User talk:Gwen Gale

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

Help... >_<'

Sweeney todd rewrite: 2008

Hi :)

I noticed that the page on the Sweeney Todd Rewrite was deleted. I'm really sorry - I removed all the text because the person who actually wrote the work did not know I had made a page about it - and I was scared that someone would copy their work and it would be all my fault... =_=' I've told the author about it now and she didn't mind anyway - but could I put the article back up again once I've improved it a little, please?

Thank you, Miss Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Todd (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've userfied what you wrote (and then blanked) at User:Miss Todd/sandbox. I cannot tell if this is about an historical event or fiction and moreover, there are no sources. I would suggest you work on this more before trying to recreate the article, because it would likely be deleted again. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to rewrite a deleted page please

Hello Gwen

I would like to take another crack at writing an article for SAWA Global that is less "advertisement like". Can you please provide access to the page you deleted so I can try and write a more objective and informative page?

Thanks Gayle Moss Sawaglobal (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Sawaglobal SAWA Global[reply]

Hi! First we have to fix your username, I've left a note on your talk page. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree

I've been editing that article and archiving there for nearly a year, I think I know what I'm doing. New arrivals to that article with challenges and proposals that are out of alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies -WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR- are wasting their time and that of others if they continue to ignore content policy. So here's the time-honored drill there, used by admins and regular editors there alike for several years: Those making objections and suggestions ignore content policies should expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is *not* a form of rudeness, but meant to help. To respect their own time and that of others they should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. Those who have been pointed to policy and yet continue to argue the same matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy can expect to not get the response they are looking for and have their discussions prematurely archived. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating. There's no Wikipedia policy that allows for endless raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy and there is one against doing that, WP:DE, and it's better for all if things don't get to that point. That's why we archive discussions that ignore or are ignorant of content policy. Odd nature (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we only have a disagreement on how to get to the same goal. If a user can't follow sourcing policies, that's indeed disruption, which is very blockable. Let me know if you need help, I'm wholly uninvolved with ID. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

southern datum

Well, it was only a matter of time, obviously... You were admirably restrained, I thought. Pinkville (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Agree with that block, and I was also impressed with your restraint. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Noam awaits you...

If you have a moment, please have a gander at this Jovian moon's recent edits. Thanks. Pinkville (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks I see OR (never mind that editor's no linguist). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that editor's no linguist You noticed that, too? heh heh. I'm sure the 50+ year-old edifice of modern linguistics will tumble to the ground if this fellow just blows. Pinkville (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myungbaksanseong

The result is NOT delete, but no consensus. Wikipedia:Coatrack that you refer is not also a policy but just an essay. You're a new admin and I dont' really think that you're doing well on this. You need to explain your deletion reason concisely. I also want the content in my talk page. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such kind words! Since there is no way I can be neutral about this after that outburst (which came only seconds after I closed the discussion), please take it to WP:DRV, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my intention. Still, you fail to give your closing rationale at all. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can take the lack of a closing rationale as the closing admin's agreement with the nomination statement. I'm sorry you're unhappy about this, I do suggest you take it to WP:DRV and all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1. Then, you would know that the nominator's rationale is not true regarding that "This word has been expired in Korea.". Two days ago, one of the tree big television networks in South Korea featured the term, 'myungbaksanseong' as a closing comment and not to mention of other medias as well. I will look forward to your input at WP:DRV. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ouch. Gwen may be relatively new as an admin, but your opinion of her performance puts you in a distinct minority. To the contrary, the project would benefit greatly from more admins like her.

I didn't participate (or even see) that AfD when it was active, but I just reviewed it, and I agree with Gwen's conclusion. Regardless of the number of !votes, there were more reasons put forth to delete than to keep, and the arguments advanced for deletion were stronger (being rooted in policies). Possibly her summary would have benefitted from mentioning WP:NOT and WP:NEO, but the close itself was perfectly valid. ~~Of course you can always try DRV if you disagree.~~ after the edit conflict, I see you have done just that. Doc Tropics 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With over 1500 admins at Wikipedia, some of these AfDs still wind up in backlogs for many days because they're often not easy to close and most admins don't like getting talk page messages like the above. Truth be told I think the term may be a bit too new for encyclopedic notability. Let time tell. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I narrow down the mention of her ability as an admin to just this case, because the first one stemmed from my immediate sentiment toward her closing without proper rationale. Even though I did not participate in her two RFA, I read through the pages and acknowledge her contributions before her becoming an admin. Well, I'm not sure that I'm a member of such the minor group, and your (Doc Tropics) post-analysis would affect my thought on this. Anyway, feel free to express your thought and interpretation on related policies at WP:DRV. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Wonder Woman

Hello, I was wondering if you could go through with this since my suggestion appears unopposed and there was an invitation to discussion without result. Please let me know if there are any issues! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think lack of commentary can be taken as a consensus. Moreover, it could be nobody spoke up because there almost has to be a simpler way to handle this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID request

Gwen,

I've been trying to be very careful to have a fair discussion on ID, even to the point of specifying that I will not continue it past two or three days, and that it can be archived after that. however, Hrfan keeps refactoring part of the discussion. I realize that your sympathies lie more with Hrfan than with me, but in the interests of calm, intelligent discussion, could you please ask him to stop and let me restore the argument for the brief period it will take to finish the discussion? --Ludwigs2 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "sympathies" lie with WP:OR and WP:RS. Talk pages are meant for the discussion of reliable sources, not lengthy outpourings of original thought (however well-meant) and this goes thrice for controversial topics. Although I tend to dislike seeing any kind of non-linear refactoring of talk page threads and don't think closing threads with hat tags is the most helpful way to go here, until you start citing your comments with reliable, published sources which have to do directly with ID, there is almost nothing I can do to help. Moreover, if you carry on with this behaviour, you could be blocked, so please start citing some sources about ID, or stop. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandsworth Parks Police

Hi Gwen, I've noticed you closing quite a few AFDs today - excellent work - that backlog is neverending...sigh. Anywho, I noticed your "closing statement" on the top of this one, and some excellent advice that I got from another prolific closer was to keep your opinion out of the closing statement. If you have a strong, personal belief that the article should be deleted, you should've simply participated in the debate instead of actually closing it. I tend to skip over the ones that I either feel strongly about on a topical level, or feel that consensus is "getting it wrong". Just some friendly advice - I'd hate to see your close get dragged through the mud simply because of your statement. Cheers, and thanks for your mopwork! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks. I was happy to close it as a keep because I even more strongly believed that's what should have been done, never mind my own thoughts otherwise on the topic. Although I did think the consensus "got it wrong" I believe consensus is the only way through these borderline topics and it can always be re-nominated someday if policies become clearer. However, I'll add something to my closing statement since you brought it up. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here on this one, I'm curious as to why it's a keep when the keeps even said it needed refs (there are none) and mutters of inherent notability. More vague comments then anything policy based. I think if anything it's a merge, but don't worry I have no intentions of taking it to DRV. I'll happily !vote delete and nominate them when they come up but I don't care enough to take it to DRV. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. They shouldn't have bolded those week keeps then ;) Oh but you reminded of something I should have added to my closing statement! By the bye, I've never thought AfD was a fit place to talk about merges. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get the bolding. I think merge comes out of AfD at times, but like I said, my give a damn is busted. I'm going back to the backlog. My brain hurts. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Caspian blue & my RFA

Just leave his after-the-fact comments in there. It doesn't bother me to have just the one, but I'd prefer if any lasting confrontations take place elsewhere. Also:

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Gwen Gale, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]