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

Hi Gwen, thanks a lot for that. Sorry, I should have mentioned this before, but Google Maps also seems to crash my Safari and not work on my Explorer. So when I tried that link you made I couldn't get to it. I don't know why. Neither Wikimaps nor Google Maps seem to like my computer. Most other pages are fine but I occasionally have problems with the odd other page now and again. I know you are super busy with deleting pages and answering everyone's questions about why you deleted their pages, but I was wondering if I could ask you to put the coordinates on the Stanley page, if it's not a hassle. I've never got past the Google Maps/Wikimaps part of the process so I hope there is not too much involved after that. But if you would be able to do that I would be really grateful. And maybe I can return the favour and help you out in some way? If there is any article that you're involved in that you need a hand with, for example, maybe I could help with that. Just let me know! Moisejp (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you get Firefox? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Firefox got me to the sites. I wrote the coordinates on the Stanley page but still neither the Vancouver landmarks template nor the coordinates show. I don't know what I am doing wrong. Well, I have asked User:Mkdw for help as he or she is part of WikiProject Vancouver. I feel bad asking you for any more help as I know how busy you are. Thank you again for your help thus far. Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen! I read somewhere that the coordinates are supposed to be added to the bottom of the edit page (even though on the page itself it shows up at the top), and on all the other pages I checked that have it at the bottom. That's why I didn't try the top of the page. But for whatever reason for the Stanley page it only seems to work at the top. OK, I'll leave it at the top, then. Thank you again. Do let me know if you ever need my help with anything. Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out!! It's because I hadn't "closed" the gallery with "</gallery>" that it didn't work. Moisejp (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Biado

in case you're not watching, I answered _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

and again ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

you've got messages :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block of IPUser 67.105.183.215

Thank you for blocking, but please consider a longer term. The history shows only vandalism, deletion, and now attack, devoid of constructive content.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've soft blocked the IP for a year and put up an IP sblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minchas Elozor images

Why did you delete Image:01622200.JPG and Image:Munkacs benes.jpg? Nobody even responded to my comments at PUI; there certainly wasn't any sort of consensus supporting their removal. Please restore the images, and if you think they should be removed give your reasons at PUI so we can discuss them. -- Zsero (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia's image policies are very clear and images with uncertain copyright status or other licensing worries can't be held indefinitely.

Both images were very likely too old to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, your single responses to each discussion didn't resolve this and no new information was added to the image pages. Copyright status of the images was always unclear and unverified. They were deleted after already having been restored once for further discussion, after several more weeks of waiting for acceptable copyright information. Since both had been restored before for further discussion and your participation throughout all those weeks was so light, I can't see any reason to restore them now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I gave very clear reasons why the images should be kept, and nobody responded to them; absent any support for deleting the images, I'd say my single responses did resolve this. If after two months nobody, including the original nominator, has come forward to defend the deletion, how is that grounds to delete them again? As I see it, a very weak challenge was made to the images, I gave a strong answer to that challenge, and that's where the matter remains.

If two months of silence means the discussion is dead, then that means the result of the discussion is "no deletion", and they should be restored without the challenge. If you think there's a point in further discussion, then restore them with the challenge and keep the discussion open. But either way there's no grounds for deletion just because someone once challenged them.

-- Zsero (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader tagged the both images with a copyright release: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide... I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions... Given the age of the photos there was a very strong likelihood the uploader was not the copyright holder and without subsequent verification or change of the claimed license, the images were deleted following Wikipedia image policy for improper licensing. Moreover, the uploader has a history of uploading possibly non-free images which have been subsequently deleted. Again, these images have already been restored once for further discussion. Unhappily, your comments did nothing to verify that the uploader was the copyright holder and hence had the right to release these images into the public domain, which is what the claimed license on the image pages stated up until their deletion. I'm truly sorry but I can't restore these images a second time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I addressed this in my original comments, which remain unanswered. The age of the photos does not disprove the uploader's claim to be the copyright holder. He could be the original photographer, now in his 90s, or he could be that photographer's heir. I see no reason to call someone a liar just because one user thinks a claim "unlikely".

