Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 211.30.109.24 (talk) at 03:33, 21 November 2008 (→Hi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12


BrokeNCYDE

Please can you explain in more detail why you declined the A7 speedy request for the above article. I know those edit summary boxes could sometimes do with being bigger. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Beyond the edit summary, which mentions their assertion of an agreement with a notable indy label, they assert 11.5 million plays on MySpace, which tumbles them into the foggy grey area between A7 and a likely but not quite forgone deletion through AfD. There was nothing at all untowards about the article having been given a CSD tag, I very nearly deleted it and thought hard before declining. The text, as written, can be taken as barely squeaking it by speedy deletion. This will likely be deleted through the AfD and hence, will be speediable on sight unless much stronger, sourced assertions show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure that having 150,000 contacts on a social networking site can be construed as notability. However, as you say, that is by-the-by as it is likely to be deleted at AFD. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything at all about 150,000 contacts, I brought up the assertion of 11.5 million plays. Also keep in mind, WP:N is not the same as the assertion of importance or significance needed to get by an A7. This is why I call it "the foggy grey area." Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holober Brothers

I really dislike persons deleting my work without at least giving me a chance to rework an article, make additions, etc., it shows a lack of etiquette on your part, which goes without saying. I hope you will think about this in the future. There are many of us trying to build Wikipedia by adding meaningful articles. It makes it difficult with people like yourself who do this kind of thoughtless editing! --Robert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)--Robert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GGcsd Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

listing an AfD

Hi Gwen Gale. As so frequently happens, I seem not to have gotten WP's processes to work for me. I initiated this [1], but it does not seem to have been filed any place. What did I do wrong? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I like the Celtic cross image you have at the top of this page. I have been working on the Celtic knot article, and may add that image.

Hi Malcom, looks like you forgot step III at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. It's listed now. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you voted too. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Business Model Innovation

Gwen, you just deleted a page I created entitled Business Model Innovation. I had put a Hang On notice and explained the reason why there appeared to be a copyright issue. The page you sited as the source of the copyright violation is a webage from the company owned by the authors of various publications cited in my article. As such, some of the wording is indeed similar given the sources are the same individuals. I attempted to go back and cite the webpage in the article's list of references but the deletion had already occured. Can you please advise me on how I can resurrect the article and demonstrate the author's willingness to release the content? I saw the GNU listing that must appear on the external source page and can have that reflected on that site in a matter of minutes. Would that suffice? if so, can you then resupply me with the article content? It took me a while to get all the tags and citations loaded correctly. Thanks for the help! Krbolen (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:COI. You shouldn't be writing an article about a topic in which you have an interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, this subject is of interest to your readers and was written without bias basing the content primarily on the published content from The Harvard Business Review article, an academic, non-commercial journal. I deliberately left off any links to Innosight (the authors' company) to avoid a conflict of interest and only sought to add the link in response to the copyright infringement notice. Subjects like Disrutive Technology and Business Model Design (both long-standing Wiki pages) have similar content that is the subject of consulting engagements by a variety of firms worldwide but that does not mean the content itself is in conflict if those firms are not promoted within the article and if the concept itself is noteworthy and relevant to a broad audience. This article is designed to help further the thinking and contributions around this new theory. If we wanted to develop it purely for business purposes we would not have written about it in Harvard's journal or opened it up on Wikipedia for others to use freely. We would have protected it solely on our site as proprietary IP. Instead, we want the community to develop the idea further and felt Wikipedia was an ideal format for this. If that is not at the heart of Wikipedia's value then I am missing something. I am happy to make whatever text adjustments are needed to the article to eliminate the copyright violation and/or place the proper GNU releases on the Innosight external page to enable this dialogue to take place. Your continued help here is appreciated. Thanks! Krbolen (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, any further reply here? Krbolen (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an audience/marketing development platform. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, if you re-read my article, can you tell me where it is promotional in nature? It was written per WP guidelines. The information is specific, it is cited, there is no promotion. The page simply describes the origins of a new business theory and was modeled on other business theory pages within WP. I am sorry to harp here but I spent a lot of time attempting to conform to those best practice and I am willing to make the necessary copyright corrections to ensure this theory receives the same opportunities to be updated and developed as a WP entry as other similar theories. Is there a reason why you do not feel this theory entry is as valid or well documented as the one for Business Model?Krbolen (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as a copyright violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gale, I have raised this issue over on the process page G12 issue as I think there needs to be a "pause" in tge process to see if the copyright issue is due to the article subject and purportedly infringed site being the same as such circumstances can easily/quickly be corrected to allow WP to utilize the content if, indeed, the authors are the same. Once I get the GNU language onto the Innosight page, will the copyright issue be addressed such that the page can be restored?Krbolen (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations aren't ever allowed. Please don't add copyrighted content to Wikipedia without first following the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, if you go to the page Business Model on the Innosight site, you will see the GNU release has been added thus allowing Wikipedia to source content from the page. Can the Business Model Innovation article now be restored?Krbolen (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, I have to be off-line for a bit but I hope you will look at the GNU release and restore the page. Thank you again for your continued attention to this article. Have good evening!Krbolen (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you recreate the article, please don't forget to cite the page on that website which releases the content under a free licence. Mind, none of this means the article will get by speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7 or G11, or that it would get through an AfD. You might want to carefully read this, but please don't try to advocate the article here on my talk page, I'm only an admin implementing keenly defined policies, the only "deciders" here are the community and the Wikimedia Foundation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdented) Unless I'm mistaken, the webpage cited as being the source of the copyvio is released under the GFDL, so is it possible to restore the page for further work? Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, thanks again for your help. I did not save the source code and it took me about two hours to get it all loaded with the correct citings and HTML links to other Wiki pages etc. Is there any way you can restore it to save me this time? In my latest version I did indeed try to cite the source website where the GNU is reflected. My update was being submitted when the page was deleted.Krbolen (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please don't forget to cite the page on the website which shows the free licence. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The version you restored has the page cited in the references and I just added an in-line cite to the text as well.Krbolen (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher James DeRaps

