted this image, and gave the edit summary: "No justification given for non-free image". But I did give a justification. See the image's description page. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I checked it again and there was no fair use rationale on the image page. There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Please upload it again with a fair use rationale for each page it links to. Or, if you like, you can provide a rationale here and I'll restore the image page with the new rationale included. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Samet Gündüz

I am just wondering why you deleted the Samet Gündüz article for he is a pro soccer player for the primary FC Basel team. it is not like he is on the second team but is in the main league. User:RissederEngel 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, could you please tell me why you faked this signature and time stamp on your post?

Second, there has already been an articles for deletion discussion about this. The outcome was to delete it. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to...

speedy delete the userpages of this person? User:Tino G Georgiou Perhaps you know something I don't, in which case I'd love to know what it is! --Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Big docking copyvio there. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to look into this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are, cos I'm looking at it all too am pretty confused! There was a decision to delete at AFD for article space, but this was userspace. He does apparently have another userpage too User:Tino Georgiou, which is protected for inserting copyvio, but I can't find the supposed source it was copied from. [2] I wonder about the speedy requester myself. User:Kgglaub There is something funny going on here. --Slp1 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax, built with text copied over from Nora Roberts. User:Kgglaub is a spankin' new user who doesn't seem to like editors who steal content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is what looks like an SPA of User:Tino G Georgiou. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an MfD showing this worry has cropped up before and here is User:Tino Georgiou, who has lots of userboxes and whose contribs seem to have been oversighted. Given this, I see no worries in having speedied that user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was a lot I didn't know! Very complicated! --Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a LOT more to this than a bit of bio-stealing! Just within Wiki, he has also been known as TGDevX, Brandondev, ProudGK, Tino B Georgiou, Tino Georgiou, Tino G Georgiou. If you look at the Wiki entry (history) for Alan Arkin, you will see he claimed to have taken a picture of Mr Arkin and thus have the right to post it (he didn't, it came from the TVGuide web site). Outside of Wiki, we are looking at his books with regard to cases of plagiarism. I set up this account for the specific purpose of exposing him.Kgglaub (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He has, today, reinstated User talk:Tino G Georgiou and created User:Tino A Georgiou, both still based on Nora Robert's bio. Should I recommend for speedy, or leave them? He'll keep appearing with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season (quote, Hugo Drax) Kgglaub (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tag them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged (Here beginneth the game of cat and mouse – can he create them faster than I can tag them?). Kgglaub (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tag them as G3. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WILCO... He's back already! Duly tagged G3 User:Tino A Georgiou Kgglaub (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

and User:Tino C Georgiou K G Glaub (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and again User:Tino C Georgiou K G Glaub (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He's employing a new tactic. He's removing the tags using an IP address instead of logging in. Any point in retagging? Seems a bit futile if he just removes them. K G Glaub (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And now, he's deleting this user talk thread (See history)! K G Glaub (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ok if he wants to delete his user talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was your user talk that he was deleting. Is that within guidelines? K G Glaub (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Air France (Band)

Why did you delete the Air France article? I thought I followed all the guidelines and they are a legitimately popular band. Ohkrapp (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ohkrapp. Did you read this yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it after the page was deleted was the first time. For the second attempt, I modeled the page after other, acceptable Swedish band entries. This is not my band or my friend's band. This is a legitimately popular band that has already released an album on Sincerely Yours (for which I provided a link), a known Swedish music label, and they're about to release another on the same label.. Their first album was reviewed by the All Music Guide (for which I provided a link) and they've been featured on Pitchfork. Their MySpace page can attest to their popularity (provided a link). Otherwise, I don't know what else to include; there is little information about them available. (I noted the article was a Swedish music stub.) The remark on Notability says that the subject doesn't have to be well-known, and they aren't really, yet. They've been mentioned in the press before, and with the release of their new EP, they will surely be mentioned again... I guess the article should wait until then? Ohkrapp (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, they would need a record contract with a major label, a lot of wide press coverage or have been the subject of a major television broadcast (minimum 30 minutes). There is a link to the band notability page on the page I linked above, but yes, it looks to me like they don't yet meet the standards. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on them or their music, it's only an inclusion standard, since Wikipedia articles can only have information about bands after they've become famous. If you have more questions though, please ask. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Ohkrapp (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, as the band's new EP will be released in a few days, and as it's already getting a lot of web attention, when it DOES become time for Air France (Band) to merit an entry, will what i've already contributed be renewed? Or must one create a new article? Thx, Ohkrapp (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wide, independent coverage by reliable sources which report one or more of the kinds of events noted in my last post, not yet. For more, please have a look at WP:Notability (bands). Also keep in mind, I'm not a gate keeper here. Wikipedia articles are kept and grown by the consensus of many editors. This article has now been tagged for speedy deletion by two separate editors and deleted by two others, which makes four established Wikipedia editors who don't think the band even comes close to meeting WP:Notability (bands). Truth be told, I think the most helpful thing you can do for them now is contact lots of music websites, send them publicity releases about the band, trade links, maybe even contact some Swedish print publications. Then try again here in a few months. The article could sail through by then, who knows? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, right. No, after reading the lit, I see that they don't merit an entry yet. I justed wanted to know, when or if the time DOES come, are deleted articles forever deleted? Or is there some, er, purgatory where wayward articles go to wait? I promise I'll leave you alone soon :) Ohkrapp (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha that's ok and no worries, as things are, an article by that name is only waiting to be started again when and if the time comes for it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

QualityCoach.Net

Hi Gwen Gale,

I used the Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Salesforce.com and the CLS Behring pages to come up with my page. I tried to steer away from "blatant advertising" to the best of my ability. I don't see what I wrote being different from anything on those pages. I did confer with some of my friends here and they agree with me. Instead of deleting my page, can you just please remove all forms of "blatant advertising" as you see fit and we will work from there. Thank you Gwen. Here is the code for the page I created. User:CruxialM

---snip--- Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Gwen. I did read your page and I did read all the guidelines which is why I chose those four companies who writeup closely resembles what our company does. If you delete my page, you might as well delete the Salesforce.com page because there are no fundamental differences between my writeup and their's. The Salesforce.com writeup was my skeleton. My writeup is in no way a violation of the G11 section. If you deem that to be the case, please delete the part that you have adjudged to be the guilty section that is qualifying my article as a violator. Thank you Gwen. And yes, as frustrated as I am getting now, this indeed can be very daunting. User:CruxialM

If you had read that page you would have quickly learned the difference: A company with 5 employees and only USD 700,000 in annual sales is very unlikely to meet Wikipedias notability standards for businesses. Moreoever, you likely should have a look at our conflict of interest policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you looked at the message that I just wrote or you were rather turned off by the fact that I pasted code in the message. That was before I saw your message and like I have said, I sincerely apologize. SO after making the changes, do you suggest that I re-list the entry again or run it by you?

CruxialM (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for signing with four tildes! I've left a note on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please mail me a copy of the page that I created that you deleted? Thank you.

CruxialM (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I almost always do this, but keeping in mind you've said you were going to repost the content and take a screen shot of it before the article was deleted again (I would guess for advertising purposes), along with my worry you have not acknowledged that your company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, I'm so sorry to say, I'd rather not. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your guess couldn't be farther from the truth. What could I possibly do with a screen shot? Somehow I lost the content I had made for that entry. If it is possible, you can just send me the code or part of it and I will work with that. Just trying to improve it. Like I said, I will NOT repost the entry until I run it by you and am absolutely certain that it meets all the guidelines. That is all. Thank you.

CruxialM (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I fail to come up with an acceptable entry for this, I'll just go back to creating and editing pages for CSI: Miami, my favorite TV show, like I've been doing.

CruxialM (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What guidelines are those? Can you tell me which guidelines the article didn't meet? Meanwhile, yes, you may be happier sticking with topics like CSI: Miami. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you are trying by all means to not work with me. You should understand that I am a rookie user might be careless in my language which I feel is giving you the impression that I am attempting to do something totally our of line. Please don't look beyond the lines. It's all on the surface and is exactly meant to be harmless in it's naivety.

CruxialM (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries there! This is why I would like you to share with me your understanding of the notability guidelines for businesses and why your article did not meet them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is giving you that feeling, but hopefully you can understand that Wikipedia is a large place and it has some guidelines that must be followed if it is to remain a valuable resource. There's a link in the welcome message on your talk page that talks specifically about writing articles called article development. It will give you lots of great info to get started with. Also, you've been given links which discuss what is (and is not) notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please keep in mind that there are literally millions of users on this site, and a very small number of administrators (~ 1500). These administrators (such as Gwen) are charged with implementing consensus of the community. You do not need to ask a single editor to "approve" an article, as you don't own it, and neither does the editor. When Gwen (or any administrator) deletes an article, it is either by consensus of a discussion (which is saved for future reference), or it is so blatantly against policies that it is immediately deleted. I am not an administrator so I can't look at the article you created and therefore can't tell you specifically. However, an excellent way to get started is to create it in your own user space, such as User:CruxialM/QualityCoach.net and work with it there. You can then ask other editors for feedback. (It could still be deleted – keep in mind the user space under your username is not "yours" but still part of the overall encyclopedia.)

A hopefully helpful piece of advice I can offer is this: don't focus on one editor; rather, focus on the content of the article. If the topic is worthy of inclusion, editors will help you with it rather than asking for it to be deleted. However, if is NOT, they will ask for it to be deleted. Gwen is, as I mentioned, one of a number of editors. It happens that she was the one who deleted your article, but anyone else might have, and might do so in the future if appropriate. So, rather than focus on what a particular editor (or administrator) has done, it is better to focus on the encyclopedia and its content, which is really what it's all about anyway.  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank made the most sense. No disrespect to your efforts Gwen. Thank you.

CruxialM (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Yes I am. I read over your profile and I don't see why you deleted it? It was not advertisement and it didn't promote him at all. Jfinkel (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The pith of this is, you're already editing Maxwell's House. However, please read our conflict of interest policy. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Revewing this one after it was nominated for deletion I've speedy deleted it too as blatant advertising (with likely conflict of interest). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

File:AlbertHall.jpg

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed the CSD notice from the image, stating that it has a fair use rationale. I've checked the image description page, and although there are two boilerplate fair use tags, there's definitely no rationale provided. All fair use claims must be supported by a separate detailed rationale for each article in which they are used (as stated in both boilerplate tags on the page). I'll replace the CSD tag, but please could you let me know if there's anything I've missed here.

Thanks,

Papa November (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ta meant to delete it, think I went to a policy page and forgot about it :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my article

You deleted my article about Birstwith cricket club and i don't know how to show that this article is worthy of a place in wikipedia it is about a cricket club which many people would like to know about the club if they would like to play for the club. I play for the club so can I assure you that all the information is reliable and all truthful. I have just checked my account and found it deleted i followed the steps to contest but do not seem to be available to.

I like to use wikipedia but feel your treatment of this article has been very poor and i think I am considering using other sites as i am utterly appauled how no one has spoken to me just added a "tag".

I would like to see this article put straight back on the sight immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny1408 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a link at the top of this page that explains likely reason(s) the article was deleted. Contributions are definitely welcome, but if the article does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is usually deleted pretty quickly.  Frank  |  talk  15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you also might want to go straight to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

flying barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Well it wasn't during a DRV but the thought applies. You did a kick ass job with James Warner (aviator) today. I watched it when I was going through CSD because I saw it had merit but didn't have time to deal with it. Was hoping I would -- or would get the chance to reinstate it. You did wonderfully in the mean time! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ta TC! :D Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Common Ground (New York) and Common Ground Community

Hello,

You deleted my article on Common Ground (New York). All of the information in the article was taken from second and third party sources as shown with the extensive references at the end of the page. None of the information was written by an employee of Common Ground.

I contest the deletion of my page and would appreciate it if my three days of work would be returned to me to change. Thank you.

Commonground1 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, your user name being what it is, I worry you did indeed have a conflict of interest writing the article. Second, Common Ground (New York) had content which was more or less identical to Common Cround Community, which has been deleted as a blatant copyright violation. Please read this page for more general information about why these articles have been speedily deleted, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edward Weinstein

Dear Gwen,

I don't understand why this is considered blatant advertising. It is one sentence explaining who this person is. Under the list of Weinstein's, Edward R. Weinstein is listed but has no information on his particular page. All I did was give one sentence that is of the same format as the information on many other lawyers. For example, Raoul Felder has the following written on his page:

Raoul Lionel Felder (born in Brooklyn, New York, May 13, 1937) is an American lawyer and matrimonial attorney. Felder has published a number of articles related to matrimonial law; and is listed in New York Law Journal's 100 Most Powerful Lawyers in America.[1]

How is what I posted any worse than that? I put a minimal amount of information:

Edward R. Weinstein (Born on April 12th, 1969), is a New Jersey alwyer who specializes in Divorce, Family and Personal Injury Law. He has been on the news for providing commentary and analysis on matrimonial cases, such as the divorce of the first openly gay former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevey.

If you want me to cut that down even more, then tell me which parts. I keep asking for specific suggestions and I never get any. It's always just about deleting what I want to post. Doesn't that go against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia in its entirety? Please be specific with what you want me to change. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arybakov (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read hundreds of pages; nothing is working. Telling me to go read something hasn't helped. I don't know what to do. Please be specific.

It seems to me, if you've read hundreds of pages of policy, it's overwhelmingly likely you'd know why the article was deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No I honestly dont. It sounds just like what's already up on Raoul Felder's page. How is it any different? Why is that allowed up and this isn't? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arybakov (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WAX, although with all respect, if you've read hundreds of pages of Wikipedia policy and still don't know why the article was deleted, all I can suggest is that you very carefully read this page one more time for a refresher. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

James Warner (aviator)

Looks good. You did your usual fine research and writing. Are you turning into an aviation writer? Forsooth, you would be much appreciated (something like a male librarian, another endangered species). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Hey! Thanks. So, toss me an article to look at then :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MMO Report

Why was the article on the MMO Report deleted? The reason given was "recreation of blatant advertising" which doesn't make any sense. As far as I could tell, the aricle had never been made before. Additionally, while the article was in dire need of additional data (was working on it), it met Wikipedia's requirement for notabilty as it is a widely broadcast TV segment and podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razielsr (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MMO Report. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Razielsr (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)RazielSr

Ah. My mistake. SOrry Missed the marker saying, the messages belonged at the bottom. Oops. I did your page on advertisement and I understand that it shouldn't come off like advertising copy. It wasn't my intention, however I do think it's abit harsh to lock the page without giving people a chance to edit it.

