Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TigerShark (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 16 November 2008 (→Wheel warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Deletion of Suthan Article

Dear Gwen, i wish to ask you to reinstate the Suthan article on wikipedia as he is a role model and inspiration to sri lankan tamil youths across europe. As tamil youths are embroiled in the stereotype of gang warfare and crime, i as a sri lankan wish to express the general view that we are proud of such a youngster making a name for himself for good reasons and i ask you to help promote the good name of such youngsters, as he is truely one of the most talented tamil people to walk the earth.

Thank you

Sankar1987 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)SankarSankar1987 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has been CSD deleted 6 times. I've sent it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suthan. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Gale, do you not think that there is an issue with these tags ], given the history? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Karl Heim easily meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics). However, for such a short article, the quotes are way too long and there likely shouldn't be more than one. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time cleaning up the article. Firefly ought to figure out that further violations of WP:AGF are not helpful. OrangeMarlin 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gale, do you think that my asking this question is an indication of bad faith per  ? --Firefly322 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER SKY PRESS

Hey Gwen,

I set up a page for Another Sky Press in the USA (http://www.anothersky.org/).

For your own reference, you can check out: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/search/?title=Another_Sky_Press

So, fair enough - I decided to see if we could sort out some importance and/or significance, and got this response from Kristopher Young, who heads-up Another Sky:

"I've been researching this some. The issue noted by the mod is 'notability'. Which, on the corresponding detail page seems to require 'reliable secondary sources'.

"Which translates, I think, to the article by the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/NSG0IP23KS1.DTL&hw=another+sky+press&sn=004&sc=775

"And perhaps a few others from Dogmatika, maybe even referencing Click book club on Chuck Palahniuk's site."

Do you think we could reconsider the page? Cherrs for considering! Shareradar (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, have you read this page yet? One article in the SFC may be enough for some editors but it's not enough to meet WP:CORP. Still, it's a strong citation. I'd suggest looking for at least two more independent, reliable sources with meaningful coverage of this topic. Thanks for showing me the business website but it's not an independent source, so of no help here. Also, the article text would need some assertion of significance or importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier)

Hi Gwen, Can you help me with a very small thing, please. The Augustin Trébuchon (French soldier) page was created by Les Woodland and revised by me. It should be moved to Augustin Trébuchon but the move function will not work. I think that he is, and probably always will be, the only Augustin Trébuchon that is notable. Can you fix it and/or tell me if what I should have done. Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC). ps. This is still the best user talk page on Wiki, Reithian in its education and entertainment values, and a must for any watch-list.

Thanks Autodidactyl (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Only so you know, since there was already content (a redirect) at Augustin Trébuchon, the admin bit was needed for the move. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Based on our prior interaction, I had serious reservations that you had the temperament to make it as an admin. It seems I owe you an apology. Keep up the good work. Ronnotel (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ronnotel! It's wonderful to hear from you and thanks so much for the very kind words, they mean something to me :) If you ever need/would like me to help or pitch in with something, please do let me know. Speaking of our dear Fred, who I think you and I have always agreed has, more often than not, gotten rather short shrift as maybe the keenest aerial navigator of the 1930s (which is likely why Amelia asked him along), have you heard, TIGHAR has lately found they collected some DNA which could be hers when they were last on Nikumaroro? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, they put this up today, more about Fred's sextant boxes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In all good faith...

