Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:56, 9 March 2007

Talk archives
archive1

Oops

Sorry about that with the transsexual/transgender mistake. I didn't look as carefully as I should have. I do love the way we all work together to create an accurate and clear encyclopedia. Best, --Kukini 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me :) I'd like to work more on that article more but a few editors are, so, so understandably, very keen on presenting that utter tragedy in a way that maximizes a social message they deeply and sincerely believe in and they thus support the article content with citations from advocacy sources. Although I think the article is weak and unscholarly, having gotten to know how they feel I have no wish to nettle them cuz Brandon's story still comes through. Meanwhile I don't mind tweaking things to at least steadfastly follow the references they've cited. Gwen Gale 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On another note...I noticed that your usertalk page is beginning to get long. You will likely decide at some point to archive your talk page, like I have here . When you do, if you need any help, just let me know. I would be happy to assist. Best, --Kukini 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I know how to do it but I like it this way :) ...lets folks know more about my bitchy editing haha! Gwen Gale 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, as well

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that was a faux-pas. It won't happen again, I just wanted to answer questions or reply to comments directly. Bzuk 23:48 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bzuk. That explains my astonishment then :) Gwen Gale 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

warning to myself

I have reverted Amelia Earhart twice in the past 24 hours. 3rr is in effect. Gwen Gale 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

haha!

I'm being wikistalked! Gwen Gale 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Brandon Teena: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your comment: "I have been unable to convince the editors here that mainstream sources support either using a female pronoun or avoiding it altogether. ... Never mind I don't want to needlessly nettle them since a) they may be Lesbian Avengers who I think are cool even when I don't agree with them and b) whatever pronouns are used, the tale told by this very short article comes through so I'm ok with it."

The sexuality of your fellow editors isn't the issue, so don't make it the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it was a total compliment and a discussion of article content. I'm sorry you misunderstood it. I don't think WP:No personal attacks applies, although I do think you have contacted me about this in good faith. Only to show my good faith in return, I will revise my comment on the talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your good faith. To be quite clear, whether you like Lesbians or not isn't the issue - speculating about the sexual identity of your fellow editors is a personal attack and is not acceptable conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, you are deeply mistaken about that. Moreover, it was not a speculation on anyone's self-identification but a remark about context and wholly related to article content. Since you have misunderstood my post and expressed serious concern about it, I have retracted it in full and am happy to do it, please take the hint :) Thanks again and feel free to share any lingering or additional concerns with me. Gwen Gale 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not have been intended as a personal attack but could easily be interpreted as one. A good rule of thumb is to avoid discussion about contributors and focus on content. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I hastened to rm it. Sorry again it was taken wholly wrong though :) Gwen Gale 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Ok then. Gwen Gale 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mythbusters

Hi how are u sorry about last edit Mythbusters 11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why you did it and then asked someone how to become an admin is beyond me. Gwen Gale 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other User's Comments

You really shouldn't remove the posts of other editors even if you disagree strongly with them. I have restored the comments in question. --Spartaz 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They're spam, same text repeated many times. Gwen Gale 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - they aren't your comments to delete and its a valid POV - Polls are evil and by removing objections to that you are effectively saying there is no room any other views except yes or no. We need dicussion and consensus building, not a ballot. --Spartaz 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I left one of them in. Otherwise you seem to be objecting because you agree with the PoV "polls are evil" and like seeing it spammed across the page. Truth be told polls can be very unhelpful. The worry here is that Jimbo has approved of Essjay's behaviour and editors have chosen this way (among others) to express themselves. Gwen Gale 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

that's why I think an RFC would be a better venue for this discussion. Its a far more valid way of measuring the community view and would consequently have more effectiveness in expressing any outrage felt by the community. --Spartaz 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel any outrage. Meanwhile I think folks are a bit rattled to hear Jimbo thinks a WP representative faking a CV for a major publication is ok. Gwen Gale 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On a different removal, this one, great work. And bonus points for using "codswollop". William Pietri 10:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking of words, on that other removal (which I "lost" haha) I'd have let it be, spammed repetition and all, if the section had been called "Voting is unhelpful" instead of "Voting is evil" :) Gwen Gale 10:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Idle comment