Razielsr (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Razielsr

Hi, the page linked at the top of this one isn't about advertisements. It's about the speedy deletion criteria we use here at Wikipedia. Both the editor who tagged your article and I (the admin who deleted it) thought the article made no assertion of significance. I locked the page after you attempted to recreate it without any discussion. First, I would like to ask, are you affiliated in any way with MMO Report? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no affliation with the MMO Report, just an fan. When I saw the speedy deletion notice, I put up the hold tag and started a discussion on it's talk page. It received no replies before the article was deleted. I understand the lack of article significance, but that was a failing on my part. The MMO report while mainly a podcast is broadcast on G4Tv, which reaches millions of gamers. Which should make it fairly notable. I think it could at lest serve as a template for other authors who have more information or experience for it though. Razielsr (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Razielsr

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Razielsr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Do you understand Wikipedia's policy on notability? A topic has to be widely covered elsewhere, in independent reliable sources before it can have an article here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It has been reported on websites like Kotaku, in addition to having interviews with MMO industry developers such as Funcom Making it very well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razielsr (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Put a strong assertion of significance in the first paragraph (something like "MMO Report is a cable television show and podcast widely watched by gamers"). I've restored the article mostly because you asked about the deletion. I don't know if other editors will think it meets notability standards or not, but let's see how it goes. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gale :) I'll start working on it now. It will be a good article soon

Razielsr (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)RazielSr

Sollog

Haha! I was User:Wyss back in the day :) Didn't know you were still editing, cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, still here, but much less active. Good to see you're still around! A2Kafir (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Never leave a job half done!

I kid in the header, I really couldn't think of a title that was catchy and I'm big on titles. Anywho. I deleted Talk:Manuel&mariah, you deleted the parent article (and rightfully so). Make sure to do a quick check that you aren't leaving orphaned talk pages behind. No big deal, just a nice habit to get into. Keep up your good work, happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 05:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Looks like you got it! SQL^{Query me!} 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Airport

Hi Gwen Gale – as per Wikipedia: Requested moves, in reference to the moving of Kingsford Smith International Airport to Sydney Airport, it appears that you have deleted the Sydney Airport redirect but didn't execute the actual move. Is it something that is still in progress or am I missing something? Thanks Mvjs (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag only requested a speedy to make way for a move, nobody asked me to do the move. However, since you have now asked about it I have made the move, let me know if you need anything else :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, thanks a lot for that. Sorry, I should have mentioned this before, but Google Maps also seems to crash my Safari and not work on my Explorer. So when I tried that link you made I couldn't get to it. I don't know why. Neither Wikimaps nor Google Maps seem to like my computer. Most other pages are fine but I occasionally have problems with the odd other page now and again. I know you are super busy with deleting pages and answering everyone's questions about why you deleted their pages, but I was wondering if I could ask you to put the coordinates on the Stanley page, if it's not a hassle. I've never got past the Google Maps/Wikimaps part of the process so I hope there is not too much involved after that. But if you would be able to do that I would be really grateful. And maybe I can return the favour and help you out in some way? If there is any article that you're involved in that you need a hand with, for example, maybe I could help with that. Just let me know! Moisejp (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you get Firefox? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Firefox got me to the sites. I wrote the coordinates on the Stanley page but still neither the Vancouver landmarks template nor the coordinates show. I don't know what I am doing wrong. Well, I have asked User:Mkdw for help as he or she is part of WikiProject Vancouver. I feel bad asking you for any more help as I know how busy you are. Thank you again for your help thus far. Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen! I read somewhere that the coordinates are supposed to be added to the bottom of the edit page (even though on the page itself it shows up at the top), and on all the other pages I checked that have it at the bottom. That's why I didn't try the top of the page. But for whatever reason for the Stanley page it only seems to work at the top. OK, I'll leave it at the top, then. Thank you again. Do let me know if you ever need my help with anything. Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out!! It's because I hadn't "closed" the gallery with "</gallery>" that it didn't work. Moisejp (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Biado

in case you're not watching, I answered _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

and again ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

you've got messages :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block of IPUser 67.105.183.215

Thank you for blocking, but please consider a longer term. The history shows only vandalism, deletion, and now attack, devoid of constructive content.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've soft blocked the IP for a year and put up an IP sblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minchas Elozor images

Why did you delete File:01622200.JPG and File:Munkacs benes.jpg? Nobody even responded to my comments at PUI; there certainly wasn't any sort of consensus supporting their removal. Please restore the images, and if you think they should be removed give your reasons at PUI so we can discuss them. -- Zsero (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia's image policies are very clear and images with uncertain copyright status or other licensing worries can't be held indefinitely.

Both images were very likely too old to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, your single responses to each discussion didn't resolve this and no new information was added to the image pages. Copyright status of the images was always unclear and unverified. They were deleted after already having been restored once for further discussion, after several more weeks of waiting for acceptable copyright information. Since both had been restored before for further discussion and your participation throughout all those weeks was so light, I can't see any reason to restore them now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I gave very clear reasons why the images should be kept, and nobody responded to them; absent any support for deleting the images, I'd say my single responses did resolve this. If after two months nobody, including the original nominator, has come forward to defend the deletion, how is that grounds to delete them again? As I see it, a very weak challenge was made to the images, I gave a strong answer to that challenge, and that's where the matter remains.

If two months of silence means the discussion is dead, then that means the result of the discussion is "no deletion", and they should be restored without the challenge. If you think there's a point in further discussion, then restore them with the challenge and keep the discussion open. But either way there's no grounds for deletion just because someone once challenged them.

-- Zsero (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader tagged the both images with a copyright release: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide... I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions... Given the age of the photos there was a very strong likelihood the uploader was not the copyright holder and without subsequent verification or change of the claimed license, the images were deleted following Wikipedia image policy for improper licensing. Moreover, the uploader has a history of uploading possibly non-free images which have been subsequently deleted. Again, these images have already been restored once for further discussion. Unhappily, your comments did nothing to verify that the uploader was the copyright holder and hence had the right to release these images into the public domain, which is what the claimed license on the image pages stated up until their deletion. I'm truly sorry but I can't restore these images a second time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I addressed this in my original comments, which remain unanswered. The age of the photos does not disprove the uploader's claim to be the copyright holder. He could be the original photographer, now in his 90s, or he could be that photographer's heir. I see no reason to call someone a liar just because one user thinks a claim "unlikely".

But in any case, assuming that the uploader's claim was indeed false, I provided an alternative ground for keeping the images: they are either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, depending on where they were taken and which law applies. Nobody has answered this either.

As for not restoring them a second time, you shouldn't have deleted them a second time. A challenge was made, it was answered, and that answer has not been disputed, so the status of the discussion must be counted as "keep". -- Zsero (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has called anyone a liar. Rather, the copyright release claimed by the uploader was unsupported by the age of the photos, the uploader's own history and the lack of any other verification at all. Many non-free or released images on Wikipedia carry OTRS ticket numbers which point to further proof provided by uploaders claiming a release of copyright. Moreover, the notion these images could be PD is reasonable, but it is still speculation and either way, the license on the image pages was never changed. I can't restore these images a second time when the license claimed for them is so likely to be improper. However, you can appeal the deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you say that the uploader was not the copyright holder, as he claimed to be, then you are calling him a liar. The age of the photos is no reason at all to doubt his status, because not only could he be an old man who took them himself, he could also be the photographer's heir. There's no more reason to doubt a release on an 70-year-old photo than on a 20-year-old one.

But in any case, you have not addressed my alternative grounds. Even if for some reason you don't want to accept the uploader's word, how are the images not either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine? I don't know which of these they are, but they're bound to be one or the other. That is not speculation, it seems to me to be incontrovertible fact. That should be enough to keep them. As for my not having changed the licenses, I was waiting for someone to refute the first point, that without a good reason to doubt the uploader's story we should not be overriding it. Mere age is not such a reason. But if you think it is, then restore the photos and I'll change the license. -- Zsero (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have suggested that but it won't help because the copyright status of these images is unknown. Lastly, please stop trying to argue I'm calling anyone a liar. The uploader was notified of the problem in March, invited to participate in the discussion but never responded. This happens all the time. It doesn't mean the uploader is a liar. It means the uploader never followed up with proof of copyright after having been notified of the deletion discussion. Any further inference you may draw from that is your own. I know how daunting, even nettlesome it can be to have this happen but Wikipedia's image policy is very tight. Perhaps you can research the images more, or contact the uploader for the information we need. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That the uploader didn't respond probably just means he's not checking WP, and since he didn't supply an email address there's no other way to contact him. It doesn't indicate anything substantive. Not to get macabre, but if he really is the original photographer then there's a substantial likelihood that he may have suddenly lost access to the Web. But either his claim is true or it isn't, and doubting his claim means doubting his word; the only reason given for doubting his claim is the photos' age, which as I've explained and you have not responded to, is not a reason at all.

But leaving that aside, under what theory are the images not valid? If the uploader's license is not valid, then how are they not either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if the uploader's claim is valid and hence it's possible someone else (like, as you said, an heir) could be the true copyright holder. Or they could be PD. As it is, the copyright status is unknown and Wikipedia doesn't carry images with unknown copyright status. If you still want carry on the same argument, that's ok, deletion review is >>> this way >>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't given a plausible theory under which it is neither the uploader's nor PD. Are you seriously saying that even if we know the images are valid, we can't have them on WP unless we know for certain the exact reason why they're valid? Let's leave the uploader out of this; are you saying that if we don't know whether it's Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, we can't put either one, and therefore we can't have the image at all? That's insane. Just put both tags, and say it's one or the other. If we're still giving the uploader at least some credence, then put his license in as well, however unlikely you may feel it to be. But under exactly what theory must it be deleted? -- Zsero (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No theories involved. Without verification, there could be a true copyright holder lurking about somewhere so putting up both tags would be nothing but an unhelpful muddle. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the photographer is unknown (and the only one claiming to know his identitly is the uploader), then the photo is either PD-Ukraine or Anonymous-EU. One can never prove a negative, that there isn't someone in the world who knows it, but if we don't know it then one of those two tags works. Otherwise, when exactly do they work? -- Zsero (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review is >>> this way >>> Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Consider this a DRVNote. -- Zsero (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedflow Communications Limited

Dear Gwen,

I represent company Speedflow Communications, I have posted the topic in the area for commercial Voice Over IP providers and found out that it was deleted by you and the reason of deleting topic was advertising.

In that case I want to claim that all these posts are used for advertisement purposes! List of commercial voice over IP network providers What was wrong there.

Please clarify. Your prompt response is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armi Speedflow (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your username, you also might want to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex Franklyn

yeah, I am. I am alex franklyn, ruler of the universe. I am a member of the COOLKATS. We provide shelter for incoming UFO aliens and prostitutes in Mexico. Love me or hate me, this is who I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyandalexarecool (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article Red Scare Industries deleted?

As far as I could tell it met the criteria. What happend?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the assertion of significance is not at all clear. I'm willing to restore this but first, can you please tell me how this edit in the article space was helpful and if you're in any way affiliated with this label? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Twinkle abuse?

Avruch and myself have made comments relating to the block you made. Might want to take a look. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it, I'll answer there in a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rebecca W. Keller

Just to start off, I TOTALLY understand why you deleted the article at Rebecca W. Keller, and I'm not really arguing with that decision. At the same time as you were doing it, I was leaving a note on the talk page -- I'd be interested in your opinion, and mine boils down to "I suggest reconstituting the article and immediately submitting it to AfD to get more opinion". I think you were right, but I also think there's a reasonable argument on the other side (how's that for straddling both sides of the fence? <grin>). I'll look forward to your comments. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If after reading this you still want me to restore, I will :) This is blatant COI self-promotion by a worthy author of non-notable self-published textbooks with no shred of an assertion that they've been meaningfully noted anywhere. Ok, now you :D Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think what I'm going to do is suggest to the author that I place the material into a sandbox page and she works on it there, to see if there is an assertion that they've been meaningfully noted anywhere, as you say, and that she can back it up with WP:RS. I was waiting to see which way your opinion swung and you seem to be pretty solidly against, so I'm good with that. I hope you agree with my wishy-washy proceeding. I get so darn mad at "intelligent design" that I have to always bend over backwards to make sure I don't unfairly delete something; consider this me doing the limbo <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ew, intelligent design? I'm all for home schooling and while I don't overly worry about kids who have to sit through this kind of codswallop, am not thrilled by it. Anyway wishy washy's ok when it comes to speedies :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Well, my own tendency is delete, delete, delete, but every once in a while I get all gooey and fairy-godmothery and try to work with something that has a shred of potential. Makes a change from "Brittany ROX!" and "Jason SUX!" and "My garage band is too notable!!" Accounting4Taste:talk 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the garage bands which list a tonne of blue linked influences and nothing else :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted CSDMS wikipedia page

Hi Gwen, You just deleted a wikipedia page I created (CSDMS). I read your page and noticed that it's not allowed to past content from other pages (which I understand) but I want also to point out that I'm the owner of that other page (csdms.colorado.edu). So it's not a copy right violation in this case. Could you put it back in place or give me the possibility to edit the wikipedia page such that there is no copy right violation anymore?

Thanks in advance, --Kettner2 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:COI isn't a policy – it's a behavioral guideline. But Gwen is right, per that guideline, "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." Tan | 39 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have, and it speaks for itself, thanks. However, I'm not promoting the institute I'm working for to gain money or anything (we are funded through the national science foundation). I just want the world to know where CSDMS stands for by putting up a similar wikipedia page as done by similar institutes like for example NCAR. Is that possible? --Kettner2 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only because you brought it up, government funding can take lots of promotion too. If you're affiliated with them I would respectfully suggest you wait until your organization becomes notable enough that independent sources note who you are and someone else is stirred up enough about it to write an article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an advertising site and as for why other articles here have no sway on this one please see WP:WAX. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, too bad for me if that's the wikipedia policy. Thanks though, cheers, --Kettner2 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Camp Wabanaki

Gwen, I am trying to create a wiki page for Camp Wabanaki to start to compile the history. I was a camper and later a staff member of this camp from 1965 to 1983.

I've just started to create it and build the history, and was not attempting to advertise.

Please restore the content I began.

Most appreciated.