Hi Gwen, I'm involved in a sourcing disagreement going on at Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (see ). I am holding a photo-copy of the article in question in my hand. The question () here of doubt is extremely similar in scope and circumstances to . In both cases there is a physical document (the first case a printout, this case a photocopy) that is being, to my mind, unreasonably disputed. Perhaps this is a massive coincidence (in which case my sincere apologies), but my evaluation of the patterns are that these two editors are mimicking each other in way that seems unnecessary. Given that I really do edit wikipedia in what I had always thought was good faith (and I respect and believe you that my faith has been weak or outright failed at times), what should I do? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How dare you imply that I am a sockpuppet of User:Hrafn with whom you were involved in an unseemly attack. I'm asking that you be blocked for this continued personal attack. OrangeMarlin 10:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly I should block you now, since you're still finding hurtful ways to comment on editors, not content. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the behavior. Usually the way to solve something like this is to post the entire passage on the talk page in a {{quotation}} or offer to scan/email or fax the article to the person questioning it in response to a {{request verification}} template. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to get into the arcane, but really, he was creating a list of articles. Two or three of them were sufficient. That many qualifies almost as trivia. But Firefly cannot get away with his veiled threats. He's gone to the two blocking admins (you and Todd) and dropped little comments how horrible I was to work on HIS article. Actually, I really was trying to clean them up. He has no good faith. OrangeMarlin 23:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational hammer

Though I did use my education once or twice in discussions, I was properly chastised for it, and have not proffered it as evidence in any article discussion since, meaning in over 4 months. The Essjay controversy is a burning reminder to anyone who would misrepresent themselves inappropriately, and while I have the educational background of which i speak (though mostly via comparison, and not specificity), I won't be using it as a tool in discussions. No one is the smartest person in the room whilst editing in Misplaced Pages, and certainly not me. - Arcayne () 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! As you've likely learned by now, there is no need to talk about advanced degrees here, since they tend to yield a thorough knowledge of reliable sources (and where to find them), which when wielded along with other Misplaced Pages-friendly skills such as canny writing, will more often than not sway and even teach the good-faith but maybe less knowledgeable editor, along with more neatly handling COI, SPA, soapbox and OR editors. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Joy Castro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to let you know that, following our recent discussion, I restored the other articles (all of the apart from the model). I know that you didn't agree with restoring, but I believe that I fully consulted you and gave good reasons why we shouldn't go the speedy route, so I hope that you are OK with the decision. TigerShark (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour is not acceptable. Now that you've wheel warred, we have nothing more to talk about until you revert your actions. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, two of the articles have again been tagged by an editor and deleted by another admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because you contacted them. What I did was not wheel warring because I consulted you extensively, even though we disagreed. Accusing me of wheel warring is highly inappropriate. TigerShark (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The edit history, if you care to look at it, will clearly show that the deletions happened before I left a note on User:Islander's talk page. I left the note there because Islander had already deleted them. You have wheel warred, which is not allowed and is very unhelpful to the project. You can't wheel war only because you didn't get your way. Please revert your actions now, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, please stop accusing me of wheel warring. An admin action is not protected, another admin can reverse it, they should just not do it without consultation. When I discussed it with you, you seemed to be insisting that I go through DRV. When I asked you, you said that you weren't insisting (and you have no right to do so). You don't own your admin actions any more than you own your contributions. TigerShark (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the diffs which show you are mistaken in saying, "Yes, because you contacted them.":

• 19:09, 15 November 2008 Islander deleted Hannah Job

• 19:08, 15 November 2008 Islander deleted Tony Bignell

• Revision as of 21:03, 15 November 2008, I left a message for Islander.

The articles were deleted yet again without a shred of contact from me. You have wheel warred, which is not allowed. There is nothing else to talk about until you revert your actions.Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen you have a responsibility to discuss these things with me without setting pre-conditions. Again, you do not own you admin actions. I discussed it fully with you and you said that you were not insisting that the deletions went to DRV. Why are you so insistent on keeping these speedy deleted, when I have raised reasonable concerns which, in conjunction with erring on the side of caution (as speedy deletions require), should mean we follow the other deletion processes? TigerShark (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to this, Islander reverted your wheel warring, which isn't allowed. I won't discuss anything with a wheel warring admin until the wheel warring is taken back. Please revert your other two actions (Sharokh Barocha and Joy Castro) and I'll be happy to talk about this further. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have replied on my talk page. Might I suggest that we end discussion there, and carry on here, or vice-versa - splitting the discussion in two will just cause even more problems. _TalkIslander 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Let's carry on here if you don't mind although for me, there's not much to talk about until TigerShark reverts his wholly non-consensus restorations of Sharokh Barocha and Joy Castro. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen. Please stop setting pre-conditions on discussion. TigerShark (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring

Gwen. As you know I reverted your deletion of the articles, after having a fairly extensive discussion about the merits of the original deletion. Islander reverted my undeletion of the articles without any discussion, and the only notification was his undeletion summary. You have now classified my undeletion of the articles as wheel warring several times. Can you please confirm whether you would also classify Islander's re-deletion as wheel warring? If not, why not? TigerShark (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You had no consensus, tried to skirt Misplaced Pages policy and a week later, you wheel warred. Wheel warring isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know that you consider my actions to be wheel warring. Do you consider Islander's to be wheel warring? TigerShark (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering and revert your actions. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Wikilawyering, I am not arguing whether my actions were or weren't wheel warring. If you are going to accuse me of wheel warring I want to see if you are being even handed. If you classify my actions as wheel warring, do you classify Islander's as wheel warring? TigerShark (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You tried to badger and wear me down last week and when that didn't come out has you hoped, you waited, then wheel warred. Now you're doing it again. If you have further questions about Islander, ask Islander, I've said what I have to say about Islander. I've never reverted another admin's actions without an overhwelming consensus on a fit project page and even then, it's been so rare I can't cite having done it even once. I have no time for wheel warring admins (happily, they're far and few between) and have wasted too much time on you already. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have still not answered the question, and it is a very simple question. If you classify my actions as wheel warring, do you classify Islander's actions as wheel warring? I cannot ask Islander whether you consider his actions to be wheel warring, only you know that. Why will you not answer? TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you have not reverted your actions. Wheel warring isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen. Please don't archive an active discussion, you have a responsibility to discuss this if you are going to accuse me of wheel warring. Regardless of whether I have reverted my actions, you have classified my actions as wheel warring and I would like to know whether you classify Islander's the same. You disagreed with undeleting and agreed with deleting, does that mean that you do not classify Islander's actions as wheel warring because they returned the article to the state you agreed with? TigerShark (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen. You insistence on archiving this discussion, and accusing me of badgering is frankly getting a little ridiculous. If you have the strength of conviction to accuse me of wheel warring, you should have the same strength of conviction to answer the question. Instead you just keep repeating that I wheel warred, accuse me of Wikilawyering and badgering. If you wish to classify my actions as wheel warring and not Islander's just say so. TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that you are now just continuing to archive this discussion, as a final tactic to avoid discussion, I can't force you to answer, but I think a fair conclusion can be drawn from you unwillingness to answer. My observation is that you are unwilling to discuss subjects in a reasonable way, if that leads to a conclusion that you do not like. The original discussion on the deletions went this way, with you using various tactics to avoid actual discussion, such as just restating that they were tagged and deleted, and this current thread is a good example too. I asked you a straightforward question as to whether you believed Islander had wheel warred, and each time you just repeated that you believe I wheel warred, or accused me of something else (e.g. Wikilawyering). Because you continued to avoid answering the question and I kept asking it, you eventually accused me of disruption and badgering, and then starting using the archiving tactic. You are also very willing to openly condemn actions if they do not meet with your approval, accustions of wheel warring seem to be a common tactic, but you will not condemn the same actions if you agree with the outcome. These tactics are inappropriate Gwen, because you expect consensus, but you use any tool in the box to avoid a proper discussion and then try to replace consensus with a vote (e.g. keep saying that the articles have been deleted by two people). You have a responsibility to discuss issues, even if that discussion goes a way that you don't like. Please consider changing your approach to these types of interactions, so that there is a better chance of reaching a good decision rather than just defending an initial position using tactics that risk alienating others. TigerShark (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring definition

Because you accuse people of wheel warring, perhaps you would like to review Misplaced Pages:Wheel war/Examples, to understand better what is an what is not wheel warring. Perhaps you can apply the recent situation where you deleted and I undeleted and see if this meets the criteria. TigerShark (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)