I saw you initially declined my A7 speedy of Christopher James DeRaps, but I'm confused as to how you then turned around a few seconds later and speedied it as G11. Mistake or did you see something that I didn't? --Millbrooky (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an A7 because the text carried assertions of importance. However, I then read it again and deleted it as a G11, blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Figured the first bit of reasoning, and I probably should have tipped myself off that it I should have prodded the article when I did a very brief google search of the assertions. I'm not sure I agree with the G11 reasoning from what I remember of the article (unless it involves the coi), but I don't see any point in debating the semantics. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist churches

I've been removing {{db-a3}} tags from all of these articles on Irish Baptist churches because they are redirects, so they are not expected to have content and anyway that criterion is only for articles. The last few I've looked at have been deleted by you. Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are meaningless, not even church-related. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or listing service. Please stop removing the tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not church-related? They redirect from individual churches to the national church association. It's perfectly standard practice to redirect titles of topics that are not independently notable to a wider topic that is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion is not supported by WP:Redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting and there is nothing there that supports deletion of these articles, especially speedily. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When good faith takes on these interweaving policies don't match, consensus has sway, so I've put them all back. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Are plausible redirects speediable?

Please stop deleting the redirects. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects aren't plausible in any way which has to do with WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please seek consensus at the above page, first. TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus is needed on what Wikipedia is: It's not a directory or listing service, it's an encyclopedia. There is not a hint any of these churches would get by CSD A7 as encyclopedic topics. If any can, please write articles about them, that's what we do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Churches, primary schools and many similar organisations which fail to meet WP:ORG are routinely redirected to a broader subject - a topic redirected does not need to have individual notability. Sorry, but the consensus to date is that your actions were out of process. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are also introducing redlinks into many articles by these deletions - please reconsider your actions. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to cite a written policy here. See also WP:WAX. Those wlinks were useless anyway if they only redirected to an association or administrative org. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are deleting redirects under an article speedy-criterion (A3). I suggest you take part in abovementioned discussion before continuing, it would not hurt anyone... Regards SoWhy 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The written policy is WP:CSD. It doesn't support the speedy deletion of redirects under the criteria for articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Here's an editing guideline with which you may be unfamiliar. Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. I am sorry that you choose dismiss other editors' good-faith concerns by going down the "cite policy" route. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that your stated justification for deletion (A3) specifically excludes redirects. "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) ..." DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't skirt the notability requirements of Wikipedia:CHURCH by creating categorized and but textless articles which happen to include redirects. You can name non-notable churches in articles about their localities, however. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is not the same as an article. There are many redirects on Wikipedia which are used for likely search terms for subjects, which while not notable enough for a standalone article, do merit a section or sub-section in another article. I am sorry that you have unilaterally decided to ignore long-standing practice, the actual criterion which you claim to be using, and the opportunity offered to you to debate this on the relavent talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What have these two threads been about? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page for Criteria for Speedy Deletion (conveniently linked at the head of this thread) would be a more appropriate place for you to explain your decision to ignore both the criterion you claim to be using and other editors' concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all but please let me know if I missed any. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - again thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DuncanHill, well done! TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you still believe the redirects should be deleted, feel free to put in a mass RFD for 'em. From what I can tell, a good many of them aren't even mentioned on the target page, so either a new target is needed, the target should list them, or they oughta' be deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! They're churches so I'm ok about leaving them be, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

No offense but I found that comment a bit suspect. One, I only reverted twice not three times so I am within bounds. Two, User:Queerudite had not commented at the relevent discussion on the article's talk page and had not even read it prior to making the move so it was a bad decision on his/her part. Three, you are an interested party in this discussion and I notice you didn't place a similar warning on User:Queerudite's talk page which seems biased if you were merely concerned about an edit war. That aside, please read this on naming convention on articles about murder victims Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title.Nrswanson (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've moved the article back three times in the past few days. That's edit warning. Your notion of what is a "bad decision" should be talked about on the article talk page. Edit warring is always harmful to the project. I didn't warn User:Queerudite because you did the reverting, but truth be told, I likely would have blocked you and warned him had the two of you gone back and forth on that thrice instead of twice. I don't see any consensus that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title supports Murder of X titles (it's not even policy yet). I still don't think WP:Title supports them. As for my own involvement, I was implementing editor requests, what I thought I saw as an overall consensus at Matthew Shepherd and Wikipedia naming policy. My move of Matthew Shepherd has been widely supported. You immediately reverted my move of Murder of Amanda Milan. Since my move of Gwen Araujo stirred up enough unhappiness from the few editors posting to its talk page at the time, while I didn't see a consensus or policy support for it, I moved it back myself. My admin actions have been neutral, as is my warning to you: Please stop edit warring over these titles. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsylvania Towne Centre

Why did you delete the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'? And what did the Article say?Morefight (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight by the way, i am starting to the article 'Spotsylvania Towne Centre'.Morefight (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight[reply]

PLEASE CONTACT ME IN MY USER NAME TALK PAGE (talk) OR IN YOUR PAGE AS SOON AS POSSBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi

Per this it is stated you are likely to run for the upcoming elections, you only have a couple of days left to decide. I think you would make a great arbitrator but can understand why you or anyone for that matter would want to decline. I left a note on Antandrus' page and he stated no simply because becoming an ArbCom member is the last rail stop on the line to oblivion. Do you share the same "uncomfortable ride?" 211.30.109.24 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=253121915"