But in any case, assuming that the uploader's claim was indeed false, I provided an alternative ground for keeping the images: they are either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, depending on where they were taken and which law applies. Nobody has answered this either.

As for not restoring them a second time, you shouldn't have deleted them a second time. A challenge was made, it was answered, and that answer has not been disputed, so the status of the discussion must be counted as "keep". -- Zsero (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has called anyone a liar. Rather, the copyright release claimed by the uploader was unsupported by the age of the photos, the uploader's own history and the lack of any other verification at all. Many non-free or released images on Wikipedia carry OTRS ticket numbers which point to further proof provided by uploaders claiming a release of copyright. Moreover, the notion these images could be PD is reasonable, but it is still speculation and either way, the license on the image pages was never changed. I can't restore these images a second time when the license claimed for them is so likely to be improper. However, you can appeal the deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you say that the uploader was not the copyright holder, as he claimed to be, then you are calling him a liar. The age of the photos is no reason at all to doubt his status, because not only could he be an old man who took them himself, he could also be the photographer's heir. There's no more reason to doubt a release on an 70-year-old photo than on a 20-year-old one.

But in any case, you have not addressed my alternative grounds. Even if for some reason you don't want to accept the uploader's word, how are the images not either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine? I don't know which of these they are, but they're bound to be one or the other. That is not speculation, it seems to me to be incontrovertible fact. That should be enough to keep them. As for my not having changed the licenses, I was waiting for someone to refute the first point, that without a good reason to doubt the uploader's story we should not be overriding it. Mere age is not such a reason. But if you think it is, then restore the photos and I'll change the license. -- Zsero (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have suggested that but it won't help because the copyright status of these images is unknown. Lastly, please stop trying to argue I'm calling anyone a liar. The uploader was notified of the problem in March, invited to participate in the discussion but never responded. This happens all the time. It doesn't mean the uploader is a liar. It means the uploader never followed up with proof of copyright after having been notified of the deletion discussion. Any further inference you may draw from that is your own. I know how daunting, even nettlesome it can be to have this happen but Wikipedia's image policy is very tight. Perhaps you can research the images more, or contact the uploader for the information we need. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That the uploader didn't respond probably just means he's not checking WP, and since he didn't supply an email address there's no other way to contact him. It doesn't indicate anything substantive. Not to get macabre, but if he really is the original photographer then there's a substantial likelihood that he may have suddenly lost access to the Web. But either his claim is true or it isn't, and doubting his claim means doubting his word; the only reason given for doubting his claim is the photos' age, which as I've explained and you have not responded to, is not a reason at all.

But leaving that aside, under what theory are the images not valid? If the uploader's license is not valid, then how are they not either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if the uploader's claim is valid and hence it's possible someone else (like, as you said, an heir) could be the true copyright holder. Or they could be PD. As it is, the copyright status is unknown and Wikipedia doesn't carry images with unknown copyright status. If you still want carry on the same argument, that's ok, deletion review is >>> this way >>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't given a plausible theory under which it is neither the uploader's nor PD. Are you seriously saying that even if we know the images are valid, we can't have them on WP unless we know for certain the exact reason why they're valid? Let's leave the uploader out of this; are you saying that if we don't know whether it's Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, we can't put either one, and therefore we can't have the image at all? That's insane. Just put both tags, and say it's one or the other. If we're still giving the uploader at least some credence, then put his license in as well, however unlikely you may feel it to be. But under exactly what theory must it be deleted? -- Zsero (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No theories involved. Without verification, there could be a true copyright holder lurking about somewhere so putting up both tags would be nothing but an unhelpful muddle. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the photographer is unknown (and the only one claiming to know his identitly is the uploader), then the photo is either PD-Ukraine or Anonymous-EU. One can never prove a negative, that there isn't someone in the world who knows it, but if we don't know it then one of those two tags works. Otherwise, when exactly do they work? -- Zsero (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review is >>> this way >>> Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Consider this a DRVNote. -- Zsero (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedflow Communications Limited

Dear Gwen,

I represent company Speedflow Communications, I have posted the topic in the area for commercial Voice Over IP providers and found out that it was deleted by you and the reason of deleting topic was advertising.