James Robertson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmr007 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Lipstein' s Entry

Please be advised that you have deleted the entry in the English version in Wikipedia of my late doctorate father, Professor Dr. Kurt Lipstein ( 1909–2006). I am theco-editor of this collected essys ( to be published) and also the co-editor with the late Prof. Clive Parry of his Festschrift,Multum, non Multa, published in 1980. There is a lengthy article about him on the German version of Wikipedia and I have just used his biography and bibliography from the website of the Squire Law Library with eheir permission( www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent_scholars/kurt_lipstein.php ); you may contact Lesley Dingle ([snip personal email addy])and ask her. Why there should be a difference between the German version and the English version is beyond me. Please provide me with a response ([snip personal email addy]). (Dr. Peter Feuerstein (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

The long copy pasted text at Kurt Lipstein, QC was a CV/memorial which made no assertions of significance. It was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor and deleted by me. There were many worries with this article. I respectfully suggest you read this to learn more about why your father's article was deleted. Please also have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

photo

Dear Gwen , I hope that I am in the right place , it seems that my photograph was deleted from the Bobby WHitlock page, I am the photographer of that photo, also happen to be Bobby's wife and I also do alot of writing , for correction purposes. I tried to do all the things required to get the photo up in the first ( all the instructions are very difficult ) . So where do I go from here ? Can you put my photo up again ? Thank you kindly , CoCo Carmel Whitlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onedominette (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the image is File:BW small by CoCo Carmel.jpg. The licensing information was questioned (a note about this was put on your talk page on 18 May), because there was no way to know the copyright owner of the photo was the uploader (you!). Hence, Wikipedia needs some kind of proof from you, that you took the picture and that you're releasing it with a free license. This is not hard to do and is handled by a group of editors called OTRS. You can contact them at: Wikipedia:OTRS#Contacting OTRS. After they've confirmed the licensing information with you, the picture can be restored. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Crisis Project deletion

Dear Gwen -

I hope you don't mind my contacting you. Just to get your thoughts on the deletion of the Crisis Project article. I'm new here, and am bound to make mistakes (does everyone say that?), so no offence taken whatsoever. I hadn't intended the article as advertising, however, and I'm not affiliated with Crisis Project. I've read through your information post about deletions (linked from the top of this talk page) and see that for cases similar to mine, you advise people to tone the language down – is that the case here? I had attempted to be neutral, but perhaps I missed the mark. For two clarifications, the rough model that I was following was The Jamestown Foundation, in that it is an article about a think tank but not necessarily promoting it. Also, I see that notability is a criteria, so I had intended to add text about Crisis Project's notable members, like Anatol Lieven, Rahimullah Yusufzai, Rustam Shah Mohmand and so on.

Thanks – I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Julian Kkwi9581 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, to get by speedy deletion, an article must make some assertion of significance. After this, the article will likely need to carry citations which show the topic has received wide and independent coverage by independent, reliable sources. Please also have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi could you help please

i was wondering how you submit an article for the in the news section because this US and UK diplomats detained in Zimbabwe topical news is not , thanks (ARBAY (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi, have a look at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sentinel (MHS)

Did you even read my talk page for it? It has received attention and criticism in Australian media, and citations were on the way. Please return the page as it originally was.

High school newspapers will rarely if ever meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which call for meaningul independent coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to note your citations here I'll be happy to look at them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot has deleted the MHS page, and removed pretty much all references to The Sentinel. All I can remember is that it was referenced in an Australian magazine (Dolly I believe). Well done admins for blindly deleting articles, without stopping to think beforehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the idiot. As I said above, if you would like to note your citations here I'll be happy to look at them. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your are not the idiot. The citations existed on Wikipedia a while ago, but somebody has removed them. I can no longer find them. I give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know how that can happen. My cat ate my homework once upon a time :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

right, so after i make it clear i'm not upset with you, and i concede the page won't have the proper citations, you throw some sarcasm in my face? nice, wikipedia will go far with administration like this

The citations existed on Wikipedia a while ago? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, i've already said this. sentinel (MHS) had it's own page, with 'proper' citations, and apparently the page and all references to it, including those citations, have been deleted.

As an admin I'm able to see the contents of the deleted article. It contained no citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"as an admin" you have almost no basic reading and comprehension skills. there once existed a 'The Sentinel (MHS)' article, with proper citations. it has been deleted. i tried to make a new page, and find those citations – i could not. please die in a car crash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After your block has run out, if you can find those citations I'll be happy to look at them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jjonjonjon

you're nicer than i am. --barneca (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the interface didn't update your block in time, so when I unblocked to reset, I was undoing yours. I think what you intended is likely more fitting (I thought of it myself) so I'll change it to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assumed something like that. Although my inner warrior was secretly hoping to get involved in my first WHEEL WAR!  :) --barneca (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! Sounds fun! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Gwen, I'm disappointed you deleted the Ocean Volumes II page. I visited the exhibition / installation and was thoroughly enlightened. I have no vested pr interest as you state – I'm just passionate about great work. Stockhasen was one of the most innovative musical pioneers and this event pays homage in a beautiful way. Both Roberts and Toop are fine artists!! It should be documented here, in my opinion. Anyway, no worries.

Take care, (Arm of Keith (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions about deletion of Knexus article

Hi. I got a quick deletion tag this afternoon on a new article. The tag information said that I could add a hangon tag after the quick delete tag which was supposed to give me the opportunity discuss the matter and see what could be done. I added that and then began writing a comment in the article's talk page. But before I could finish my talk-page comment the article was already deleted, so I wasn't even able to talk. So now how do I dispute or modify or whatever has to be done to try to resolve the issue? DrPaul0401 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An article may still be deleted even if the hangon tag has been placed. Did you read this? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read this. That is why I'm puzzled. I styled my article after two other 3D file manager articles: File System Visualizer and BumpTop. To be honest, these other articles seem more like advertising than mine did. At least my article included some self-criticism. What is it that is uniquely objectionable about my article compared to these? I would be happy to fix it.

The focus of my article was simply to describe a unique file management system. By unique, I don't mean that it is just another set of bells and whistles on an old theme. It is an entirely different approach to file management and there is no way to describe it except to describe it. That's what I'm trying to do. For your convenience, I put a copy of my article here. Please give me some advice. Thanks DrPaul0401 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The speedy deletion of your article had nothing to do with its presentation or formating, but with the lack of any assertion of significance in the text. As for comparing this to any other Wikipedia article, please see WP:WAX. Since you've read my CSD page, you know now that Wikipedia article topics must not only assert significance, but support their notability with sources showing wide, independent coverage. Also, are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Lauri Tähkä article

Hi Gwen Gale

Lauri Tähkä is a major recording artist in Finland. This is explained in the article. I am amazed that you should think that this does not make him notable! JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF HIM AND IS LESS WELL KNOWN OUTSIDE OF FINLAND DOES NOT MAKE HIM NOT NOTABLE!

Try looking at the video of him with his band's recent hit "Pauhaava sydän" (thumping heart) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KFZ2iLHkI. (The video there has had over 600,000 viewings, which is quite amazing given that there are only 5 million Finns!) The number is terrific, has quite clever lyrics, and is playing all the time on Finnish radio stations. Artists of long standing in Finland think that Tähkä is a an artist that will have a long career in the music business.

I object also to the fact that I got a message warning of a delete and telling me that I can hold the delete.... but when I looked the delete had already happened!!! I have not even had time yet to put a link to the English page in the Finnish language WP!

Please undo the delete asap.--Tom (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the previous entry to this page! It seems you have been over eager with other articles too today.--Tom (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted dozens of CSDs a little while ago and some editors always show up to ask why their article was deleted. First, please let me ask, have you read this? Moreover (and this is very important), the article did not assert that he is a major recording artist in Finland. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gale. Yes I have read that. Yes the article does not contain a great deal of information because I merely translated it from the Finnish Wikipedia (where no one would dare claim that this artist is not notable). That's why it does not say that he is a notable artist, but believe me, he is. We can add that when we get the article back. I also want to add a link to the English article in the Finnish WP and invite editors there to update it. The Finns will soon make the article better and can give more information than I personally can do. I am sure we can get the article to a better state. But this was just a kick-off. Please please re-instate the article. This was not a speedy deletion it was almost instantaneous. I want to get the band's article put into the English WP too. Anyone hearing about this band can only get information from WP if they can read Finnish... I don't think WP has a policy of linguistic/cultural apartheid. You've got to admit that a 600 000 viwing hit on youtube for a band located in a country of 5 million people is insignificant. --Tom (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was speedily deleted because it carried no meaningful assertion of significance. I've restored the article for you but please put an assertion of significance into the first paragraph straight off so it doesn't get tagged again. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reinstate. I have appealed for help to improve the article from Finnish editors. I think we can soon establish better credentials--Tom (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Happy to help. Try to get some reliable sources about him into the article quick as you can ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Harland Stonecipher.jpg

Can you get the text from the image's description page for me? Just post the text in User:Dansiman/Sandbox. I'll add a FUR to it and then run it by you before I re-upload. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Yes, run it by me before uploading if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At least there's a rationale but it will most likely be spotted as an invalid rationale, disputed and deleted again. Almost any non-free image of a living person is taken by Wikipedia policy as being replaceable with a free one. See this example of a free image of a CEO. It would be easier to ask the company for a cc licensed or PD image (or to release this one as such), verified through WP:OTRS. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synth rock

Hello! I notice you closed the AfD as redirect; however, the article appears to have been deleted and not redirected. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had placed the redirect but User:MZMcBride deleted it a couple of days later. Please ask him why? I'm willing to restore the redirect but I'd like to know why it was rm'd. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

JigGsaw

Gwen Gale – please let me continue to work on the JigGsaw page. I was discussing the notability with the admin Xenocidic. I was in the middle of documenting notability when the page was deleted.

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale! I'll continue to work with Xenocidic on this. Have a great day! --Drumbug1 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mr Montenegro"

This is article about movie called "Montenegro" or "Mr Montenegro" by Dusan Makavejev. This is comedy and it is made in 1981. This is a valid article, please reinstate this page.

Uskokboan (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, this already exists as Montenegro (film). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Duck Duck Goose (band)

Hi, I removed the prod from Duck Duck Goose (band) because touring with notable bands should be a notability criterion. It does need sourcing, though. Corvus cornix_talk 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! However, it's not a notable criterion (although I did decline the speedy delete request). Anyone can rm a prod tag as they see fit. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Villianc.svg

Gwen, I'm sorry to tell you this, but Howcheng is correct, including his point about the image not being on Wikipedia. The only thing here are some templates. Please read the Commons deletion debate that Howcheng linked, it will provide some illumination. Use of a stereotyped concept does not give an artist creative control over all such uses of a concept. Kelly ^hi! 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I once had a similar debate over an image I uploaded at Commons. It's an easy misunderstanding, I've learned. Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no need to be sorry, I'm happy with the rationale, learned something too ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:villainc

It's fine, I wasn't sure about that either. In any case, I know little about identifying a possible copyright violation involving that sort of thing, and I think it is a Good Thing™ that you were willing to pursue that. In light of your Good Efforts™ to build a Good Encyclopedia^{which is NOT}™, here is a Wikicookie to munch on. If you want, I can get you some milk out of my fridge to go with it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy^gabs_adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Deletion review for Ljubisa Bojic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ljubisa Bojic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk – Contribs) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:BYF079

The ban started on 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) and it was supposed to last 24H meaning until 14:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) shouldn't be over by now? And by the way, what other wa can I use to remove additions or to recover deleted text without using the Twinkle's.
BYF079: "Faïcel Ben Yedder" (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Use the history tab! Happy editing, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider MascotGuy article

FYI. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I never trusted it. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

I greatly appreciate your stepping in on this MascotGuy issue. This has been going on for nearly four years and I've reported it to the highers-up. Still waiting for an answer. In any event, my sincerest thanks for your help. Enjoy your weekend. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Schools

Hello, as you may or may not have noticed, i regularly put articles up for deletion (if i deem them in line with deletion criteria). I have a question, though, what to do with articles about schools that consist of not much more than merely letting us know such a school exists? If i read wp:school correctly, they can't be speedied, but what to do with them then? Afd? Since you delete quite a number of articles, i thought i'd ask you. Thanks in advance, Shoombooly (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Merge them into their school district/zone/council/town articles. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a better idea than deleting. What about individual songs? And I don't mean best sellers, just album songs, people tend to make a page for every other song, and they can't really be speedied. Sometimes there's articles for songs while the performing artist doesn't even have an article, so I can't merge either... I hope you don't mind me asking unrelated questions... Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no need to lose the information. As for songs, most shouldn't have an article. The notability and fame should be more or less overwhelming to make an article worthwhile. If there have been some charted cover versions, this is a hint :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But does that mean non notable songs can be nominated for speedy deletion? Shoombooly (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're so unknown and not-in-any-way-notable that the article is clearly G11 spam, yes. Otherwise, sorry to say, nettlesome as it is, they must be either proded, AfD'd or merged. Prod can be a fit way of getting rid of them because someone has to rm the tag within 5 days. A merge tag is ok, but spending 5 minutes on filing an AfD would also be helpful because few songs are likely to get through one. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If AFD was not such a pain in the ass, i would use that more often, but it probably takes me longer to AFD those song articles than it took the author writing it. In fact, i started out on Orphanage to build the web, but at the moment it takes more time to get rid of all the newly added mess, than i have to improve the articles. Oh well, someone has to do it, right? As long as you (or someone else) push the red button on them, anyway ;) Shoombooly (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, starting an AfD only takes a bit of copy-pasting transclusions here and there, it seems heavy at first but when one gets the hang of it, 3-5 minutes is all it takes. Meanwhile try proddin those songs {{subst:prod|notability}} ;) Most of them'll slip straight through to the dustbin. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

3 to 5 minutes is a long time with 30,000 articles left to de-orphan :-P I'll be a good boy and do as you advised, prodding them with my proddly prodder. Since you are an admin, i assume you have heaps of spare time left (since no-one bothers admins with questions) to help de-orphan some pages, i'd say doing 12,000 would be a good start.

Seriously though, thanks for the patient replies! Shoombooly (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So, um, what's an AoS? Shoombooly (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Faster than keyin assertion of significance :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, but you prodded those 2 articles anyway, right? Why? Shoombooly (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the speedy cats are tight, so if it's not written like an ad and looks like there's any reasonable, coherent assertion of significance, it's not a speedy, so if it still looks nn I may prod it hoping nobody takes the tag off for 5 days. Meanwhile (so you know), I sometimes speedy articles I had fun reading, sometimes prod stuff I hate but can't speedy and here's the pith, now and then decline a speedy on something I know will one day be a helpful article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, but if you want them deleted anyway, why not just ignore the speedy guidelines, if they hamper your ability to delete what, according to you, should be deleted? (p.s. is a hypothetical question)Shoombooly (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuz I don't make this stuff up as I go along, the community makes this stuff up as it goes along :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note If I leave an edit summary saying speedy declined, AoS > prod it means, I can't speedy this, there is an assertion of significance in the text as written, but I still think this should be gone so I'm sending it to prod in the hope nobody will remove the tag for five days and yet another admin will delete it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You know i was teasing with that question, right? Good answer though! As for the note, it's helpful to know "speedy declined" doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be deleted. As a matter of fact this entire discourse has been pleasantly helpful. Shoombooly (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey you're gettin it now :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, and it took me only half a day of your time! Shoombooly (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons

Beth Fitzsimmons was appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the head of an independent agency of the Federal Government. As such she is a public official. This agency functions through its Commissioners. They are (or were) the agency, supported by a small professional staff. What more is required to make her a eligible for an entry in Wikipedia? I would be happy to add more if I knew what should be added.