I noticed your 'first tip' about apostrophes. I actually am a professor, with a real Ph.D., at a real university. In my youth, I had absolutely flawless spelling and grammar, without effort. About 5 years ago, I started spelling phonetically for no apparent reason -- here/hear & there/their & its/it's. I lost basic grammar skills as well -- which/that & subjunctive mood & comma use. I have to proof-read everything I write now. This drives me nuts. I honestly think it's too much Internet eating my brain. Should I simply resign (just wrote that as 'reason') and retire (in my 30's) on grammatical disability? Or is there hope for me, doc? Derex 11:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should resign and take up woodworking :) Haha! Truth be told I know a few PhDs whose grammar and spelling are a bit dodgy in emails but somehow, mostly, when they write a report or whatever it's rather clean (though sometimes a bit wordy with too much Latin but that's another tale). My idle remark was only that the "its/it's" botch is one of my trusty red flags for sizing up a first take on a writer. Someone with tonnes of academic background might slip up that way too but much less often. By the bye I do due diligence professionally, which includes reading lots of stuff written by folks claiming sundry degrees and whatnot so I've got a few of these "tips to the wary" shortcuts up my sleeve, so to speak. They're steadfast little hints to have a closer look is all! Gwen Gale 11:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's crazy. I think my other grammar skills are in good shape, but I had that same transition a few years back. I never made homonym errors. Not out of caution; I'd still make other mistakes. But not a bit of there/their stuff. Now I find them creeping in frequently. My personal interpretation is that it matches another shift going on. For most of my life, when I read, I didn't hear the words in my head; it was an entirely visual process. I could make it through a whole book and never wonder how to pronounce a strange place name. As part of appreciating dialog and poetry more, though, I've been practicing. And now that I think about it, I've also tried to make my writing style more conversational, so I might be thinking the sounds harder on output as well. Does that jibe at all with your experience, Derex? Thanks, William Pietri 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, actually it does. I tend to 'speak' phrases in my head before writing them down. I believe that was not the case in the past. I'm told my academic writing has greatly improved from several years back. So, maybe the two are related. Anyway it's strange realizing that your brain has changed the way it processes such a routine task, without your consent. Derex 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Consent, or even a courtesy notification! William Pietri 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I grew up speaking French and English, went to English schools mostly and read tonnes of English, sometimes more than I spoke so now and then I'd pronounce something utterly twisted, never ever having heard anyone like, say it. All through school I was ok with spelling but later, when I began truly writing, spinning stuff to have the spoken lilt or whatever, which for me has to do with imagining a voice, I started makin' homonym spelling errors 'n I still do it. Must be a wiring thingy in the head. Gwen Gale 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never been able to master the 'its' issue instinctively (I have to consciously stop my flow to correct or remember the right use) and have noticed the same trend in a loss of grammatically-correct 'instinctiveness'. Perhaps writing and typing employs, exercises and atrophies grammar differently somehow. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha don't feel bad, sometimes I do have to stop and think about that one too. I guess typing does bring out different errors than longhand, for me it's partly the speed thing (much faster typing) but I wouldn't be startled if there were unique error patterns in each aside from that. :) Gwen Gale 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Essjay's page

I reverted your comment on his page as unproductive and violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violated either WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. You might want to reread those policies with a bit of heed. However, only as a courtesy to your sensitivities I have reworded my comment. Thank you for your input :) Gwen Gale 08:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Yeah, I had thought you'd written that. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards. Trebor 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of :) Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay RVing

Yeah, I saw that after... I was mistakenly editing a post RV version where you guys had already Rm'd the blogs out and mistook them as the valid state of the article. Too many RMs/Rvs, etc. - Denny 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry about comment