In that case I want to claim that all these posts are used for advertisement purposes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_voice_over_IP_network_providers What was wrong there.

Please clarify. Your prompt response is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armi Speedflow (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:GGcsd Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your username, you also might want to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex Franklyn

yeah, I am. I am alex franklyn, ruler of the universe. I am a member of the COOLKATS. We provide shelter for incoming UFO aliens and prostitutes in Mexico. Love me or hate me, this is who I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyandalexarecool (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article Red Scare Industries deleted?

As far as I could tell it met the criteria. What happend?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the assertion of significance is not at all clear. I'm willing to restore this but first, can you please tell me how this edit in the article space was helpful and if you're in any way affiliated with this label? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Twinkle_abuse.3F

Avruch and myself have made comments relating to the block you made. Might want to take a look. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it, I'll answer there in a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rebecca W. Keller

Just to start off, I TOTALLY understand why you deleted the article at Rebecca W. Keller, and I'm not really arguing with that decision. At the same time as you were doing it, I was leaving a note on the talk page -- I'd be interested in your opinion, and mine boils down to "I suggest reconstituting the article and immediately submitting it to AfD to get more opinion". I think you were right, but I also think there's a reasonable argument on the other side (how's that for straddling both sides of the fence? <grin>). I'll look forward to your comments. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If after reading this you still want me to restore, I will :) This is blatant COI self-promotion by a worthy author of non-notable self-published textbooks with no shred of an assertion that they've been meaningfully noted anywhere. Ok, now you :D Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think what I'm going to do is suggest to the author that I place the material into a sandbox page and she works on it there, to see if there is an assertion that they've been meaningfully noted anywhere, as you say, and that she can back it up with WP:RS. I was waiting to see which way your opinion swung and you seem to be pretty solidly against, so I'm good with that. I hope you agree with my wishy-washy proceeding. I get so darn mad at "intelligent design" that I have to always bend over backwards to make sure I don't unfairly delete something; consider this me doing the limbo <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ew, intelligent design? I'm all for home schooling and while I don't overly worry about kids who have to sit through this kind of codswallop, am not thrilled by it. Anyway wishy washy's ok when it comes to speedies :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Well, my own tendency is delete, delete, delete, but every once in a while I get all gooey and fairy-godmothery and try to work with something that has a shred of potential. Makes a change from "Brittany ROX!" and "Jason SUX!" and "My garage band is too notable!!" Accounting4Taste:talk 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the garage bands which list a tonne of blue linked influences and nothing else :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted CSDMS wikipedia page

Hi Gwen, You just deleted a wikipedia page I created (CSDMS). I read your page and noticed that it's not allowed to past content from other pages (which I understand) but I want also to point out that I'm the owner of that other page (csdms.colorado.edu). So it's not a copy right violation in this case. Could you put it back in place or give me the possibility to edit the wikipedia page such that there is no copy right violation anymore?

Thanks in advance, --Kettner2 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:COI isn't a policy - it's a behavioral guideline. But Gwen is right, per that guideline, "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." Tan | 39 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have, and it speaks for itself, thanks. However, I'm not promoting the institute I'm working for to gain money or anything (we are funded through the national science foundation). I just want the world to know where CSDMS stands for by putting up a similar wikipedia page as done by similar institutes like for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAR. Is that possible? --Kettner2 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only because you brought it up, government funding can take lots of promotion too. If you're affiliated with them I would respectfully suggest you wait until your organization becomes notable enough that independent sources note who you are and someone else is stirred up enough about it to write an article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an advertising site and as for why other articles here have no sway on this one please see WP:WAX. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, too bad for me if that's the wikipedia policy. Thanks though, cheers, --Kettner2 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sentinel (MHS)

Did you even read my talk page for it? It has received attention and criticism in Australian media, and citations were on the way. Please return the page as it originally was.