I am the former deputy director of the Commission (1998–2003).

Thank you.

JudithRussell (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Judy Russell

Hi and thanks for asking about this. A few things happened here. Mostly though, the article was deleted because two editors (me being one of them) couldn't find a meaningful assertion of significance in the text as written. If I may ask, have you read this generic but short thing I wrote about why I delete articles which have been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor? Please look it over, either way and let me know if you want to talk about this further. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

TAGES

Hello,

I am the original author of the TAGES copy protection article. 95% of the content of this article was provided by me and was unedited throughout the article's lifespan – before you elected to remove it. I was surprised to see you deleting my article under the accusation of "blatant advertisement", which is, saying the least, completey ungrounded.

I am in no way associated with the vendor of the said software, and in no way receive any benefits from the given article. I merely reviewed a product in the most objective way I could. While it is understandable to me that today's trend is to mock copy protection / DRM systems vendors, and that any article not containing mockery or verbal abuse of copy control measures might seem "biased" (especially given the anarchistic ("free") views of this web site), you should learn to accept other views as well.

Did you even bother to read the entire article? It DID mention some negative facts about this copy control system! had you bothered to read the entire article, you'd have noticed it.

It is really a shame that such is the treatment given to articles of not so "popular" views. Your actions convinced me that I should never ever contribute to wikipedia again, a place where authors are not respected for their work. I worked hard on this article, and it is your sole loss that you chose to erase it.

Live a long and happy life with your GFDL.

Sincerely, The author of the TAGES article.

Hi Gwen. I took a look. The article may be advertising, but if so (and I'm not at all sure) then it's not blatant advertising. I restored it; feel free to take it to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I was creating an AfD at the same time when I saw you'd restored it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi author of the article. I'm sorry that you feel bitter. I took a look at the article and judged that a promotional tone, if present, wasn't blatant. I therefore restored the article. It's problematic and there may be a different appeal to have it deleted. If that happens, try not to impute ideological motives to people, just as I don't impute any to you. You may wish to work on the article a little. -- Hoary (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Author, I like the article a lot but this doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. To see what other experienced editors think about this, I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAGES. I'm truly sorry this can be so daunting at times. As for GFDL, I'm no big fan but Wikipedia gets by with it (barely sometimes). Me, I like both Creative Commons and the FreeBSD license, whenever, wherever but I. can. be. a. wonk. sometimes. Best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Get 2 Know Us

The result of the AFD is fine, but I do not understand why the 'blatant' Single Purpose Account Sockpuppet AFD nominator that was constantly condescending towards others is allowed to do this without consequence. Does this teach me that if I want something removed but want to hide behind a curtain to avoid all the 'drama', I can just sign up for a new account, use templates and advanced wiki terminology that no brand new user would know about, and be condescending to anyone that dares question my purpose?

I guess that could help an RFA down the road, wouldn't it. SashaNein (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Naw, the article was G11 however one peers at it ;) As for RfAs, most editors taking part in those discussions ask that all previous accounts be disclosed. Cheers :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ABC 27 News Anchors/Reorters Page

Dear Gwen, We aren't quite sure how this works. My son is updating the abc27 page.I am with abc27 and the information he was trying to load was deleted. Can you help us?

Thanks Gregg Mace Sports Director WHTM-TV Harrisburg Pa

Hi! Please have a look at Wikipedia conflict of interest guidleines. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with inclusion standards, the article has been speedily deleted and protected against recreation as blatant advertising. Please feel free, though, to help out with the editing of other articles! All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dominic Hoey from List of performance poets

Why have you deleted this? I was in the process of putting this up and hadn't even finished cross referencing it yet and you have deleted it claiming it wasn't notable, I find this practice frustrating as i am trying to update this list. Am i doing something wrong with my referencing? Surely you should be letting me finish referencing before you delete. Dominic Huey is an important performance poet in New Zealand who has been published in Landfall NZ ISBN 978 1 877372 93 3, has won many national and prominent poetry slams and has toured Europe, so why are you contesting this as not notable? I do not understand. --Literartist (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no apparent assertion of significance in the text as written. Try again, but be ready to back it up with independent sources. Also read this. Ask me more questions if need be and all the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ningen

The AFD cited in the deletion log is a current one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ningen, could the article be restored until there is a result (or is there a another AFD you intended to link to?) --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a tagging mixup. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the first student-run magazine of its kind?

Journal of Young Investigators

When a journal likes this warrants its own wikipedia website, I believe the precedent has been set particularly given that we have a circulation of 30 000 whereas that organization has only 500 visitors a month.

The Journal of Life Sciences

Our professional competitor also has a wikipedia link. I don't see how it's advertising. It's a new information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BioSynergy (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined speedys

Why were these two speedys declined? The articles were redirected per here. Fleetflame 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done (tags didn't mention the redirect), thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Fleetflame 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cashbox Top 100 singles of 1981

eo mentionned at Talk:List of number-one hits (United States) then the Cash Box charts was very notable until the 1980s. And as for the copyright, I'm a bit confused since lots of peoples post the Billboard charts. --Sd-100 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems they're ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much for fixing the Cashbox Top 100 singles Gwen. --Sd-100 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Kfar Hananya

I was going to translate Kfar Hananya. Please restore to my userspace at User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Kfar Hananya or to mainspace (I don't really care) and leave me a note to confirm that you did this. Thanks in advance. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Huang

Charles Huang [redacted] This is important information that should be provided [redacted] The article was balanced, sourced and important and thus should not fall under section A7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj203 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a local news story about an arrest which is very thinly sourced and does not yet meet WP:N. It has been deleted for now, following WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with above. You deleted just ahead of me. Dlohcierekim 03:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As you hinted, BLP nightmare. I've also protected the page against recreation. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue with this case is [snip] Thus I am not providing any bias or manipulation in reporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj203 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulf Sandström (ice hockey)

Hi.

It would help if you responded on the talkpage of Ulf Sandström (ice hockey) to my contest of speedy deletion, instead of just adding another deletion template. A response there would indicate to me that my contest has been at least noticed. So: did you notice it? Or will I have to contest this deletion proposal too?

Regards, LarRan (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You may not have understood that I had declined the request for speedy deletion. Instead, I added a proposed deletion tag, which anyone (including you) can remove in good faith (and with a helpful edit summary as to why) over the next few days. The only worry would be that since his team won the medal together, his notability is borderline but consensus will out. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't get that. I retract the above question, and say "thanks" instead. :-) LarRan (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Yes, I did. I am cleaning up unused pages so that there is both less clutter for prefindex people and on the basis that there is no point having stuff I will never use around.  Asenine  07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramsetcube

I Gwen,

I'm a new user. I'm trying to complete articles of Pentaho platform.

What's was wrong in Jrubik and Ramsetcube.

Thank you very much. Sergio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I read your page but can you explain me what is the exact reason ?

I'm a professor and I work in BI, I think the content was correct. Was the external link inappropriate ?

Thank you and have a nice job .. Sergio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a volunteer, like you. Please read User:Gwen Gale/CSD#Non-encyclopedic pages and User:Gwen Gale/CSD#Advertisements or spam again, thanks. If you still have questions, let me know. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an article about Jrubick and it was deleted then I tried to write another article about Ramsetcube and in was delete too.

How can this be considered spam ?

This two articles will not appear. I hope users will be happy.

Bye.

Ah ah ... Jrubick and Ramsetcube are spam and Pentaho it isn't... Ridicolous. This seems like to protect some business, the great business.

Truth be told Sergio, if you're talking like this all it means is, you still haven't read the link at the top of this page. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please, don't double space your posts and sign with four tildes (~~~~), thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sadness to see that lobbies are everywhere. I abandon wiki. Have a nice climate. Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true, almost every building on my street has a lobby. Such lonely spots, those :( Gwen Gale (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The important is to be happy lo live and to work for them. All the best

I'll explain this to my students asking what they think about it.

• No possibility to change the content of the page
• Consider spam writing articles for two different software house

Wait on power good world service.. But where is ethics and human being ?? I think this is a human failure.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of your students could drop by this page, read this link which tells all about why your article was speedy deleted and then maybe (if it can be done) do what's needed to bring the article up to Wikipedia's notability standards? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwen,

The meaning of notability is about the state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice and not famous. Ramsetcube introduces new conceptions in OLAP techniques and its features and benefits was treated in the GRTS open source summit of april, speaking about the new market trend.

What about an administrator with skill in BI ??

I conclusively leave this section Feel as an Oracle doesn't mean to know sacred sciences... Best regards Sergio Bertelè

Sergio, I want to help you, but I cannot if you don't read up on how we do things here. Meanwhile I have sent this on to another process we have here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramsetcube, so that other editors (and you) may give their input. Please make any further comments you may have on that page. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok... This is appreciable. Thank you very much for your help Sergio ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Netjak

Gwen, you recently deleted an article entitled Netjak per criterion G4 (I'm linking more for my sake than yours), which states, "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." I may be horribly mistaken, but judging from the discussion found here, it can be reasoned that the article was unsourced and it was deleted without much discussion. I believe that the article I had re-created fully addressed (as much as I might hope to for now) the major problem, which was a lack of sources, and was wholly different from the article that you deleted half a week ago.

I used WP:WEB as a guide when re-creating it, as WP:WEB was the main objection at the AfD. I noted their interview with Jack Thompson, and cited sources at Kotaku and Joystiq, two sources that per WP:VG/S are considered only reliable if the authors themselves are cited as reliable so long as the author is proven noteworthy -- I did so with at least one or two of the sources. For example, this source is written by Brian Crecente, who is specifically cited as the example of reliability in the page provided. The article linked above deals with a response to an article of his by NetJak, and as such, shows notability.

I ask that NetJak be re-created. I'm sorry for taking so much time to get to you about this, but my cable (and my internet) has been out for the past few days. I am more than happy to abide by any decision you make, and will not re-create the article unless you tell me that I can do so. Cheers. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! If you have found only one or two reliable sources these would tend to support not the site's notability, but the outcome of the AfD. WP:Notability (web) says, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Alexa rankings are almost wholly meaningless but even so, the Alexa ranking of Netjak (>200,000) won't bode anything for notability. I do see Netjak seems to have tens of thousands of ghits. I glark most of these are only listings, passing remarks and skewed hits but if you can glean from them evidence that Netjak has wide coverage in reliable sources, let me know. All this said, I think you did a wonderful and worthy rewrite. Once an article has been both AfD'd and G4'd, it's much harder to bring back. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked everywhere, any notable news site I could think of, any gaming site, but I couldn't find anything anywhere close to the criteria you mentioned save those two sources previously mentioned. Honestly, I thought the article was terribly written, with simply sources thrown into the first paragraph to hope that an administrator wouldn't delete it right away. Before I could do anything about it though, my internet went down -- luck of the draw, I suppose. Anyways, besides those two sources, I've found nothing reliable based on the criteria you provided. Thanks for responding, though.

On a side note, would you mind deleting File:Netjak.gif? It was orphaned along with the deletion of the page. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked for something too, before I answered above :( Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame, really. If I find enough notable sources, I'll come back to about it but for now, take care. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Korax1214

Hello Gwen. I was wondering if you could look into the recent contributions of a user by the name of User:Korax1214, who was seemingly a retired, inactive user, but just came alive tonight and started moving pages related to Black communities around the world in a way similar to what User:CanuckAnthropologist was doing, and part of the reason why you blocked him. While Korax' moves seem less grievous, many of the terms he's using seem unsupported, so I think investigating the matter further may be in order. Sorry to bother you, but I thought you'd like to know. Please let me know if I can be of assistance.--Ramdrake (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've declined his unblock request, they're so likely one and the same editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article Red Scare Industries deleted?

As far as I could tell it met the criteria. What happend?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the assertion of significance is not at all clear. I'm willing to restore this but first, can you please tell me how this edit in the article space was helpful and if you're in any way affiliated with this label? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That link links nowhere, and I am in no way affiliated with the label. If you look at the articles I've created you'll see I've done editing for a number of articles on independent punk labels.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the link can only be seen by sysops, you were ventin' a bit about the deletion (in the article space), is all :) An editor tagged the article WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of significance) and I agreed and deleted it. I'll restore this in a few minutes but I am sending it to WP:AFD so other editors can say what they think about it: A small indy label distributed by another indy label may not meet the notability standard. The bit about the label being run from a two-bedroom apartment did not help but I know, it's all an indy punk thing, cool, cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Lewis

May I ask why you have decided to delete Pierre Lewis content? The content writen is factual. you may contact his label or management direct to verify this information. May you please explain why you have deleted an article I put my time and effort into, I'm upset and not happy about this.

Adam

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read the suggested page, I do not warrant it to have any matter with the content submitted. I ask that you re-implement the content I took the time to create. I understand there are rules but to my mind it is simply disrespectful to dismiss and delete genuine content that does not conflict with these regulations. If this action is not corrected I will have authorities above your position see to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdereno (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

yes. and Its simply not the case. I am a friend / fan of Pierre's. Should you have a momment, please search Pierre Lewis on any major search engine and i'm sure you will see how the information warrents itself. I appriciate your time and respect your authority but ask you kindly to look into it. I did try to add refrences but I couldnt work out how to and the page was so quickley deleted. Thanks for your time, I hope we can sort this out, it would eb great to get a page up for Pierre.

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdereno (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability policy for music articles. Best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Kids Training Week – Would this be acceptable

"Kids' Training Week" (KTW) started in 2007 on the Ffestiniog Railway to take the place of "Kids' Week"(KW)
KW was set up as Voluntry week aimed at children who would previoucly not be able too volunteer on the railway. This is still the aim today although they would not be able to run unless it was educational The majorities of work were carried out at Boston Lodge Works although small groups also completed work at other sites, whilst each morning a selected group of workers could be spotted at Harbour Station, Porthmadoc, helping with carriage cleaning among other jobs.

