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

If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Contents 1 I received a warning from you 2 accusation 3 my apologizes 4 Editing 5 the 6 Proofreader77 (talk · contribs) 7 a new source on Abraham Lincoln 7.1 pr 8 Shamrock Hotel

[edit] I received a warning from you

I don't think the warning was at all well considered for appropriateness before being given. The problem is not that I am removing sourced and verifiable categories from the Beyoncé Knowles article, but that user Mcelite and I have opposing views on what kind of categories belong on the article. I see that user Mcelite and yourself are well acquainted, but warnings should be given out after making sure it is appropriate to do so, instead of simply after being contacted. I will talk about the problem on the talk page as you suggested, but I'd appreciate it if the warning you gave me was recanted. Surelyhuman (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this before leaving the warning on your talk page. You removed reliably sourced categories. Edit warring over what to call the ancestral background of a living person is one of the most harmful kinds of edit warring that can happen on en.Wikipedia and I can't bring myself to give it much shrift, which is why I left such a straightforward warning. You cannot take the article back and forth on this. You should not take verifiable content out of an article. Both you and Mcelite should now try and gather sources and consensus on the talk page and if the two of you can't come to an agreement, let someone else gauge the consensus and make any needed edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] accusation

[1] accuses me of "secretly canvassing" -- as this is absolutely untrue, and part of a continuing harassment by an editor, I would like you to be aware of such accusations. Collect (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The following edits appear to be secretly canvassing: [2][3][4][5][6]. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This also appears to be canvassing on a merger I proposed for Left-wing nationalism: [7][8][9][10][11]. I was not notified of this correspondence and it was not mentioned at Talk:Left-wing_nationalism#Merge with Nationalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how "secret" any of that is, but it looks like something on the edge of selective canvassing to me. Collect, you should have a look at WP:CANVASS. It's ok to leave one or two notes like that on user talk pages if you must, but if you want to draw more editors than that to an article, you'll need to use project pages and be more neutral with your wording.

Consensus isn't a vote. A single editor, talking things over with a flock of others who don't agree, can sometimes (and always should be able to) sway article content with fit sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

First excamples are not CANVASS -- all but one are to one editor over a period of months, the sole other is to one editor who had reverted the edit in question. As to the second one ... I wrote in a neutral manner to people who had !voted on deletion -- a neutral notification is not canvass by definition, and absoplutely not "selective canvass". I did not notify TFD because he was the person who actually raised the issue. Under no circumstances ought that be considered canvassing, to be sure. And you should note that I have had essentially zero contact with those editors otherwise. This is, again, "diff hunting" on an editor with 10K edits. Note further that TFD specifically said that I supported calling the Daily Mail "Nazi." The accusations are palpably false, and deleterious to WP. Collect (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Those posts didn't look neutral to me but even if they were, neutral posts can still be canvassing, doesn't matter at all how much contact you've had with the editors. Please don't do that, there's amost never a true need for it and edits by a flock of "partisan" accounts (which are often done in good faith and are not even seen by those who make them as being "partisan") seldom help. Meanwhile I don't pay much heed to the word Nazi when I see it on en.Wikipedia talk pages (unless it's thrown as a PA), most folks don't even know what it means. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted all involved (including Colonel Warden) AFAICR, and I would never call those posted to anything but neutral (DGG is partisan? Nope.) -- and the accusation about me approving of calling the Daily Mail "Nazi"? In short -- no "Secret canvassing" and no "canvassing" in anything but a p[roper usage. Meanwhile - I got harassing emails in the past which so far have not been acted on. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't think you canvassed but you did. This is not a big thing, don't do it again, is all. As for any harassing emails, if you're getting any now, let me know about them and I'll have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] my apologizes

I apologize for my harsh actions towards Surelyhuman. It just really bothered me that the user completely over looks certain things in a manner that seems ignorant to me. I'm taking a day off to cool off. Thank you again.Mcelite (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about it. That topic area brings forth some of the strongest (and in good faith) outlooks you'll see here. Worse, I think those kinds of categories are at once woefully fuzzy and hemmed-in. I don't think they should even be in BLPs but if they are, given how so many editors like the "meta-data" stuff they spin off (I say it's "garbage in, garbage out" half the time), one should take much heed and care with them. Labels can be ok here and there, but not only will most of them forever shift in sundry ways, they're often wrongly put or thought-out to begin with. Hence, I think sometimes, they're maybe not worth too much time, much less any bickering. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Hi, I've noticed that you have an extensive editing history on wikipedia. That is very impressive. I'm looking for a mentor to help me acclimate to the encyclopedia as I would like to begin editing soon. Do you have any useful suggestions to help me get started? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erohwasinewg (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You most likely don't need a mentor. The easiest way to learn how to edit en.Wikipedia is to begin editing and learn as you go. I've left a boilerplate welcome message on your talk page because it has helpful links, which you might read if you have some time. The main things a new editor should keep in mind are:

• Edit with a neutral outlook and cite sources.
• Be cool.
• Never edit war (revert back and forth), ever, no matter what happens.

I don't have time to mentor anyone, but you're very welcome to ask me questions here. If you still want a mentor, please have a look at Wikipedia:Mentorship. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the

I'm curious to know how you think an article on the could provide more information than wiktionary:the. Could you elaborate, just a bit? --Yair rand (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See this as background. If by some fluke an article on the topic does show up and you think it's not notable, WP:AFD will await. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)

Gwen, since you are familiar with the user, can you take a look at his contributions to WP:AN over the last day or so at this thread (the initial proposal is fine, but his participation soon degenerated into tomfoolery, baiting and edit-warring; see the page's edit-history). See also the my messages to him requesting him to stop, and reminding him of his edit-restrictions, which he seems to have violated. If he continues, I plan to issue short blocks, but would appreciate a second opinion and set of eyes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since AN isn't in the talk space, he didn't stray from those restrictions, but I agree he was baiting, being pointy and otherwise disruptive. Hence I'm going to widen the restriction to project pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Gwen Gale: You might take a look at my comment here on Abecedare's talk. That revert might be better with your signature, than someone whose actions are discussed in the comment. (No reply necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] a new source on Abraham Lincoln

I've been made aware of this new source on Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pr

Excellent. lol Abraham Lincoln was on my mind, and quoted in my most recently deleted comment — a joke which applies to the edit summary of the reversion (a pleasantry I got from Killerchihuahua's userpage after she gave me a barnstar).

PS: Metacomment on other matters (which have formal response on my talk): Proofreader77 is not Ottava Rima.

(No reply necessary to asides above. Assurance: All will be convivial.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not meant to be funny. What are you doing? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And I don't mean to be (too) funny, but since I have missed the opportunity to exchange gracious, sometimes clever remarks with you, I will respond now with a movie title that in Spanish reads "Abre los ojos," and in English, well, about the same thing. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shamrock Hotel

Wow, it's hard to believe it has been two years since the article was promoted to GA. Hope you are doing well. Cheers! Postoak (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)