Since it is a bit off topic, may I ask what you meant by ? Right now, exactly one admin action has occured- the deletion of the article. That isn't wheel warring, it's just out of process. JoshuaZ 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me about it. I think both our takes on this whole thing are different enough that what I call wheel warring over this isn't the same as what you'd agree with. I've seen several high-sway admins do what they could to bury this tale fast. I feel bad for Essjay, I think he got sucked into Misplaced Pages's MUDdy side and for whatever reason didn't have a clue how deep the shite he'd gotten himself into was, until it all went too far. Some editors have been sincerely concerned about Essjay with no other agenda, others have been in gleefull grudge mode, some like me have worries about credibility and dodgy CVs on userpages since meanwhile I think there are editors here and there who've long been doing WP stuff with fake assertions about their background and credentials and to put it mildly, they're not happy. For me, none of this is about Essjay, I wish him well and would even hope he can work his way back into the fold here (under a new username). Gwen Gale 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, abuse of admin powers isn't in general wheel warring. Wheel warring is (I think) a subset of abuse where admins repeatedly revert each others admin actions. Especially when dealing with contentious issues like this precision is good.JoshuaZ 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen bits of that but it hasn't been too bad. Nonetheless I saw it as wheel warring. I don't want to make a big thing out of it though other than to say I didn't appreciate the comments some were making about lynch mobs and so on. Mostly the AfD was closed too early. Gwen Gale 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I had changed my vote to merge the article by the bye. Gwen Gale 08:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentialism

Thanks for the kind words. I would fully support your idea of making credential-waving in content disputes a blockable offense. Jokestress 10:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bring it up again now and then. Gwen Gale 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it deals with the problem without getting into validating claimed credentials – I was diverted into reading the talk about your Comet capers, and the thought of certifying the learned Professor's claims is scary. Sorry for getting all existential on the Grand Truth diversion, it's something I've noticed in relation to Creationism, that religious Truth and scientific truth come from completely different angles, to mutual incomprehension. Afraid no verifiable sources just to hand for that point ;) ... dave souza, talk 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think any serious certification of credentials is more or less a dead end. I'd rather ban 'em altogether but I'd be ok with them on user pages so long as there's some sort of "vetting light" way of verifying them. If someone gets into a sensitive position of trust then let WMF or JW have a more thorough, policy-authorized and defined look, is all, like any other responsible org I've ever heard of.

However, no little stars by edit summaries (!) and if someone starts asserting their authority, why not a short block? It's not so different from a legal threat, after all and a trained academic will already be so too familiar with strong citation practices, which I've found truly do sway the day most of the time on this wiki.

And to flog that aside a bit too much and only for fun, my own PoV is there's only ever one truth but observing and describing it's a whole 'nother tale, fraught with opportunities to get things muddled :) Gwen Gale 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As you'll have seen, I think the credentials thing is a bit of red herring, or at least a lower priority. If Essjay had had to give his personal details to the Foundation back when he was running to be a bureaucrat, he would have had a great disincentive to continue his fabrication. I think that some kind of vetting -maybe not for all admins, but certainly as a prerequisite for anyone who wants to be more than that - would be a better line of defence.

But anyway, I mainly came here to say thank you for the positive role you're playing in the current debates. You're getting my respect - I wasn't aware of you before this - even when you make points that I don't agree with. And besides, I actually agree with most of them. Metamagician3000 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, truly. I'm sayin' what I can anyway :) Meanwhile there are so many admins with MUD credentials and who knows what else lurking about, which is only the reason by half why one gets the whiff of panic in the air. Gwen Gale 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth ladies, I agree this would be a great idea. - Denny 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Are you kidding his comments are inept at best. You can read a more balanced appraisal of his comments here:

• Citizendium1
• Citizendium2

What we need at Misplaced Pages are REAL standards for Administrators, such as resumes, real names and reference checks...who knows who these people REALLY are ? upstanding citizens? criminals? unemployed druggies? liars like Essjay? there obviously needs to be a NEW set of standards...

Haha I didn't say Wales was handling this helpfully overall :) This has been a big docking botch. I'm trying to be constructive is all. As for admins, I think mostly there should be no assertions as to academic or employment background at all and if an admin makes such a claim it should be verified. I also think the admin selection process sucks, it's more or less a popularity contest and buddy system that encourages endless wheel-warring. Gwen Gale 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did agree with your comment here Diff which brought me to your homepage. Take care G.G. you seem like a nice person. Yours very truly Headphonos 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for droppin' by :) Gwen Gale 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady Of Shallot

You can't possibly be this cute, can you be? Or why would you spend time on Misplaced Pages?:)Proabivouac 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha oh yes it's me! It's me me me me! Erm, (sigh) I do kinda look like her which is one reason why I picked it but... sad to say, I'd need lotsa pre-Raphaelite lighting with a stylist standing by to look that cute :) As for why I spend so much time on Misplaced Pages, I cheat, I'm at work. Gwen Gale 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I'm ten, maybe fifteen years older too :/ Gwen Gale 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, so am I. Yikes.Proabivouac 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention I'm a misandric, PMSing bitch? :) (Don't mind me, I'm havin fun with ya!) Gwen Gale 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but . . .