In 2007 many tasks were under-taken and completed including:
- Restoring the Fullersite waggon
- Building 3 hardwood picnic tables for Tan-Y-Bwlch
- Painting waggon 163 & Waggon 19.
- Fitting new lighting trunking and 10 double fluorescent lights on 13 road Carr. works side
- Signwriting over 30 signs
- Painting Harlech Castle Deisel Engin
- Restoring 6 station benches
- Painting the stanchions and cross members on half of 14 road carr. shed
- Building a memorial area in blockwork and stone (about half completed)
- Fitting a replacement fence alongside the line at Pas Smart
- Re-storing electrical sockets, repairing the walls and ceiling and re-decorating Steve Mac's office
- Several dozen more general maintenance and painting jobs around Boston Lodge
- Repainting the fence at Tan-Y-Bwlch & replacing the fence alongside the play area

03125 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirkintilloch Baptist Church

Ok, I will rewrite the history content and recreate the page (Kirkintilloch Baptist Church).

Kjakergb (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted redirects

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I just restored several redirects that you deleted earlier today. The IP who nominated the redirects, 75.47.208.68, has been busy nominating working redirects under WP:CSD#R1 for no readily apparent reason. The note I left on the user's talk page was quickly reverted. - Eureka Lott 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I looked them over and saw nothing untowards about removing them. Those LA street redirects are sometimes odd: They often redirect to other streets, as did the ones I ok'd CSDs on today. Now and then I see IPs placing them, then other IPs deleting them. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring a bottle

but no socks or meat, thanks all the same. Do you remember the name of the template for the latter? I don't, and I think it might be serve a purpose at the top of this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why so many non-notable fringe showbiz articles tend to link to Great White, long tale, that one :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• {{notaballot}} I think is the only one of these I've seen. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Delete My Article??

• Rick Garren (wrestler)

Who are you what the hell have you ever done. I was on Televison wrestling for 13 years, I have just as much right to be on here as any other pro wrestler!! Delete yourself!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickg77 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor

Has broken that rule as well. And he's the elder user here who should know the rules. If that's the rule he shouldn't have stirred things up. But the warning is noted and it won't happen again. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, he hasn't broken the rule, but I'll leave a note for him. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Then how did I break it? He's the one that started to stir things up. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who stirred things up first (and anyway, the other editor likely thinks you stirred things up first). You made more than 3 reverts to the page (doesn't matter if they were different reverts). Edit warring is always harmful and disruptive. Don't do that! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why its disruptive and spams a page history so it won't happen that way again. But I'm still confused. The other user added tags more than three times after I removed them. Is it just because I pressed the undo button and he didn't? --BurpTheBaby Talk 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I count only three reverts by that editor. Anyway thanks for understanding. You might try to hold yourself to only 1 revert per article per day. There is always another way and edit warring never, ever helps, it only makes other editors unhappy. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I just saw that Ms. Gale

I already apologized to Ryulong and am analyzing all the restrictions of this user business. But out of curiosity how would you stop me getting back on here with a new account even if you banned me? Daring you to make my day --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe I'd let Ichigo handle it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Gwen,

Just a quick note to thank you for catching that speedy for me.

Best, ChaoticReality 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the taggin'! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Palm Springs (band)

Hello Gwen, I have recently written an article about the band Palm Springs, and Click23 had it marked for speedy deletion, upon which you speedily deleted it. I now collected some "notability evidence" that i would like you to take a look at and then see if the band is after all notable or not. The information can be found here: User talk:Nela 78/Palm Springs (band) Thanks a lot for taking the time --Nela 78 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you've found that. I've restored this to give you more time. With this new information it's wholly borderline, likely ok if it slips by now, but getting through AfD on a few mentions in the German Rolling Stone might depend on both the wording of the AfD and which editors happen to see and comment on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Would you suggest I include those references from the above mentioned special page in the article to prevent future deletion requests? If so, could you pls suggest a way that this should be done? Thanks again! --Nela 78 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Korax1214

I still wonder why this editor first asked for the block to be shortened to 30 days? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the suspicion from that request, it does seem like bargaining. However, I've handled a lot of these requests and I really think it's important to look t the whole picture, and most especially what happened before the block. Almost anything anyone says in an unblock request can sound like something a sockpuppet might say. Here, what decided me was the overall pattern of contributions from the two accounts: they seem to overlap just at this one point. We are in general way too quick and sloppy about sockpuppetry blocks in the first place.. and once that suspicion is thrown on someone, it's almost impossible for them to get a fair review. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. You know, this is spot on why I've yet to get very deeply into sockpuppet worries/questions, I've long been wary of these things and it did cross my mind when I declined the unblock, "am I unfairly reading too much into this?" which is why I invited the editor to use the unblock template again for another review. Happily though, all we truly (should and need) care about is stopping disruption. This only makes me even more worried about unfairly staining someone with that brush. I should also say, I've never liked those "suspected" sockpuppet tags, for the same reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DeVito/Verdi

Hi Gwen,

After contesting deletion, I just edited the DeVito/Verdi page so it is now completely neutral and factual. I was now wondering how the pop-up on the page declaring the article as an advertisement can be removed?

Thanks User:DVerdi • contribs 18:24, 9 June 2008

Hey! Thanks so much for letting me know about this. First, please bear in mind, I had declined the speedy deletion of the article and am happy to see that the topic is indeed notable. I have given the text a thorough cleanup and link disambiguation, along with removing all the tags. Please let me know whenever you need any help with this, or if you have more questions. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Gwen! User:DVerdi • contribs 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Lipstein, QC

I am still waitng for a response why you have deleted the article about my dotorate father, the at Professor Kurt Liptein. Please to [snip personal email addy]. Thnk you. Peter Feuerstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Peter Feuerstein (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My earlier response to you is archived here. If you reply, please respond here and sign with four tildes (~~~~). I'm sorry but for transparency and other reasons I will not be responding by email. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mehdi Asali

Gwen, I didn't catch that that had been deleted 3 times (!), and was looking for some notability – plausible, if the individual is a high official with OPEC. Nothing pops, so good deletion. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OPEC's a good-old-boys' club with fast swingin' doors, "You don't need to see his identification... These aren't the droids you're looking for... You can go about your business... Move along... move along." :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Groovesect

Hi Gwen!

Thanks for taking the speedy deletion off momentarily.

I really cannot understand how this isn't a suitable article.

Groovesect meets more than half the criteria for Wikipedia and I have listed what I know are credible and reliable sources.

Both Jambase.com and Allaboutjazz.com are extremely reliable sources and are even featured in Wikipedia already! I suppose the Groovesect website could be a sources as well, as well as some New Orleans based venues/magazines. What else might you suggest?

Thanks for responding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenote1939 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest you read the red-bordered WP:PROD tag at the top of the article very carefully (nudge nudge, wink wink ;) All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Gwen,

I have gone over all the criteria and the WP:PROD statement over and over again. I just added two more articles and sources. All of my sources are completely independent of the band and are all extremely valued sources in the music community. Am I doing something wrong with the sources?

I just don't understand what more I can do or how I can rephrase my wording. I'm certainly open to doing so... I just need to pointed in the right direction.

Should I list the sources in the article rather than the 'references'?

And last but surely not least, I deleted the PROD at the top of the article... I'm supposed to do that right?

Thanks again for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenote1939 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I've thoroughly rewritten and cleaned up the text (all the advertising language did more harm than help). No way this would get tagged speedy or get deleted through an AfD now. I strongly suggest you start an article on Uganda Roberts. Cheers y'all! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gwen!

I really appreciate all your help and getting the article to its current stage. Does this mean it's all good? Do I have to do anything else to insure that it won't be deleted? (the PROD said I had five days to work it out).

I'm going to make a page for Alfred 'Uganda' Roberts tonight. Uganda is a living legend in New Orleans and needs a page for himself.

Thanks again! Bluenote1939 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

What does AoS mean? -- role^player 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"This text as written bears an Assertion of Significance and hence is not a CSD A7." ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- role^player 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

The article that you removed from the speedy deletion is by far growing organically, but by the company itself and is becoming for them to spread publicity over the internet. It does not cite any references in the article and upon talks and discussions with the authors (who actually are working for the company), the people just delete what other authors (other than the people from the company) write in the article. SholeemGriffin (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to speedy this article. You might try WP:AFD but this looks so widely cited, I think it's here to stay. You may be able to cut a lot of the unsourced and promotional language from the text though, please let me know if you need help. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the original article version last edited by User:Arunreginald has been sabotaged by the company's associates to include their point of view. What I would greatly need your help for is to revert to Arun's version and protect the page for the time being so that the company officials can actually talk about their changes first on the talk page of the article rather than just deleting all the work done by other people on Wikipedia. SholeemGriffin (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, both versions look rather slanted/PoV and unsourced to me. Also WP:Protection doesn't allow protecting a page to any favoured version. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do see the sourced criticism section which was removed, but the wording doesn't look very neutral to me. First, try toning down the language? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will revert the article to Arun's version, tone down the language and come back to you in a while with the possibility of you helping me protect the page. SholeemGriffin (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough edit warring going on for page protection and it can't be used to freeze anyone's favoured version. The only way to stabilize the article will be to carefully use reliable sources and very neutral language whilst building consensus with other editors. Please feel free to ask for my input though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Benford

I just wondered if you had anything more to do on the Admin end, or any pointers, before I take this to AfD. J293339 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alas, this one lurks in the rural suburbs of notability where speedies dare not tread and AfD no-consensus-keeps are known to crawl. One might note the seeming lack of independent coverage from reliable sources: It's one thing to publish 1000 magazine articles and a bucket of books, it's another to have anyone bother to comment on them and editors sometimes do muddle the two. Also those ASCAPlus awards aren't as notable as they sound, being for ASCAP members who have catalogs with activity outside broadcasting (see how the article doesn't even bother to mention the songs) and which must be applied for by the member (most won't bother). I don't think every professional writer on the planet is worthy of a tertiary encyclopedia article and this one smacks of WP:COI. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My you are poetic. Almost makes me forget my hatred of poetry. J293339 (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tekkenryu jujutsu (Iron Fist Close Combat System)

This style of martial arts is well researched and deserves to be on Wikipedia. If you would like some links removed I can understand that, but this is not an ad for a company. Please respond in a timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribefromJersey (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor trying to speedy delete an AfD page after removing AfD tag from article

Please take a look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination)#Exopolitics. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edits and blocked the account for 31 hours. This edit hints he has lately strayed far into unsourced original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, strange person. He seems to be happiest where he can just add his own personal opinions about things to articles. Morality, Justice, Virtue, etc. I suspect he will be a continuing problem. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merabtene Nabil (2) hoax

• Nabil Merabtene
• Merabtene Nabil (recreation)

Hi Gwen, call me a nitpicker, but i recently prodded this article after it was db-bio declined by User:PeterSymonds (hence coming to you now since you explained it all so well last time), and an anonymous user removed it after adding a piece of info that i can check by phoning the Guinee-Bissau diplomatic mission. That is a bridge too far even for me, but perhaps you can see if the IP is the same as the first author? If so, he should probably not have unprod it. There's plenty of notability claims in this article, but when reading it one still has no clue who this person is, except that he has 20 million to spend each month and works for some company in London. In one of the references there's actually a good deal of info about the guy, i can't see why the author didn't think it necessary to use that info. My point is, this person seems notable after all, but the article reads like a shopping list, and to me has little value this way. My question is: Should this go AfD, or should I hope someone will come along and rewrite this mess? And so leave a very badly written article in place just because the subject might be notable? What is the preferred option? Also, the title is wrong, the author switched given name and surname... Kind regards, Shoombooly (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (still hoping you don't mind all the questions)

Hey! Anyone can rm the prod tag (it should be in good faith but that's what we assume here). This looks like it could be a hoax but who knows? I think an AfD might help sort it out. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this more and found none of the assertions were supported by the sources provided, but for a single source which was not reliable and independent (self submission driven website). When I filed an AfD for this article I moreover found one had already been filed in March and closed as a CSD A7. I have boldly deleted this article as CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In investigating the former history, I found that the article creator had removed edits from the AfD. This article is clearly either a hoax (CSD G3) or blatant advertising (CSD G11) and given this history I have salted both titles. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the articles' creator User:Cedsparis for vandalism-only, spamming and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

i r a kool bat. i kin heer stuff u kant

See! I knew something smelled fishy about that article :) I should award you the Sherlock Holmes barnstar :-P Good thing you were bold (is that a Star Trek theme WP has going?), saved me some effort that was well spent on the Davy's Naked-backed Bat article (i figured a name like that deserved a tidy article). Not to mention the New Georgian Monkey-faced Bat, if I didn't know any better i'd db-nonsense that one myself! Anyway, where was I....ah yes...thanks for fixing my Nabil Merabtene problem! Regards, Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! Bats! I like bats :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, nice caption line with that image :) Those tropical bat names prove that when a scientist ventures into the jungle for 3 years and climbs giant bugridden trees and/or descends into caves paved with tons of (also bugridden) guano and then, if he's lucky, eventually finds a new species, his mind is already gone with the wind. I can see it happen, he finally comes back to the Royal Society in London, and presents his findings, and names like Antillean Ghost-faced Bat, Naked-rumped Pouched Bat, Hairy-legged Vampire Bat or Little Big-eyed Bat pop out, and the gentleman of the Society praise his work and shake his hand while they have the secretary order an ambulance and a straightjacket to make sure he's properly taken care of. And in honor of those mad scientists, I vow to take care of the articles of the creatures they went delusional trying to find. So yea, me like bats too! Shoombooly (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and they can see with their ears! Hehe heh, yes, they don't come out and tell you how much bat guano got in the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be mentally challenged to go into an undiscovered, dark, wet batcave at all. Have you seen what creatures lurk there? (if you're not faint hearted you could check the video evidence at the bottom of the article (the faint hearted bit involves a mouse in a link to the google video)). And then i haven't even mentioned the cave pythons and cave crocodiles yet. Oh, and the spiders. Ahh, biologists, gotta love 'em! Shoombooly (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Centipedes, eek! but spiders... kewl! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee

Possible edit war: HERE....this article is already renowned for its consensus (end cynicism). They wanted my head when i dared associate Appalachian Granny Magic to their holiest of holiest, and now apparently they do not like to be associated with Black Indians. Might be worthy of your attention in the long run. I think this touchiness may have something to do with Black indians#Cherokee Freedmen. Just a heads up! Shoombooly (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Cherokee is a core article. This is a big grouping of tribes which more or less quickly, mostly assimilated into mainstream European-American culture both through marriage and adaptation. Many Americans are say, 1/32nd or 1/16th Cherokee and don't even know it. The back and forth there doesn't look too disruptive. If you got shooed away, you'll have to be willing to come back with strong, multiple sources and broach things slowly on the talk page. Core humanities articles like this (there are only a few hundred) are something else. If you truly have something to say there, carefully watch the consensus for awhile, learn what kinds of sources the active editors like and don't like, what has happened there in the past that might make them wary, help with non-controversial aspects most of the editors agree on and then once they've gotten to understand you're not there to nettle and disrupt, it'll be easier to talk about... anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess i stuck my head in a beehive huh? Anyway, I got my way with the Granny Magic link, not sure how exactly, but it's still there now, so i guess they buried the hatchet on that one (couldn't help myself this time with the Native American wordplay....i had to replace "my scalp" with "my head" on the previous entry :-/ (i hope they have a sense of humor, though)). I understand what you mean by "core humanity articles are something else"....but doesn't that mean they automatically lose their NPOV?? As far as i can see it, the black indian link wasn't unrelated at all, and you'd get the impression (also after reading the black indian article) that it may be a racially motivated debate (i had never heard about a "one drop" rule, but i can see how it can cause serious issues here). In any event, you have more experience, but IMHO that kind of attitude by editors should be STRONGLY (and boldly of course) be discouraged. Volkswagen may also not want to be associated with Adolf Hitler/Nazis but fact is that they are. Cherokees may not want to be associated with Black Indians, but they are, and that should be the encyclopedic view, because an encyclopedia contains facts, not opinions, right? Shoombooly (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind, a tertiary source like this encyclopedia nets and pins up what the most reliable sources have to say... about what sundry writers and editors have thought was a consensus of published experts in a field. Sometimes this has only a little to do with truth, of which there is indeed only one but, our notions of which are ever shifting, following our ways and means. Most of what kids learn about the humanities in public schools around the world (America, Europe, anywhere you like, mostly) is highly PoV, slanted and likely to be wrong, so don't get too fidgety if, in some of these core articles, you see folks only doing what they've been taught to do. Wikipedia isn't the place to deal with these worries, nor should it be, but at least we can build helpfully written and deeply sourced, widely read, trustworthy reference articles which one way or another might nudge literate and thoughtful readers towards their own insights. Trust the reader to put things together for herself, she's wontedly a lot smarter than ya think ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your faith in humanity seems boundless, how do you do it? I'm more of a realist, that's why i stick to bats, even if they have an opinion, they just have to accept what i write about them, convenient, huh? (mind you, those zoologists can be a pain in the butt as well when it comes to taxonomy....they all want their favorite subspecies recognized. Hence the crazy long names. But at least that's not the bat's fault i suppose). Besides, we have a lot to learn from bats, f.e. how to be dead-ugly and cute at the same time, or how to grow skin between our fingers so we can eventually fly C02 neutral (Al Gore would be proud) ;) Shoombooly (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pssst! Bats don't care what you write about them and last I heard, do excrete stuff like CO2, methane and other treats. Gwen Gale (talk)

a pet 747 landing for dinner

Well yes, but so do humans, but i'm sure you don't propose culling us all to reduce co2 emissions? Bats and humans don't eat "locked" co2 (like coal and oil), so it's relatively co2 neutral what we do in our bodies! Surely you will agree that its less polluting to fly yourself than it is to fly a Boeing 747? :-) And the bats do care, they just can't talk. I have bats flying against my windows daily because of the things i say about them! Ample reason to pull the 12 gauge out of the grease though... Shoombooly (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I like 747s! I yearn to have one as a pet :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You like spiders, bats and 747's? What kind of a person are you anyway?? :P Shoombooly (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Timman

Hi Gwen, Thanks for cleaning up the Paul Timman article. Bocasdeltorro (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Thanks for the block on Linxgt. I get so weary of these twits. Trekphiler (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

please restore John Criswick

Could you please restore John Criswick? The article had some references, but they were buried in the list of external links. --Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, happy to but it's clearly COI with only a couple of press-release references (with billions of stars out there, getting one named after oneself even by JPL does not confer notability). Best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I added some newspaper articles (not press releases) as references, including one which mentions him as co-founder of a company which failed. I think notability is established now, so I removed the prod. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neoonyxalchemist

Hi Gwen, yes I suspect you are right. I'm afraid this appears to be a very young user who may not have the maturity to contribute effectively to Wikipedia at the moment. I would certainly support a longer block, up to and including an indef. There are no constructive contributions here, and a lot of drama and use of Wikipedia as a sort of MySpace. Best, Gwernol 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for blocking him. When I saw his post on my talk page, and saw that he had removed User:Gwernol's reply from my talk page, I was going to take it to ANI, but then I saw that you had already blocked him. I have to agree with yours and Gwernol's comments on his talk page. I don't know... Why do people do that? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he's very young, for starters. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kleon

A page titled "Joe Kleon" is being considered for deletion. This must NOT be allowed to occur. It is a very importants page. Deleting it could have serious ramifications upon Wikipedia as a whole. Deleting Joe Kleon could destroy Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. I know I can count on you to stick up for Joe Kleon. Thanks a bunch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHDoctorate (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — PHDoctorate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of the bananas. I'll take them. What are the ramifications? I'm agog. And a doctorate in aromatherapy, or in est, perhaps?

Gwen, your reshuffling of the comments in that AfD is very well intentioned, I'm sure, but it su--, I mean it inhales. Now the whole thing makes considerably less sense (to me, anyway) than it did before, and of course from now we're going to get additional puppets self-importantly adding comments to the meaningful part, well-intentioned but sleepy people adding theirs to the banned part, etc. Please self-revert, optionally adding the code (offhand I forget what it is and don't have time to look) that renders stuff invisible unless the reader clicks a link saying "show". Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, worthy notion I guess but I agree, it didn't lay out like I hoped :D Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Help for a Muddled User

Hi Gwen,

I tried to set up a page yesterday (entitled Fit Pregnancy), which was speedily deleted. I guess I wasn't quite understanding the process/criteria for setting up a new page. I've spent several hours reading all the How-To's and have redrafted my page to make it more fact-based, with references and citations from credible third-party sources (most from Wikipedia & the New York Times).

Is it possible to take another stab at this?

Thanks for your consideration,

Danjarous (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was deleted as advertising mostly because of the "peacock" or "marketing lingo" tone of the opening: is the first and most-trusted source of information and tools for today’s active pregnant woman and new mother. Its fresh, energetic design reflects a smart, stylish sensibility and its relevant, award-winning editorial enables women to make educated decisions for a joyful pregnancy, healthy baby and confident life as a new mom. This language rendered any assertions of importance more or less meaningless.

Please feel free to try again. However, for sundry reasons, you can't use Wikipedia as a source in a Wikipedia article. Any sources cited must be independent of you, the organization and Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Micronations so small that they have to cheat?

Hi Gwen, while patrolling orphans I stumbled upod this: Category:Micronations and found these articles in the list: User:Pontîculus and User:The Republic of Ben 10. Is having your userpage as an article allowed? Shoombooly (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. User pages aren't allowed in article mainspace categories. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone killed the first one already, will you kill the other? Thanks, Shoombooly (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scythed done. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's my reaper. Shoombooly (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Handslocal

This person only posts MIT Journals of questionable notability on any topic. Does that qualify as spamming? User:DGG already posted on his talk page that he didn't speedy because he deemed them notable, but then goes on to say journals are dear to him, seems a bit odd to decline a speedy when you're biased, perhaps leave it to another admin? Though i appreciate his will to help improve the articles, isn't it probably that Handslocal is just spamming on behalf of MIT? I was going to db-spam an article but then read all that, which seems to make it futile to try. Shoombooly (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to see his identification... These aren't the droids you're looking for... You can go about your business... Move along... move along. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you just try to Jedi-mindtrick me? Shoombooly (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I was only sayin', there are two kinds of spam, the kind we mind and the kind we don't, much. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So if DGG hadn't done or said anything, and i had speedied one of them, you'd have declined with the rationale that this is "good spam", correct? *insert innocent look* Shoombooly (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, if I'd been watching the CSD backlog when it came through I'd have thought the bare mention of any technical journal from MIT was an assertion of significance and declined the speedy. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know i would normally come up with a witty reply, but at the moment i think i'm in the process of getting banned. So tell the folks at WP:O that i love them! Shoombooly (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yeah, you botched there: a well known televangelist who founded the European Apostolic union in 1998 is no A7 or G11. Also, you mustn't mock in the edit summaries, keep it professional (even though we're volunteers). Didn't you see I was declining some of your speedy tags? Maybe I should have said something before. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologized for the edit summary right away on his/her page. Aside from that, is that page spam or not in your neutral opinion? Just for the record. Shoombooly (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked Pentecostal to me, straight off. Remember what I said about spam a few posts up? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your last comment there: i thought notability is not the point when dealing with blatant advertising? Not disagreeing, just learning. Also, since i never want to be an admin, i'm probably a bit too outspoken for my own good..... Shoombooly (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict....pentacostalism, sure, but this is a televangalist church advertising itself....oh well, i guess there's no point in arguing my case this time. But it's all a bit of a blurry mess considering the criteria on this one.

It's not blurry, a well known televangelist is all you had to see to know it wasn't fit for CSD. It takes awhile to get the hang of speedies, though, take your time and be a bit more wary about slappin a db tag on anything you don't like, is all. You'll get it! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At least your attitude is positive. How many times do I have to propose to stop arguing over there? And why do i get tagged a vandal and a flamer? How many flamers and vandals admit wrongdoing and apologize readily? Shoombooly (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Diff pls? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

of what? Shoombooly (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Where you're being called a vandal. Anyway the cool thing about CSD isn't deleting other folks' work, that's sad: It's finding forlorn, misunderstood little articles like Sillyon to save. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When the Cabalperson told me to stop disrupting WP, and that my opinion was "violating the fundamental core principle of a collaborative work". Or is that a compliment? :) Shoombooly (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the point is not deleting other people's work. But when that work is an advertisement, or lacks substance/context, it shouldn't be here. The orphan list is 30.000 long, all i'm trying to do is de-orphan what i can, tag the rest as unsuccessful and get the (imho) useless (according to CSD, which apparently is beyond me) stuff deleted. Shoombooly (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've gotta read/learn WP:CSD to know what can be speedied and what can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, where else would i know all the tags from? :) But will do so again Shoombooly (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Also, out of 30,000 orphans, skip those which aren't clearly CSDs to you or, feel free to ask! Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never felt not free to ask with you. Also, after a good night's sleep, how can I make up with Iridescent? Shoombooly (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Go work on some articles! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you check my G12 of Ali pabrai for compliance with the rules. I'm working on articles, i'm translating other language wikipages of bats to expand the english ones. Shoombooly (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I was taking off the tag I saw Tanthalas39 had already done, it wasn't a copyvio. Work on the bats for awhile, ok? ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume no vio because its autobiographical......? Shoombooly (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What has the topic got to do with it? Why did you think it was a copyvio? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When i tagged it it was a one on one copy paste from that myspace page, the article is now cleaned up. The only difference with the myspace page was 3rd instead of 1st person POV. No copyright info either. That's why. Anyway, i will take your advice and remove myself from WP:O, as no good will come from it. I'm sure there are others better equipped to deal with orphaned pages. Thanks. Shoombooly (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll likely click for ya later on ;) Collaborative projects can be counter-intuitive sometimes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the project that's the problem. It's the people. I won't allow someone to tell me that i'm not entitled to my opinion. If i want to hear that on a daily basis, i'll go live in North Korea. My bats will have to find someone else to create their articles. Shoombooly (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

A message from someone that doesn't want an article restored! How refreshing! :-). Actually, it is a bit related though, I just noticed your subpage in regards to CSDs. It isn't really a big deal, but the original creator of that page (who I also copied, should really get a bit o' credit on your subpage, as a courtesy. User:Jonny-mt wrote that from scratch. If you look at my page, you can copy paste the "credit" in small font like I did at the very bottom. I'm sure jonny doesn't care really, and would never ask you to do this, but I think it would be a nice courtesy. Cheers, hoping you're enjoying your new admin tools! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! (thanks User:Jonny-mt!) I've already rewritten some of that page, am still slowly working on it and when I'm done will have some kind of a credit line at the bottom. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kleon speedy deletion

Why did you speedy delete this when at least two editors in good standing voted keep, the time for the AfD was long passed, and it could have been cleanly closed as a closed AfD, especially if you had gotten the two editors in good standing to agree to a delete? This was rather heavy handed and unnecessary on your part, imo, and creates an opening for a really bad article to be recreated by the same parties who seem to be quite expert at manipulating the situation.

In addition, rules for admins for deletions, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." IMO it should say, in particular, don't speedy delete an AfD when you're a party. Please revert your closure and allow someone to simply and cleanly close the discussion. I'm not sure it should be closed, but it was so poorly written that it was hard to read. I still think two editors who appear to be in good standing especially the one who appears to be a bit of a "deletionist," had opinions that were valid and should have been considered.

--Blechnic (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this.

• I speedily deleted the article because it was tagged CSD G11 by the nom (not me) and clearly met the criterion, Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Once the article had been deleted through CSD, I closed the AfD noting this. Deletion review would be the next step. However, I would suggest that before any DRV (or subsequent AfD on a recreated article), checkuser be run on the many limited contribution accounts which took part in the AfD. Lastly, because the article was speedied, nothing is stopping anyone from recreating it. CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material) wouldn't apply because the article was not deleted through the AfD.

• The article creator is the article's subject who, I think, very likely wrote the article so poorly only to hide the lack of notability, put 104 footnotes (most of which amount to Internet listings, not meaningful independent coverage) in about 1000 words of text and has strayed so far beyond WP:COI, WP:CANVASS and WP:SOCK that everything about this article is a disruption.

• If, after a checkuser has been run, we learn User:radioinfoguy (who is Joe Kleon) was not behind any of the limited contribution accounts who took part in the AfD (one of whom spammed this talk page, above), I'll help him write an encyclopedic, helpful and readable WP:BLP article on this topic myself and likely have fun doing it.