High school newspapers will rarely if ever meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which call for meaningul independent coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to note your citations here I'll be happy to look at them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot has deleted the MHS page, and removed pretty much all references to The Sentinel. All I can remember is that it was referenced in an Australian magazine (Dolly I believe). Well done admins for blindly deleting articles, without stopping to think beforehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the idiot. As I said above, if you would like to note your citations here I'll be happy to look at them. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your are not the idiot. The citations existed on Wikipedia a while ago, but somebody has removed them. I can no longer find them. I give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know how that can happen. My cat ate my homework once upon a time :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

right, so after i make it clear i'm not upset with you, and i concede the page won't have the proper citations, you throw some sarcasm in my face? nice, wikipedia will go far with administration like this

The citations existed on Wikipedia a while ago? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, i've already said this. sentinel (MHS) had it's own page, with 'proper' citations, and apparently the page and all references to it, including those citations, have been deleted.

As an admin I'm able to see the contents of the deleted article. It contained no citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Camp Wabanaki

Gwen, I am trying to create a wiki page for Camp Wabanaki to start to compile the history. I was a camper and later a staff member of this camp from 1965 to 1983.

I've just started to create it and build the history, and was not attempting to advertise.

Please restore the content I began.

Most appreciated.

James Robertson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmr007 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:GGcsd Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Lipstein' s Entry

Please be advised that you have deleted the entry in the English version in Wikipedia of my late doctorate father, Professor Dr. Kurt Lipstein ( 1909-2006). I am theco-editor of this collected essys ( to be published) and also the co-editor with the late Prof. Clive Parry of his Festschrift,Multum, non Multa, published in 1980. There is a lengthy article about him on the German version of Wikipedia and I have just used his biography and bibliography from the website of the Squire Law Library with eheir permission( www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent_scholars/kurt_lipstein.php ); you may contact Lesley Dingle ( lmd25@cam.ac.uk)and ask her. Why there should be a difference between the German version and the English version is beyond me. Please provide me with a response (peter@sunshine-beaches.com). (Dr. Peter Feuerstein (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

The long copy pasted text at Kurt Lipstein, QC was a CV/memorial which made no assertions of significance. It was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor and deleted by me. There were many worries with this article. I respectfully suggest you read this to learn more about why your father's article was deleted. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

photo

Dear Gwen , I hope that I am in the right place , it seems that my photograph was deleted from the Bobby WHitlock page, I am the photographer of that photo, also happen to be Bobby's wife and I also do alot of writing , for correction purposes. I tried to do all the things required to get the photo up in the first ( all the instructions are very difficult ) . So where do I go from here ? Can you put my photo up again ? Thank you kindly , CoCo Carmel Whitlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onedominette (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Crisis Project deletion

Dear Gwen -

I hope you don't mind my contacting you. Just to get your thoughts on the deletion of the Crisis Project article. I'm new here, and am bound to make mistakes (does everyone say that?), so no offence taken whatsoever. I hadn't intended the article as advertising, however, and I'm not affiliated with Crisis Project. I've read through your information post about deletions (linked from the top of this talk page) and see that for cases similar to mine, you advise people to tone the language down - is that the case here? I had attempted to be neutral, but perhaps I missed the mark. For two clarifications, the rough model that I was following was The Jamestown Foundation, in that it is an article about a think tank but not necessarily promoting it. Also, I see that notability is a criteria, so I had intended to add text about Crisis Project's notable members, like Anatol Lieven, Rahimullah Yusufzai, Rustam Shah Mohmand and so on.

Thanks - I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Julian Kkwi9581 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, to get by speedy deletion, an article must make some assertion of significance. After this, the article will likely need to carry citations which show the topic has received wide and independent coverage by independent, reliable sources. Please also have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi could you help please

i was wondering how you submit an article for the in the news section because this US_and_UK_diplomats_detained_in_Zimbabwe topical news is not , thanks (ARBAY (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi, try looking at Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)