in reading your comments in various places about the Essjay affair, I keep coming across the term MUD. I've looked it up here, but I remain unenlightened. What does it mean? ElinorD (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is known to have and is managed to retain many characteristics of a Multi-User_Dungeon, which accounts for much of the appeal of its project space to young, socially isolated males, among others. Gwen Gale 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I saw that article, but it wasn't immediately relevant as having anything to do with degrees and diplomas, so I didn't read it through. ElinorD (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Essjay's. Gwen Gale 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just read the Mud article as I have been wondering also what that meant. And I think you wrote somewhere else that Misplaced Pages was being run by teenagers (males, I've been told). Thanks for your insights. I'm learning. It helps to understand as I have been mostly mystified by what happens at Misplaced Pages. I had stopped taking it seriously. This whole event and the ensuing conversations have been a huge insight. (I'm not crazy after all.) Sincerely, --Mattisse 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's "largely" run at the middle level by teens and yeah, it's a MUD. The thing is, it has thrown off thousands of more or less helpful articles, which tend to be in math, the sciences, IT and so on. In the humanities, it can be catch as catch can since those topics aren't nearly as quantifiable. Gwen Gale 15:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "thrown off" articles which tend to be in math, the sciences, IT, etc., do you mean making them inaccurate? Or do you mean they were helpful in creating them? Mattisse 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The latter :) Gwen Gale 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The NOR rule

On User talk:Jimbo Wales, you wrote that Birgitte and I had misinterpreted what you said about original research. I'm not completely surprised, because I did have a little bit of a feeling that we were talking past each other. I hope you elaborate, either there or here. JamesMLane t c 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it here. First, I agree with everything you say more or less. Editing stuff for chronology, tone, general word choice and so on has nothing to do with original research (unless it's used to spin meanings and contexts unsupported by citable sources but that takes true wankering and is easy to spot). Now here's an editing tactic for you, if you want to include some pithy nugget from your head which you can't for the life of you run down a cite for but you reasonably know it to be true (NPoV or PoV, both are ok in WP articles), stick one of these thingies on it. Meanwhile though, the way to drive off cranks is to ask for citations at every turn. I mean every sentence or even clause if need be. They'll often cite blogs or dodgy personal websites, which you can turn down under WP policy. If it's a book, is it peer reviewed or in your case a recognized law review or journal? What are the qualifications of the author? You can go after all this stuff. At last resort you can isolate thinly supported codswallop under a subsection with a title like "controversial views" or whatever. There's always a way. There's never a need to assert arbitrary authority in true scholarship, never mind here. Gwen Gale 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another tactic of cranks is to insist on raw text dumps of published quotes from other cranks. These are tiresome but can be skived way down as being wholly anti-narrative. Insist on including a short snippet into a declarative sentence and then ask for more citations to back it up, so as to avoid "undue weight." Drives them out of their minds. Gwen Gale 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Erm, if it still seems like I'm "talking past" you, pls tell me so, I don't mean to.) Gwen Gale 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I used that phrase because you're talking about this situation: "if you want to include some pithy nugget from your head which you can't for the life of you run down a cite for but you reasonably know it to be true...." I'm not talking about including an explicit assertion in an article; for that, I agree a source is necessary, not just the opinion of a Wikipedian (even a Wikipedian whose law school has faxed a copy of his diploma to the Foundation). I meant, instead, a situation where a particular assertion wouldn't appear in the article, but would inform editors' judgments about what should appear: Is it notable, and worth mentioning, that the Supreme Court's analysis of a particular issue was terse? Should the Economics article devote a section to picoeconomics? In the former case, the POV warrior didn't go so far as wanting the article to state expressly that the one-sentence blowoff was an indication that the Court knew its position was wrong, but that was certainly his personal opinion. Because he held that opinion, he thought that the shortness of the discussion was an important feature that was worth mentioning in our article.

