User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2

Quick question/message for you

Hi! I noticed your discussion on the Abraham Lincoln page, and I was relieved to see some of your posts. The idea that Lincoln wasn't a great president (let alone even a good one) is something that I stumbled upon pretty recently, and now I'd like to write an oratory on it. I was wondering if you had any good sources for me to refer to to help write the speech, since you seem to know a lot of information.

Also, I'm kind of new to writing on Wikipedia, so sorry if this is in the wrong place (I'm sure you can just delete it anyway :P )

Anyway, any information/references you're willing to share would be extremely helpful. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word to Mother (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for leaving me this message and welcome to Wikipedia! I humbly suggest that you get started by looking at Wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:3rr and WP:CIVIL to get an understanding of how things work here. Then, you might try editing some lower-profile, non-controversial articles. Meanwhile, at this time there is no consensus at Abraham Lincoln for even hinting he had any flaws or unhelpful agendas as president of the US (this, by the bye, I think more or less reflects current general opinion in the US). The editors watching that high profile article don't even accept sources which don't unwaiveringly praise Lincoln, calling such sources unscholarly and ridiculing editors who offer them. I'm hoping consensus will gradually build to bring the article more in line with WP:NPOV but I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. Cheers and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it that there are a lack of reputable sources? I stumbled on a source of one of Abe's controversial positions by contemporary thinking and rushed to wikipedia to look for other dirt on Abraham Lincoln and to my disappointment found none, found the page locked, and found no serious discussion of his flaws on the talk page. --Wasspam (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of reputable sources. There are plenty of secondary sources and the primary sources are replete with direct quotes from AL which are clear enough on their own. However, Abraham Lincoln is currently dominated by editors who accept no criticism of Lincoln and call any source which is critical of Lincoln unscholarly (or worse). At least they haven't been calling criticism of Lincoln vandalism, they have in the past. The page isn't locked, by the way, it's only semi-protected. New users can edit it after they've been registered for a few days. Gwen Gale 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My take then

Oooph!

POV worries at AL

Here's an archive showing how I got chased bullied off Abraham Lincoln by editors with whom I do so strongly disagree both in terms of their interpretations of Wikipedia policy and sources on Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say thank you, if I may for defending my first and futile and admitantly rushed attempts to shed some light upon lincolns dark shadow. And to thank you for the comment upon my page discussion page here. If you are attempting to locate any sources I may be of some assistance.-- Thorsmitersaw-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the editors (an admin) who chased bullied me away from Abraham Lincoln was later blocked for edit warring on a different article. These editors do this, I believe, in good faith, sometimes not even fully understanding how far they're straying from written WP policy, since they honestly and truly believe they are being helpful and fair. Meanwhile, I think it would take a solid consensus of at least 3 or 4 experienced editors to overcome the strong and misleading PoV of that article. I don't see it so far, although I guess it'll show up sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above admin hasn't come back since he was briefly blocked, though I hope he does, he did lots of helpful stuff and I think he always meant to be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And lo, another editor who was in on that (after being politely asked to take a break from editing on WP:ANI because his "interaction escalates rather than solves problems") has blanked his user page, leaving behind the text, This user has decided to leave Wikipedia due to a lynch mob mentality against anyone who attempts to agitate the powers-that-be, specifically a certain high-quality content contributor. Most experienced editors, who have seen this kind of farewell so many times, will get the pith of the tale straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

fair characterization

(The wording for the above link was changed)

OK, that's not a fair characterization. If it's your intent to bait other editors, I can stop you from doing that. Conversley, if you can show me a diff where any editors state he or she will "tolerate no critical sources whatsoever", I'll retract this warning. Rklawton (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, never mind you're an admin for a tick, if two of you think it's unfair, that does worry me some, for sundry reasons. Although I thought it was fair and was in no way trying to bait anyone, to show my good faith to all three of you and to follow my ultimate, hardcore wish for peace in my Wikipedia experience/hobby, I've changed the wording. Truth be told, I'm kinda glad you nudged me because many hours later, I think this a more fair and neutral way to put it (which is what I was trying to do anyway). So, thanks for speaking up about it. If you still have worries let me know and I'll give it another spin, ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note (for the record): 11 days later the above admin was blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Shamrock houston.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Shamrock houston.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Doc^g 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on both the image page and your talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Congratulations on your efforts to make Shamrock Hotel a good article. The eyes of Texas (and Houston) are upon you! Postoak (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta! If I were in Houston and it was 1952, I'd say let's have one at the Cork Club :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great a idea! Maybe even run into Glenn :) Have a Merry Christmas, Postoak (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee cool but... don't say snarky stuff about his hotel :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden bait

Thanks - I spotted that on my watchlist days back but couldn't see it when I viewed the page so I kinda suspected it might be a bit of cheese! Didn't know you could do that. Ironically, looks like the advice was not taken :) (Sarah777 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

He hasn't been back since he was briefly blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a sighting on List of massacres this morning - testing the water I guess! - Sarah777 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who do you mean? User:Rklawton hasn't made an edit since the 22nd. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! You are right - I got the wrong one! (Sarah777 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Vandal IP - please BLOCK

This IP is vandalising the List of massacres. Please block. Though there is an Arbcom ruling stating that reverting IPs does not constitute 3RR with several Admins on the same tag-team (some with a history of power-abuse) I can't trust them to stick by the Law. Ta; and URGENT. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

PS - Are you an Admin and how would I know from your page?? (Sarah777 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey Sarah, these IP edits may be nettlesome but they are not vandalism. It looks like a content/sourcing dispute on the threshold of 3rr but I don't see anything blockable here so I wouldn't post it to WP:ANI. Moreover, please don't let whoever's doing this draw you into an edit war, which does nothing but rot article content. Besides, you could lose count and get yourself blocked. The only way to overcome this is through a consensus of other editors. If you stay cool and hang in there for awhile (days, weeks, months, whatever) and stick steadfastly to WP:V you can likely sway content. PS I'm not an admin, never had much need for "the tools" since I'm only here to edit articles on sundry topics which I'm drawn to. I like writing, researching and learning more about them. Meanwhile I'll watch the page for awhile, after a quick look I don't see anything untoward about the sources being deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the wide breadth of your continuous contributions. Good work. Strothra (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I actually just noticed that you got one of these a few days ago. I would have waited a bit had I caught that, but you still deserve recognition. Some great stuff, really. --Strothra (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

I hope you don't beat your head against the wall too much with the editor you're speaking with on the talk page. This is a sock puppet of User:Dooyar, also using the identity User:Nyannrunning. I've instituted one sock puppet investigation with this user, but it was in correlation with Thanksgiving and he/she was absent over that weekend and it was closed. When he/she comes back after this week, we'll be opening another. The editor knows about WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, yada yada. It's come up on every page that he/she has edited under different IDs. Thought you'd like to know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for telling me about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)