Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 22 January 2008

Talk archives
1 2

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know once you've answered the questions on your RfA page and I'll get the nomination started. Try to make your answers as thorough as possible. You can see how others have answered them at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Remember not to canvass, and to admit to any conflicts you've had. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget to sign the "acceptance" part too. :) Acalamari 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. :) Acalamari 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian

Every time I look at this article, I wince. It should be much better quality. If everything you wished for came true for this article, what would you include? I have access to a massive amount of research, and I'm shopping around for a few big articles to tackle. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're on to something, it's clean but sadly, has turned into little more than a portal and is no longer much of a narrative. For starters I'd put in lots more history and maybe re-integrate some of those sub-articles into the text. I'd be happy to help you. This article can be a long one, it's a big, core topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Gwen, I changed my username and adjusted the barnstar signature accordingly. Hope you don't find this intrusive. Glad to see you're up for RfA. --Veritas (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket

No problem. I'm trying to fix the problems that were identified to get it to Good Article status. Fortunately I have a lot of books about the riot at my disposal.

The first time I visited Chicago (c. 1990) I went to the old Haymarket, to Waldheim (Forest Home) Cemetery, and to the Police Academy to "see the sights". (I didn't find Haymarket Revisited, a tour guide, until after my visit.) It left quite an impression. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was 18, visiting Chicago and shopping when I got slightly lost and wandered by a post office called "Haymarket." I said to myself (more or less, as I recall), "Hmm, I wonder if I might be near where the Haymarket riot happened..." and lo, I was! The square was utterly desolate, I was alone and a bit scared so I ran off. I spent the next day in the library reading up and came back with a friend and we walked about, tracing out where everything was and so on (not a marker in sight back then). What's funny about it is, a couple of days later, by chance, I ate dinner at the Union League Club! Did I have a tale to tell! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know where my questions are going

I want you to know that I have great respect for your contributions (both in quantity and quality), your project loyalty even when as Wyss you were unduly punished by arbcom (IMHO), and your excellent boldness and energy. You seem a good sort; if you lived in NYC, we might know and work with each other. You maintain a cheerful face, your edits have an enduring quality, and you edit in a difficult beat. All that said, you'll have to explain some things about your activity here and on the Wyss talk page, if you want my support. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, please ask whatever you like and I'll be open with you. You've been around here long enough to know how this stuff happens. If you need to nudge me, please feel free. My only dilemma is that I wholly, sincerely support arbcom and what they do, along with WP policy, so although I think that arbcom ruling about me was an utter botch, helpful folks do make mistakes sometimes and I see it as a glitch precipitated by my own lack of experience at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've seen arbcom botch some big ones, cases which caused (and cause) me to edit with slightly less enthusiasm. And if you're going to seek community approval, you'll need this sort of issue out in public. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we wholly agree and this is one of the reasons I accepted the nomination. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely characterize the 19th century American history interest cluster of wikipedia editors to be reflexively defensive against edits by new users, especially when the subject edited (Naming the American Civil War, rumors of Lincoln's "gayness", etc.) has seen extensive coverage in talk or when the sources provided don't pass the experienced nostrils of page watchers. My eyes were originally drawn to the Talk:Abraham Lincoln dispute because of some language North Shoreman used in an edit summary. The amhist milhist group is not huge, and we tend to stumble on each other's hard work a lot, and that builds a certain esprit de corps and reliance on each other's judgments. BusterD (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in a few similar little sets and cliques. I've also learned they're sometimes, but not nearly always, a helpful shorthand for gleaning a quick take on something. Oh and yes, "reflexively defensive" rather much describes what I found at AL. Truth be told, I found it hard to believe at first, so I made an educated guess and ignored some warning cues, which is another reason why things flashed up the way they did. Also, I thought kinda maybe one of those editors who had made comments about the lack of critical sources (there were three in all) might show up and help out. They didn't. Sigh. Which is why I call it "no meaningful consensus among experienced editors" for those sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's likely to suggest you got an easy RfA. More like old school. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's remarks are driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply note: My association with the AL page dispute began as a content issue (drawn by edit summaries of a long time page watcher), then degenerated into a conduct issue (over why Gwen manicured her talk page before archiving). BusterD (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I strongly believe, if I had happened to agree with your take on sources and subsequently engaged in the same behaviour at Abraham Lincoln whilst supporting your editorial PoV against a different user who did not, say User:Thorsmitersaw, you would would not be criticizing my conduct at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the bye, admins delete stuff from their talk pages all the time (I'm ok with what he did there). Meanwhile, I provided an unambiguous link to the whole archive. I didn't hide a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I've tended to criticize your conduct, that's because measuring a candidate's past conduct and current ability under pressure is exactly the purpose of RfA. You were doing better when you weren't indicting others who disagree. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear your tidbits of "advice" have been crafted only to lead me into discussions which have given you a forum to post wholly unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of fact regarding my contribution history. This has all been over a disagreement about editorial content and sources and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't edited my comment so as to imply a false personal attack, I'd likely never remembered you at all. I see wildly sourced stuff all the time. When I saw how you openly gamed the system by editing relevant talk, I felt a responsibility to archive evidence for my reference. Freedom=Responsibility. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop and you know it. Sorry to say so, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested

Read this anon post to Rklawton's talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I wrote a suggestion on your RFA that you probably should consider.--STX 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs showing any past exchanges you and I have had? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the point. I really don't think you are ready to be an admin nor can you be trusted to not abuse the tools. What was the point of this edit?--STX 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A mistake, thanks for pointing it out. As you can imagine, I've been a bit distracted by the RFA. I think it's clear and reasonable, given your comments, why I'd want to see diffs of any interaction we've had in the past. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln. --STX 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's suggestion is driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolam

Gwen, Please refer to irene-amelia.com for updated information about Irene Craigmile Bolam. It is essential the falsely contrived and illegal biography that Misplaced Pages has published about Irene Craigmile Bolam either be corrected or removed. Misplaced Pages is displaying false information on said biography page. The photo displayed is not of the original Irene Craigmile Bolam either. All of this is provable in a law court if necessary. Thanks, Electra10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra10 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen: I'm sorry but I am willing to challenge anyone in a court of law on this matter. The information displayed in Wikipdia's nicely contrived "Irene Craigmile Bolam" biography by use of conventionally available research material, on a topic that has remained a historical debate for over forty years, is "basically false" even though Misplaced Pages appears to be favoring the reporting of it as "basically true." This (unfortunately) leaves Misplaced Pages responsible in the end for conveying and therefore promoting to the public, a "basically false" diatribe of biographical information about said person. Again, so much would be highly provable in any law court. Especially where the woman's image displayed in the photograph Misplaced Pages published in the article, definitely does not represent the image of the original Irene Craigmile (Bolam.) By Misplaced Pages openly promoting said information as acceptably true material to be regarded by the masses, based on the contrivance of its supplying entity, Misplaced Pages itself is promoting an overall falsehood and therefore in violation of the law. I recommend either removing the Irene Craigmile Bolam biography completely, or re-submitting said biography as a matter of debate.