Is that fair? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair? I disagree with the COI concern, it isn't a criterion for deletion, no matter how many times it is used. The subject is notable or not, or there are other valid reasons for deletion. How about you just help him write the article if he can offer up 3 third party sources period? That's fair. Also, if the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, it shouldn't be deleted no matter the sock puppetry, which was lame and hardly worthy of the effort of a check user. Still, the editor User:Hoary is quite a deletionist and thought the article should stay. --Blechnic (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about COI is that it skives trust, which means when we read the article, how do we know where notability ends and self-promotion begins? If he can offer us three third-party sources I'll be happy to write an encyclopedic article from scratch, with his input and make him seem like Jed the Fish of Ohio :) Wikipedia gains and he gains over what we all had before. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why there's a tag for COI, but because the subject may be notable in spite of the COI, that's why policy or whatever it is called is that it's not a reason for deletion. So, tag it, but don't delete it, like other Wikipedians have already decided is the way to go. Why don't you make him an offer, that sounds good. But, please, God, don't let him write any of it. --Blechnic (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I often replace speedy tags, as I decline them, with coi tags (and yeah, it's a guideline). Oh and so far as writin' it goes, that's what I was thinkin' ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a very sensible person. However, even sensible people can occasionally do foolish things without even realizing it. Joe Kleon must be restored with the same content intact. The person who created it must be allowed to recreate and work on it. He is the greatest authority on the topic, and of course the greatest authority is the one that should be given the task. There may still be time to undo the damage your deletion has caused to Wikipedia. However, if Joe Kleon is not restored very soon the damage may be beyond repair. So we must hurry. PHDoctorate (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. It might be best to keep further discussions of this matter under wraps. Move it to a private place where it cannot be viewed publicly. From now on, let's discuss this in secret. It is best for Wikipedia that word does not get out, that Jos Kleon was deleted. Also, too many other people who might delete Joe Kleon may view this. Ill-informed people. So let's keep this private from now on. PHDoctorate (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind, of course, that other editors might have Joe Kleon watchlisted, right? So, if it's created, those editors will know very quickly and perhaps be just as quick to challenge the article, if not significantly better this time around.. You know this, right? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret! I gotta secret! Pwivacy needed! If Joe Kleon requires privacy of this sort, his article simply can't be on Wikipedia--it's not private. Gwen, please don't bother with the rewrite. --Blechnic (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about talking about this in private? Certainly not me. I am certainly open to the idea of a re-write, as long as the majority of sources and accomplishments are not omitted. I understand that some sources may not be acceptable, but well-known and high-traffic music news websites, official band websites, or respectable fan sites, when referencing work with notable artists, I would hope would be allowed to be included. I see Myspace used a lot in different articles. While my article needs no Myspace source, if those are acceptable, in other articles, I would think the above-mentioned sources would also be acceptable. Radioinfoguy (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it would be helpful for you to read several things, all conveniently located here on Wikipedia:

• Notability, which explains the overall concept of notability ad it relates to creating articles
• Notability (music), which is more in-depth commentary on the subject
• Other Stuff Exists, an essay rather than a hard-and-fast guideline, but still widely followed.
• Finally, on the issue of secrecy mentioned above, it might be helpful to read this. (That's the direction I was leaning in when I read it, anyway.)

When creating articles, it is very helpful to create it in your own sandbox, which is much less likely to be nominated for speedy deletion (and very unlikely to be speedily deleted even if it is nominated). You can then invite other editors to critique the article before creating it in the main article space, and thereby avoid a lot of problems.  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Radioinfoguy

I've been working hard on rewriting your article, about your career as a moderately successful local radio DJ in northern Ohio USA, from scratch, wading through mostly useless Internet links, for the last two hours. If I see you using any of your SPA sockpuppets again, I will block them all indefinitely and block you for a day for disruption. Going by the available secondary and primary sources, which are very thin, your career does not meet WP:BIO. However, I have a big soft spot for folks in show business and I can at least show that you have some borderline notability in Ohio which makes having a reliably sourced article on Wikipedia worthwhile. Please don't try to reintroduce any codswallop-fog-promo-WP:original research into the article when I recreate it in an hour or two. Experienced editors will be welcome, as always, to edit the article but owing to the background of this article and your blatant conflict of interest I suggest you leave the editing of Joe Kleon to others. I want to help you. Let me do that. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Archilles last stand

Yo Gwen, it appears that following your warning, Achilles has made his last stand. Can you take administrative action before the edit war gets out of hand? Thanks, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I miscounted. That was only his third revert. Although a wholly uninvolved admin, which I am not, could block him for edit warring now. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 4 in total I think, but I'm not prepared to file the paperwork, so I'll see if I can work things out with the editor peacefully. Thanks for your time, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd rv you listed wasn't a rv, it was some new wording, not a rv at all. But things'll settle down there, they always do. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, thanks. I'm hopeful at this point that we can have a reasoned discussion. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS

Now he's been caught socking by the autoblock and been blocked for a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New message

You've got mail... – iridescent 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Foresight Linux

Could please restore the Foresight Linux page and tell me which sections or lines violated the advertising policy. I am not the original authors of the article but I am Foresight developer and would like to fix this error so we can have our page back on wikipedia. SpecialKevin (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read that page and I was hoping you could restore the page so I could fix the issues you had with advertising in it. 208.78.65.58 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore this to give you more time. Mind, without reliable, independent sources showing this OS has gotten some coverage other than Internet listings and has some meaningful installed user base, the article, however neutrally written, amounts to advertising and this has nothing to do with my or anyone else's take on how helpful or worthy the distro may be. Please feel free to ask me more questions. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Article

HI Gwen,

An autobot put a popup on the DeVito/Verdi page stating: This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.

I was wondering if you knew the way to get it removed?

Thanks!

NYennis (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the article to (the bottom of) List of advertising agencies. Also, you might go through the linked list of many notable clients in DeVito/Verdi and, very heedfully, if you can, add something neutral and encyclopedic (not at all promotional sounding) about DeVito/Verdi into an existing text section about the marketing activites. Don't spam them all though, I'd say pick 1-3. After this has been done, if other editors are ok with these edits (which they will likely be if the wording is neutral and even more helpfully, sourced), the orphan tag (which is not a big deal) can be taken off. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear span structures

There is absolutely no blatant advertising on this page. The first paragraph is a definition of what a clear span structure is, and it's clearly noted where that information has come from. The mention of Mahaffey Fabric Structures is a clear fact, and is known throughout the world, and especially the tent and fabric structure industry. It is a clear, well-known fact, and therefore, there is absolutely no advertising. Please advise, and please keep this article up and running, as it is purely educational.Mtc38118 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has a definition of blatant advertising which is likely different from yours. Can you provide multiple independent sources which use the term clear span structures as an engineering or structural term? Have you read this page? Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Please let me have your continued questions and all the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have tried to recreate this page twice, for a total of three attempts. I am curious, would you have had any interest in creating this article if not for the opportunity to include the link to Mahaffey? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there are some worries you have been editing from multiple accounts to skirt Wikipedia policy (this is your other account, which I have now blocked because it strays from Wikipedia's username policy). This is called sockpuppetry and is also blockable if you open yet another, third account. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus bloodline

Loremaster is the Vandal. Who just happens to be the sole owner of the article in question (against Wikipedia Policy). It's a universal trait for all believers in the Jesus Bloodline to painstakingly point out and emphasise that Jesus Christ's wife was NOT a prostitute. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any vandals at all, I mostly see edit warring. Please talk out your differences on the talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But Loremaster wants to have the Last Word on the Last Word. He views it as his article. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN is often part of edit wars. Controversial topics often go through rough patches but edit warring is never helpful. Try the talk page, ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations that I am possessive of the articles I have taken an interest in may have some merit since I am human after all. However, I have always explained my edits which have almost always been guided by Wikipedia guidelines rather than personal whims. That being said, User:Wfgh66 is Paul Smith, a well-known debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax with a strong tendency to engage in original research characterized by a need to always hammer a point in the head of his readers. In light of his overzealous mindset and behavior (which is documented in the archives of the Talk:Priory of Sion page), I don't think he will ever want to resolve this dispute through compromise. Therefore, I propose you unlock the Jesus bloodline article so I can edit it to include the new text I proposed and block him for a day or two if he starts engaging in an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and maybe a request for comment may be the answer here. Meanwhile, any shred of disputed and unsourced text can be taken out of an article. Disputed but sourced wording can simply be quoted directly in the narrative (but never through long passages). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

Thanks for your help regarding this article. I tried mending the article and citing references but these references were ignored and the article was cleared and my edits flushed down the bog (pardon my chessiness). This article has now been nominated for an AFD here. I would suggest that you take a note of that and participate as is possible. Thank you once again. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I need advice on how to tackle the abuse going on at Sonisona's talk page against Arun Reginald. She is totally accusing him of tampering with this article when he was the one who attempted to make the article of a NPOV. I agree that the article is not all about controversy but the fact is that the history of the pageant is all that controversial. Someone else has nominated the article for AFD and some other person has put the amboxes in the article but Sonisona is blaming it all on Arun. I personally think that it is very unfair to undermine his contributions in such a manner as I too have contributd similar material to the article. Please advice me on what to do. Thanks. SholeemGriffin (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at dispute resolution, however it does look as though the article is on its way to deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Guillermo Valle H

Hello we just notice that you delete a biography for Guillermo Valle, so we would know the reason, i would let you know that he is helping a lot to the tennis development at Ecuador, he found the first tennis web site at his country and people like the former Roland Garros 1990 championship incentive his labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webssolutions (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Deletion for Blatant Advertising

• RedGrove

Hiya Gwen,

First of all, all my respect for the job done as a Wikipedia administrator. Wikipedia is a great tool and I do admire those who help building it.

I have to admit I do not understand my deletion for the "redgrove" article for blatant advertising because I tried to offer an objective description of a service offered on the same model than other services on this page: Category:Web 2.0

Company, concept, public, features... all described in "non-superlative" terms.

I mostly regret that decision because, I do think their should be room not only for big brand names as Google Maps or Google News or Google Reader...

I really hope you will find time to consider my request and enclose the beginning of that description below ... in case you don't have a bedtime story for tonight ...

Best Regards,

Pierre-Etienne [snip (PI rm'd)]

Hi. Please don't put proposed article content on this talk page. Have you read this link yet? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

>>> Hi, I surely did and do think it was not an "An overenthusiastic analysis", ... that's why I asked your opinion. If some expressions seemed "tendencious", may I repost a modified version where absolute neutrality will rule or did the general presentation bothered you???

Thanx again

Pierre-Etienne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petienne (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as written made no assertion of significance or importance. Moreover, the page I linked to talks about the importance of independent, reliable coverage ("attention from the press"). Please see Wikipedia's notability standards, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries ... I'll be back with assertion of significance and importance ...

Petienne (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for catching this. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Harryboyles 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletions

Per a request at AN, I restored a few of the subpages of Portal:The Sims. Since they were G6 non-controversial deletions, I figured they would be just as non-controversial to restore. Just thought I should let you know. xenocidic (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowstorm

Actually I think one or other CSD would now apply, but anyway see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ForestWander Nature Photography. If you agree, could you close it quickly and discreetly? -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl

The tradition, admittedly not set in stone, I acknowledge, when dealing with WikiProjects is to merge them into a parent project, rather than deleting them completely. Several projects have taken on several task forces/work groups in this way, and there are at least a few potential parents for this project as well. I think it might be a good idea to let a few of the other projects in the area know about the inactivity of this one before deleting it, and would request that it be restored. It can always be deleted later through standard MFD, if it comes to that. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, which is why I noted "contact me if you want this restored" in the deletion note. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never meant for it to be deleted altogether, I wanted a new version of it's page at User:Calvin 1998/Sandbox to be hist-merged with the current main page. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Query about "trusted editors"

Hi, Gwen – this came up at my talkpage, but I had seen your suggestion about treating the uploads of "established and trusted editors" differently from that of other editors. I was wondering how this would be implemented – Commons has a system of trusted users (not necessarily admins) who have demonstrated to the community that they understand copyright law, and are therefore entitled to add a "trusted user" box to their userpage (I went through this process myself.) Is there a similar process here so I can tell who is "trusted" regarding copyright issues? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Btw I do think the you-know-what was uncalled for. As for trusted editors, I wouldn't want to see any formalized labeling system implemented, since my take is it would be too "dialectic" for an open, collaborative project. However, what I meant by trusted was, editors with either long, helpful contribution histories and/or an established background of uploading lots of images which haven't been deleted. The pith being, there is truly no need to allow an automated tool to "spam" established users in good standing with image message templates (which I don't think you knew/understood, is all). I must say, this is even more true with admins: When I see that orange message bar my first thought is it's likely an admin related message I should have a look at straight off, since it could have to do with a blocked user, deleted page or some kind of disruption and need fixing, fast.

This said, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more helpful to come up with a way to advise all editors of multiple image issues with a single message. Truth be told, I've always found wading through a forest of those big templates, each having to do with a single image, rather nettlesome, even on the talk pages of indef blocked users. Only my quick thoughts though! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're coming from – so if a possible copyvio image, or a set of images, is found, the user's contribution history should be reviewed before deciding between a standard template and a personal message? That seems kind of cumbersome, frankly – is there a similar practice for other things, like linkspam suspicions? By the way, I do understand where you're coming from on the templates – it looks like the Javascripts are hopefully being altered to fix this. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Maybe I'd at least take a quick look at the talk page history to see if there has been a background of deleted images. Otherwise though, I'm leaning (dreaming?) towards my last thought, of maybe informing any user of multiple image worries in a single, tidy, lean notification template. I haven't seen many at all of these being used elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Matt Lesser

Hello, I noticed that a page I created, Matt Lesser, was just deleted. I feel this is a mistake because i have not only posed the hang on script in order to delay the deletion so i could contine to edit it and because a major overhaul of the page deleted the bias that was previously there. Anyways what is done is done, but could i please recieve an explaination for the deletion of my hard work and many numerous revisions? Willorbill1 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fame!

Welcome to the "been spoofed" club. :) Acalamari 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is so funny. I happened to be unblocking a two-year-stale username-blocked account and lo, when the log came up, there it was by dumb luck! What was the likelihood of my seeing that, seconds after it happened? I did a double take, then grinned. Flattery! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:User:GajendraAgarwal

Hi Gwen, thank you for intervening. If it's not too much to ask, could I also request that you assess the situation regarding Agnistus who insists on reinserting poorly sourced material on Zakir Naik (which is a BLP) – I know I can technically revert ad infinitum to keep it out, but I'd rather he stop reinserting it. Regards, ITAQALLAH 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm watching it, waiting to see what the first block stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

Respectfully, what about the uncivil comments made against me? Wfgh66 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me the diffs, please? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's move on. I think it's best to. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

fake block?

