User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Apparent vandalism?

Hi Gwen Gale. The same user has reinserted the same, or similar, unsourced change to the Syndicalism article: [1] [2] [3] [4]

So far I have just reverted the changes, but that does not seem to make this user change his/her pattern. Should I take it to the administrators notice board? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm. None of it, old or new versions, is sourced, so although I understand what's happening, it's not vandalism, but edit warring by User:Scvisel (who is very close to 3rr) along with an utter lack of citations in the article, making it almost worthless to the reader other than throwing off a fuzzy notion of what syndicalism meant to whomever has contributed to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had, earlier left a message on the article's talk page. Sindicato is the Italian word used for a labor union, and it is not clear to me if the subject of the article is anything different than a discussion of the European labor movements. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Latin roots are all cognate. The pith is that syndicalism is nasty blend of socialism and corporate fascism built upon labour unions (themselves twisted takes, more or less, on all that was wrong with medieval guilds), which tend to be one of the most corrupt notions thought up by 19th century minds. :) Happily though, what I have to say about it is meaningless original research. The big worry is the lack of citations and that someone is edit warring over content which is unsourced both ways. I'd revert the edit-warrior but truth be told, I think the earlier edits are as worthless as his and I don't want my name on any of them. How's that for helpful? :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not whatever. It's not vandalism, it's edit warring over wholly unsourced content. If you want to help build and settle the article, find some reliable sources to cite, don't revert back and forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. (According to my own expert source, listening to Garrison Keillor on the radio, the word is widely used in the Midwest to indicate resignation to the inetivable.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Ok then. I've heard it spoken with another spin altogether. Sorry I misunderstood you and thanks for telling me what you meant. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever (just kidding). I have fixed on what it means by looking at Encyclopedia Britannica, "Syndicalism is a type of movement which aims to degrade capitalist societies through action by the working class on the industrial front." — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me but one can't cite a general encyclopedia, it's another tertiary source like Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I didn't cite it. I will try to find it somewhere else. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't envy you slogging through the sources on that one :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflist mess

Hi Gwen Gale, I could use some technical help. I just edited the introduction to the Stoicism article, and something I did resulted in red ink in the References section (if you click on a reference the red appears, but it does not always seem to be there otherwise). What went wrong? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference list. The problem came when you changed the reference and the rest of reference depended upon it, so I moved the old reference down to 4 from 3 (where you added the new reference). — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks Orion we had an edit conflict, you beat me to it :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On Brian Cox (physicist)

Hi Gwen, I was wondering if you could help me with fixing Brian Cox's article to fine style and higher quality. Also, I am not sure on how Wikipedia handles derogatory language, such as the newly added "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t***."

You have a lovely user-page. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you know, Brian's a spokesperson. LHC's indeed a highly lethal structure, there's a teensy, itsy bitsy risk it could set off something worldwide (I don't lose any sleep over that) and a much bigger but still very small risk that someone could botch it and blow up Geneva (I hardly lose any sleep at all over that) but what truly worries me, while I tend to have a strong scientific outlook, so far as that can go, is the utter corruption, waste and abuse of state funded science. CERN has been the chavel of many academic lives, but we're not meant to talk about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, how can I thank you? Thanks for spending two hours to fix the whole article. All I asked was how to and what rules, but you have done everything while I was having lunch. Again, I really appreciate for what you have done. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Happy to! I only spent about a half an hour on it though, then came back an hour and a half later to read it again and added another section title. Let me know if you need more help on anything! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwen, don't worry about the LHC at all, it's actually extremely safe to humans as in world and Geneva. The only actual danger is if a beam dump, or one of the superconductor quadruplet magnet explodes, which actually has already happened in 2007 due to support structure of a quadruplet magnet. Even still the magnets and beam dumps are 100 meters below Geneva so only danger is to part of LHC itself. If that wasn't enough, I am actually moving to Geneva for few months in 2009 when full energy will be reached, to experience in CERN control center for full luminosity LHC beam collisions at 7 tera-electronvolts per proton. OK, now about strange-matter and black holes. The reason they are not going to be created is because Earth is getting hit by particles far more energetic, and that has been going on for billions of years and Earth is still here. So sadly no black holes will be created due to extremely low probability (sadly because it would tell us that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions). And even if a black hole do show up it will annihilate in less than a billionth of a second into particles from which we will be able to tell if they were indeed created; This can't happen but lets just say, even if it doesn't annihilate it will not grow, here is a good detail http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1938.