In some disputes of that sort, an informed opinion about what's commonly known in the field can play a role in the discussion. It's not always amenable to the demand for citation. I don't know how a professional economist like Derex could be expected to find a reliable source saying "Picoeconomics isn't important enough to merit its own section in the Misplaced Pages article." I thought that Jimbo's proposal for verified credentials might be of some use in situations like that. JamesMLane t c 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This comes up all the time, it's called undue weight and is easy to handle without any assertion of authority. Gwen Gale 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's where we differ. I have not found it so. JamesMLane t c 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Ok. So, my hardcore take on this is that editors who can't rid an article of nettlesome cranks might brush up on WP policies like WP:Verifiable, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and procedural stuff like WP:Edit_war, WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks. Mind, getting a handle on using these policies is not trivial. One has to read them through (argh! boring! a f*king drag!) and get some practice using them as tools in a tactical (did someone say terse?) way. Gwen Gale 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Werdnabot

Thanks for the bot suggestion. I read the instructions on the how-to page but it escapes me what exactly I should do to get my pages archived. The great thing about Essjay bot is that I just asked him and he made it happen. (I'm not a tech person and but I do try to remember what transclude means.) Would you be willing to break down what I need to do in five easy steps? Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'k.

• 1) Create a page in your user space like User:Mattisse/archive_x

• 2) Paste this string into the very tippy top of your user talk page:

{{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=14|target=User:Mattisse/archive_x|dounreplied=dounreplied}}

• 3) Wait 24 hours for Werdnabot to grab anything 14 days or more old and throw it into User:Mattisse/archive_x. You can change that archive page to anything you like in your user space, of course. You can change the 14 in the string to any age you want, too.

• 4) If you need to change an option, don't edit what it put into your user page. Re-paste the string over what it has written there.

I hope this helps...? I can do this for you if you want. Gwen Gale 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

P.S. I agree with the comment I believe you made somewhere, that citing one's credentials is irrelevant to editing as it is the credibility of the sourcing that counts, not who added it to the article. Besides, credentialing is a laborious task involving documentation of transcripts and the (in my case) whether the school's program and subsequent internship was approved by a national organisation etc. I believe the real abuse comes from the wanton and arbitrary behavior of bureaucrats and administrators and others with special powers as there seems to be a the lack of supervision and oversight, or even any meaningful standards of behavior. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole admin thing needs a big docking overhaul. I'm not holding my breath. Gwen Gale 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot directions

1) Create a page in your user space like User:Mattisse/archive_x - do the archives I've already created count?

Essjay bot automatically was archiving to Archive 10 and presumably would have gone on to Archive 11 (already created by me before the bot started).

4) If you need to change an option, don't edit what it put into your user page. Re-paste the string over what it has written there.

Not sure what this means. Repaste the the new corrected string over what the bot wrote on my page? I hadn't noticed that Essjay bot wrote anything on my page. (Maybe I should look.) When I changed from 14 to 7 days I tried changing the template on my page, but in the end Essjay fixed it, just has he set it up originally. If you would set it up that would be great! I do wish I could learn these things though. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I put the code in your talk page. I would say, give it 24 hours to do an archive and let's see what happens. Looks like they've changed the template a bit, shouldn't be a probby though. Gwen Gale 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the bot setup!

Still not clear though on:

1. what I do if I want to change the number of days to 7
2. do I create the archives and the bot decides when it is time to move on to the next one?

Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repaste the following code over the Werdnabot code in your usepage, which will change it to 7 days.

{{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=7|target=User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_11|dounreplied=dounreplied}}

Gwen Gale 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as later archives go, haha I'm kinda curious about that myself! You've already got tonnes of empty archive pages setup, I'd wait and see how it handles that but... always feel free to ask and if there's something I don't know and you must know, I'll find out. :) Gwen Gale 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! How about that. And working so quickly too. Now I hope this one doesn't disappear. I've been reading more of your comments. Uncommon good sense, you have, at least on the citation/credentialing issue. I have never run across a situation where an editor asserts credentials in article editing. --Mattisse 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We got lucky there, first time I put the code in for it I had to wait almost a whole day to see if it worked. Yep, most editors have the helpful understanding not to assert credentials in edits but many still do and I must say, they are wontedly the ones pushing a thinly supported PoV. Gwen Gale 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that I do have an amazing amount of archives - forty some. Essjay's bot must have done that. What a good little bot it was. I borrowed you input box at the top. Hope it stops people from posting messages I can't find. Thanks again for your wonderful help. --Mattisse 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