Hey, thanks for the warning and everything. But the people i put up the "fake block" were known Vandalisers, and i was only doing a favor to the Wiki. Sorry if i broke a couple rules along the way, but it was for the greater good. By the way, im going for an Admin status (see my talk page for the link). Please vouch for me! And if you have any questions (concerning me going for Admin) please ask them on my Admin Request Page. Thanks, ((U'nknown) (User) —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA has already been closed as malformed and you have been advised it would be unlikely to pass either way. Please. Stop. Now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What then do you recommend

Template:DTM 2008‎ - an accidental creation by an inexperienced editor – it very plainly is not a template, so what then do you suggest? --Falcadore (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to hear from someone since the db wasn't clear (no worries). I've deleted it as a test page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cbsite

Unblock my talkpage now.Cbsite (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you make this edit to my talk page after your block was over? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I would ask that you look at this reversion again, right after the block expired. See the last ANI discussion if you need it. Any advice? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indef, there are no helpful edits lately, only edit warring over that redirect and highly disruptive attacks/commentary. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I was hoping that 3O might have made it clearly but it doesn't seem like anything was going to work from the talk page discussions. I hope some sense gets knocked in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DB tags

The tag says "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is a blank talk page with no substantial edit history." The pages were blank with one or two edits so no substantial edit history. Please don't accuse me of vandalism. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a CSD category. Please stop now, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, it's a subcategory of G6. I have to say I'm not particularly bothered about the pages, but I object to being accused of vandalism and threatened with blocks for good faith editing. Anonymous or not, some people actually take their reputation seriously. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken (or if you're using some script, whoever wrote the script was mistaken). Since you have stopped tagging articles, there are no worries. The only way to build a reputation here is through a uniquely identifiable contribution history and the only way to get that is to open a user account. Either way, please carefully read WP:CSD if you want to know more about how the speedy deletion process works. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

edgarken deleted

Gwen,

Hello friend! I just started a page and within seconds it was gone. I admit, I have yet to fully reseach how this all works, but was a little dismayed to be deleted so quickly. I will do my homework and figure out how to place an entry that is acceptable.

I am not famous, and have no major accomplishments to put down, but I am a big hero to my four year old daughter, and am beginning to think of posterity. I will be re-posting something soon.

Hope you have a great day, and I am open to any suggestions as to how to go about this properly.

Sincerely,

Edgar (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kennedy edgarken@hotmail.com

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?

• Street weight

Street Weight is deleted im making history here, ive put hard work to do this, 2pac is apart of hiphop history im releasing a 2pac mixtape with songs that was remasterd and unreleased. Its apart of hip hop culture. Why is Bad Boy Entertainment or Death Row in Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetweight (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Those articles meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Have you read the link at the top of this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding blockage of an IP address

I noticed that you were the only administrator that had noted the deletion discussion on Miss Pakistan World and have taken active participation in the matter. My journey throughout the history of all the articles that were directly related to the pageant have brought me to a user with IP address 99.226.171.38 who it seems either has serious empathy towards the pageant or has an even serious POV towards the subject matter. The pageant has faced criticism from some journalists and reporters working for established news broadcasters in the past. Of the few one name that hovers above the rest is Nadia Khan.

The user using this IP posted a POV-ridden edit on her page and continues to post content that holds a definitive POV. Please advise me on what can be done. Is blocking the IP worth it? Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 08:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edits like that can be removed but the edit in itself is hardly blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, accusations of being dogmatic

I am receiving personal attacks and accusations of being dogmatic from Loremaster on the Talk Page to Jesus bloodline, and he has the nerve to warn me when I remove the offending content. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Loremaster: In order to make sure you understand me Wfgh66 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than simply complaining about personal attacks to a Wikipedia administrator, User:Wfgh66 is engaging into an edit war to delete content from an article's talk page which he feels are "condescending personal attacks". I have and will continue to undue his vandalism. For the record, I delete the words "dogmatically" and "obsessively" from my comments which triggered this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster has broken 33RR on Talk Page to Jesus bloodline as well as engaging in personal attacks and condescending remarks. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism doesn't break 3RR. --Loremaster (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are breaking Wikipedia Policy by making Personal Attacks. That's vandalism, and even undoing vandalism breaks 3RR. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack is dubious especially since you have had no calms personally attacking me and others. Do you see me deleting your personal attacks from talk pages? No. On contrary, I want everyone to seem them so they can judge. --Loremaster (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to messages that contain personal attacks or condescending attitude. They will be deleted because they are against Wikipedia Policy. And you have broken 3RR as well. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are free to not respond to them but you don't have a right to delete them. That's vandalism. --Loremaster (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's disruption. You both could be blocked for 3rr but why don't you stop this instead? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Making Personal Attacks is against Wikipedia Policy. Therefore vandalism. I have been blocked for this. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make sure you understand me is not a personal attack, what is against WP policy is not necessarily vandalism, and your bickering is unseemly. Take a break for 24 hours, both of you, before Gwen or somebody gives you such a break. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What Loremaster was repeating to me above was repeated by him for days. I do not suffer from a memory loss after literally seconds.... Wfgh66 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It still isn't a personal attack. --Loremaster (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Laboriously repeating over-and-over again the same old points and then stating in order to make sure you understand me can also be classed as condescension. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not the most helpful way to handle this but asking an editor to cite sources is not a personal attack, Wfgh66. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was generalising on the Talk Page relating to how the subject matter has evolved/been misrepresented through the popularity of pseudo-history. Of course, not only would citations been provided on the article page itself but the issue itself would have been addressed completely differently. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So come up with some sources then! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't need to come up with sources because it has nothing to do with the rationale of my edits of the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He can sway that to anything reliable sources on Jesus bloodline might support. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not I understand what you just said so can you please reply to my comments on the Talk:Jesus bloodline page. --Loremaster (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I already have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I also left you a message in the Image needed section. --Loremaster (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside that I did this becausee you have systematically refused to answer questions that would have resolved a dispute, vague "condescension" is not a personal attack. Please move this personal dispute off of Gwen's talk page. There are procedures to handle situations like this. This isn't it. --Loremaster (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

heifer pageant

Hi. I have a question for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World. Thanks! Morenoodles (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm still a little puzzled. I'm also puzzled by the literal-mindedness by which my title for this section is now presented within the AfD page as evidence of some belief (indeed, "COI") ascribed to me that the participants are heifers (rather than that the beauty pageant industry to some degree heifer-izes its participants). Hmm. Morenoodles (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A heifer is a cow. I don't think the topic is notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, I had to agree on the article topic. Perhaps we shouldn't blame the event for the complete absurdity of the "news" article that's the topmost Google hit for it, but really... See my new comments at the AfD if interested. (And as for my choice of metaphor, I see that I'm in excellent company.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how the AfD goes then. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

G11 of Matt Lesser

Gwen – I've been contacted by the user a few threads up whose political article you deleted, and I've done the first piece of article work for the last 3 months. There's a copy at User:Willorbill1/Matt Lesser, and I'm pretty happy with the tone – no doubt it could be improved, but then again everything I do could be bettered ;). Don't know how up you are on US politics, but I have to confess to having absolutely no idea in that regard (which is why the notability tag is still right at the top). Anyway, I wonder whether you'd mind having another look to see what you think of it now. Cheers, Alex Muller 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Recreate the article if you like, see what other editors think. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks – I've posted at WP:DELREV. No need for you to drop by, but feel free if you want. Cheers, Alex Muller 16:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Following the building consensus there to rs and AfD, I have done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus bloodline

Describing the Jesus Bloodline as being linked to traditionalist "esoteric Christianity" will always exist without a citation and reliable and independent source. If Jesus Bloodline is to be linked to "esoteric Christianity" it needs to be emphasised that it is to an untraditional and modern version of "esoteric Christianity" that has been influenced by Margaret Starbird. And this can be easily done. There are ample internet sites that define traditionalist esoteric Christianity and this needs to be compared against the esoteric Christianity that was inspired by Margaret Starbird. Traditional esoteric Christianity that dates historically back thousands of years to Origen of Alexandria dealt with metaphysical matters. The common interpretation of Gnosticism widely held by maistream scholarship is that it was a dualist nature holding that matter was evil and rejecting the physical substance of Christ. This can be easily substantuated by reliable and independent sources from works published by mainstream scholars. It was the book Holy Blood and Holy Grail that was first responsible for twisting the idea that Gnosticism "believed that Jesus Christ was a human being", and this became uncritically repeated ever since by those who uncritically follow the modern concept of the Jesus Bloodline. Again, it can be very easily verified by citing scholarly books that the Jesus Christ of Gnosticism was not a physical human being. None of the comments here can be described as "Original research". Wfgh66 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwen. Could you intervene in the debate about Esoteric Christianity on the Talk:Jesus bloodline page? --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please comment under my compromise proposal on the Talk:Jesus bloodline page? --Loremaster (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Garrysmod – Garry's Mod

Hai! Could you undelete this article? I'll address your concerns (G11) if you do. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done :) See if you can get 1 or 2 more sources in too? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure ;-) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, and no disrespect intended, I'm surprised you deleted this. I had declined a speedy very recently, the subject is definitely notable as evident by a few clicks, and I don't think it really approaches G11 at all. Maybe just a reminder to check histories before deleting, too – I sometimes forget to do this and end up with egg on my face. Tan | 39 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunny-side up here, a bit runny :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh. You better have a look at this. User:GENIUS(4th power) possibly? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Likely so, whoever it was, posting a block template on their 2nd edit got them an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

meta-medicine article – please can I get it back to work on

• Meta-medicine

Hi Gwen

I wrote an article yesterday entitled 'meta-medicine' which was deleted for 'blatant advertising'. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this wasn't my intention. In fact, I made an edit to a related page about 'Ryke Geerd Hamer' which had a link to a commercial site about Meta-Medicine.

While I work using Meta-Medicine, I was creating this page on behalf of the non-profit-making International Meta-Medicine Association.

Please could you do me a favour and return my article for me to edit, to avoid the issue of advertising. I will take out links to commercial organisations and only link to the International Meta-Medicine Association.

Looking forward to hearing form you

Viv Craske Viv Craske (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put it at User:Viv Craske/sandbox. If you could source some of the text, this would help a lot too. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"much notability in the world began as spam"

I noticed that you attached a comment to your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky, seemingly implying that any notability the subject may now have is due to past online self-promotion. Without disagreeing with your sentiment in general, I'd like to point out that this does not seem to be the case here: based on the sources I could find, the person being discussed and his band were mostly notable in the mid-90s, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and well before the creation of Wikipedia or even the popularization of the World Wide Web. Under the circumstances, the comment seems a bit inappropriate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mistook what I said. I did not say this topic is non-notable. If I had meant to say so, I would have said "This topic is not notable." Rather, I was making a remark about how notability comes about. Put another way, "On some level, it's all spam." I wouldn't worry about this, it's likely a language barrier/spin thing. The article has been kept, following a consensus by editors in good faith believing this topic indeed has notability. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say (at least) one of us has indeed misunderstood something here. I wasn't accusing you of saying the topic wasn't notable. I was merely pointing out that, based on both my own web search and on my reading of the comments by most others arguing for keeping it, it seems to me the primary reason why people consider Trubetsky and Vennaskond notable is that they were a popular band in Estonia around 1993–1996. It seems as if you either disagree with this (which seems odd, since evidence that they were popular and did release several local hit singles back then isn't hard to find and was cited in the AfD) or are using an unusual definition of "spam" that apparently includes "releasing a single and having it hit the charts".

Of course, you're right that the wording of an AfD closing comment makes little difference in the grand scheme of things, but still, the point of a closing comment should be to neutrally summarize the consensus arising from the discussion. Since nobody in the discussion seems to have expressed or even implied the (in itself valid) opinion that the subject would've acquired notability due to widespread online promotion or any other kind of "spam", it seems at least mildly inappropriate to state so in the closing comment, at least without marking it explicitly as your personal opinion. However incorrect I might consider the outcome of a particular AfD to be, I just don't feel that the closing comments are an appropriate place for cheap shots. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The nomination began, This is the real name of an extremely prolific spammer...

With all respect, I believe you have misunderstood my closing statement, it was not a cheap shot, it did not infer that the subject was a spammer but on the contrary, inferred that he is not. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, though. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't think anyone has disagreed that Bloomfield is a problematic user. (Whether his behavior qualifies as spam depends on how one defines the term, and is not really relevant here.) Whether he's actually Trubetsky is a more interesting question; the nominator provided no evidence of that. Even assuming he is, though, he's only been editing Wikipedia since 2005, which is long after the peak of his musical career (so far); this isn't a case of a spammer becoming notable, but (possibly) of a notable musician becoming a Wikipedia spammer.

Anyway, I'm still not sure what your point with the comment was (since you say above that it wasn't what I first took it to imply). At best it now feels like a complete non sequitur. I don't, mind you, actually have any particular problem with it — at this point I'm just genuinely curious. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The pith of my humble try at being witty, taken to its utter end-all, could be something like even the Beatles were spammers. Think of what the likes of Lennon might have done with MySpace. Fame's the name of the game, maybe even more so for the talented and gifted. It's my English humour I reckon, a bit thick sometimes and maybe I'm a bit daft for laughin' at me own jokes, I'm harmless though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Afd close

I would have thought you would have relisted for more input here. But maybe I'm just bitter because I nommed it :P ...Seraphim♥Whipp 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Keep in mind, I only close the old, aged, tough ones nobody else has touched so I expect some feedback :) Meanwhile I've found that relisting an AfD which has only gotten one comment in 7 days (a keep to null the nom, no less, which made a pithy observation that the mag's name makes text searches a pain) isn't likely to get anything that'll change the outcome. Since new magazines are very dodgy, money-eating businesses, you might keep an eye on it and re-nom in a few months with a clearer statement as to why it might not be notable. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Cégep de Victoriaville

This was a stub article on one of Quebec's French-language junior colleges or cegeps. Another editor moved this article and then the article and the redirect were both deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 04:30, 15 June 2008 Gwen Gale (Talk | contribs) deleted "Cégep de Victoriaville" ‎ (R1: Redirect to a deleted, nonexistent, or invalid target)
2. 02:37, 15 June 2008 GreenJoe (Talk | contribs) moved Cégep de Victoriaville to CEGEP de Victoriaville over redirect

Hi. There is no stub in the article's history, only a redirect, then the CSD (speedy request) by the editor who created the redirect to delete it. Nothing is stopping you from putting a stub there (or at CEGEP de Victoriaville, which was not deleted by me) yourself. If you need further help with this, please do ask me. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I created a stub at Cégep de Victoriaville, so everything should be fine now. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)