OK, so the world and Geneva are safe, but what do scientists mean by low probabilities? Actually scientists are talking about the quantum probabilities which is in physics in which everything is possible (so YES there is a probability that we can destroy the world by just breathing) but these possibilities are so low that for normal people (non-physicists) it is absolutely impossible. It would take an eternity if not eternities before even having a reasonable chance of happening. The LHC is absolutely extremely important for advance of humanity in everything (yes everything). On Wikipedia and other places people are having fiesta on what ways LHC is going to destroy the world with no knowledge about why is it going to do what, and of quantum physics (I really wish people had more knowledge about the world; I am not talking about you, you are way above of average). You may read from Michio Kaku on danger http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/cern.particlephysics1, and hear on weirdness of quantum mechanics http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/sep/01/science.weekly.extra.podcast2. So please don't worry and have a great life. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Orion, as I said, I'm not losing sleep over it, I do grok a shred or two about quantum probability and am the first to say most of those who bring up the topic have not a clue what they're going on about (truth be told, there are only a handful of folks in my life from whom I'll abide any utterance of the word quantum at all). The local worries in Geneva have aught to do with the beam but with much more conventional chemical (gas) explosion/seismic risks. I'm keenly aware of LHC research's hoped-for sway on human knowledge: The sales job's been at least as clever as the physics and the canton's done wonderfully off that! Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

Hi Gwen. I respect your objectivity; could you take a look at this article? It seems to have been taken over by an anonymous user and other folks intent on discrediting the "Eurabia" theory, and they are intent on blocking and/or mis-tagging any well-sourced contrary information.

They have even removed a neutrality-disputed tag several times before bothering to engage in debate. I requested informal mediation, but so far no mediator has been assigned, and other editors appear to unwilling to respond to the mediation. I know you are busy, but tell me what you think. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for that article I think you needn't worry about much of anything but whether whatever's in there is sourced ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For example, they challenge a source which doesn't mention the specific word "Eurabia". However, the source is defending a book entirely about "Eurabia". Could you clarify whether a source must mention the exact title of a Wikipedia article in order to be included as a source in the article? Freedom Fan (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The pith there would be, the topic's Eurabia, so if the source (book, chapter, paragraph, article, web page, whatever) doesn't deal spot on with Eurabia that's wanton cite spanning and you can rm it. This said, the background on this topic, which the article doesn't acknowledge, is such that someone like me wouldn't think it's worthy of a skilled editor's time (other than checking out whatever sources get thrown in). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

re: blood on the risers

it actually is "cock." im sorry if that offends you. but I am in the army and I would know. it's not vandalism, it's just the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I say it offends me? Did I say I didn't think it was true? Did you see the section in the article for alternative lyrics? Have you read WP:V and WP:RS? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. no but it did seem a safe assumption, considering the context.

2. you didn't say anything one way or the other.

3. no. i didn't. my mistake.

4. somewhat... heh

anyway, i wasn't being argumentitve, i dont see why you must have such a harsh tone... Jersey John (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) also, if you're tracking all my contributions... is that necesary? unless of course, you really ARE interested in united states army cadences and marching tunes lol...

What is with you and that word? On second thought, don't answer, I don't want to know. You're the one who showed up here and blurted it out. Thanks for reading what I had to say though, along with putting it in the "alternate" part of the article. If I hadn't believed you, by the bye, I'd have been unswayable about having a citation. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Have you told all the other administrators what you did? And what are you going to do with the other usernames? Delete them? Fclass (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They'll see the log, the note on your talk page and understand. The other accounts will stay blocked, forget about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you do something about the Todd Cruz article? I tried to add the 2008 deaths category, but the whole section disappears (I previewed it). Why? Fclass (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories don't show up in preview, try saving it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One more request. Could you rename the Afro-Jamaican page back to "Jamaicans of African descent?" I tried doing it, but it didn't work. Black people in and from Jamaica don't call themselves "Afro-Jamaican." The term does not exist at all. Fclass (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

More often than not, one shouldn't try to change an article name without first bringing it up and gathering consensus for it on the article talk page. Reliable sources help, a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way your assertion that the term Afro-Jamaican "does not exist at all" is wholly mistaken. A strict text search on Google yields over 15,000 hits. You must learn to be more careful about the assumptions you make as to ethnicity and terminology, along with citing your edits to reliable sources. Moreover, the widely supported term does indeed seem to be Afro-Jamaican. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stay away. In the meantime, I nominated Biracial American for deletion. The reason is on the deletion page. Fclass (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fclass

I know you've been helping this user a lot as seen above. I, however, am concerned by this where he calls someone "racist". I don't know the reasoning behind his unblock, but I am concerned by the diff. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So am I. I've reblocked him. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i didnt link to a blog, i linked to a video posted on a blog

this is about the 'alex jones' article, the michelle malkin incident

i provided detailed information about what minute/second cue you could view the given quotes in the video. the video was a primary source of an event that happened, i dont understand why you would consider this to be 'non reliable'. was the video faked? did someone edit alex jones' voice, and then photoshop his lips to match the words?