User talk:Gwen Gale - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 17 March 2007 (→Blocked: I have sent this admin an email.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:34, 17 March 2007 by Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) (→Blocked: I have sent this admin an email.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk archives
archive1

Idle comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on Essjay's page

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

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

Comment

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

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

Essjay RVing

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

Inquiry about comment

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

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

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

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

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

Credentialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Of Shallot

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

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

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

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

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

Forgive my ignorance but . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NOR rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Werdnabot

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

'k.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

Bot directions

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

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

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

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

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

Thank's for the bot setup!

Still not clear though on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa Nowak

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

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

Essjay article

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

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

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

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

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

Hilarities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re essay article created by anon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin abuse

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

Here are two links then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mountain Meadows massacre

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

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

Grauniad reveals all...

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

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

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

Wikipe-tan mopping

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

Sockpuppet admins

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

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

RegisterFly

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

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

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

warning to me

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

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

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

esses 'n zeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essjay apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa Nowak

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Guy...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is POV

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

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

Screeds and such

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florence and WMF

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

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

Assembled militia

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

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

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

Response to your comment on my talk page

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

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

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

Jacket

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

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

You request:

Meanwhile, please also review WP:No personal attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RegisterFly (again)

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

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

Banning "use" of credentials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick question re links to userspace

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

There are two aspects to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RegisterFly blog link

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

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

Punctuation in quotes

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

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

A bit of advice

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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