Sorry for removing your edits, I reverted back to a previous edit by error. 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Bluetooth954

Thanks for telling me, I did wonder. Gwen Gale 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay article

Why would you want to delete this fallout portion from the article:

In addition, Jimmy Wales, has requested further discussion about increasing the standards for checking credentials of editors at Misplaced Pages, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Misplaced Pages to be accompanied by accountability Misplaced Pages:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Misplaced Pages:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I copyedited it. You might have a more heedfull look at diffs before blindly reverting stuff though. Thanks. Gwen Gale 10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks...things are disappearing quickly from this article...my mistake :) Arcticdawg 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha I know how that happens, we can all be a bit quick with the edit button now and then :) Gwen Gale 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hilarities

Ta for the hilarity, just to confess I'm sort of in the Cult of Mac (though not a priest) and was just diverted into this Freelance article leading me to this blog. Which I'm unkind enough to find hilarious, as well as thankful that the new laptop my son's girlfriend got recently runs XP. All silly stuff.. dave souza, talk 11:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. A Mac-ite. You know tonnes about religion then haha. Never mind, at least yer not floggin' Vista with platipustudes like, "It works." I'm a FreeBSD witch meself. By the bye I hear OS X nicked a bunch of code from FreeBSD, so understandable. :) Gwen Gale 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comrades in BSD, then? The good side of Apple has contributed back to the open source community, the bad proprietary side has some advantages, and at least they DRM with a light touch. Just use the thing meself, code is indistinguishable from magic :) ... dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, meanwhile that's like Misplaced Pages's MUD side, it's drawn lots of traffic and free administrative labour but along with it a lack of trust. I glark there's a narrow path somewhere though. DRM sucks, the bane of all but gangsters, those middlemen and politicians who live by theft alone, naughty boyz. Proprietary in a truly free market's ok if anyone wants to buy it, some will, that's cool. I like my software free and open, but I'm daft. Gwen Gale 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensible and able, I'd have said. Us incompetents get along with what's in the shops. Agree generally, particularly about DRM: have yet to buy anything from iTunes, but was meaning to get a couple of singles and have just been reminded to try looking for "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" thinking it was Van Morrison did the desired version, but it seems to have been the Yardbirds. Will ponder that before giving them any credit card numbers. Ah, the fun. .. dave souza, talk 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They were a bit before my time you know, though I know the Yardbirds from Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup...! Gwen Gale 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blowup!! When that came out us students were on an outing to York and after seeing the film we went daft, taking photos of everything! . .. 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I first saw it after a photographer friend told me she'd worked as a young lass with David Bailey. Later another friend cracked me up with her tale about being scammed by David Hemmings in a limo sometime in the early 90s. Gwen Gale 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your take on the free vs proprietary issue. I used to work for SGI (in light of recent events let me emphasis for, I worked at a company Adacel (darn that darstedly redlink) that was contracted to maintain large slabs of SGI code including their X server) so I really appreciate the difficulty that vendors are faced with trying to make a buck on the back of Unix and wish Apple all the best. Proprietary Unix has to be better than the best (whether that be the BSDs or Linux) and so even tho I prefer open source for my own uses, i'm partial to encouraging proprietary efforts as it makes the free world better. John Vandenberg 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know folks who make very good livings writing custom and proprietary code which runs on the BSDs. With wide open source code and a BSD license one can do truly wonderful and helpful things never mind make money along the way. I have seen the future, said the witch, and it is open source :) (erm, so to speak, I mean, I'm not claimin' any friggin' crystal balls or anything!) Gwen Gale 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

re essay article created by anon

I wasnt sure how to read your recent comment; are you pointing out that certain admins are wikilawyering or saying that I am?? I've run across the term but not the essay that was being referred to. I was very amused by this edit that it uses as an example; perhaps that means I am prone to enjoy a bit wikilaywering. Anyway, I am not at all happy with this "controversy" having been covered by an encyclopedia. It is recursively WP:SELF (news about wikipedia about news about wikipedia, ... and none of it encyclopedic) and as a result the news will feed on this and detract from the positives of our efforts. That is painful to watch, perhaps appropriately which is why I voted for keep, but it shouldn't be characterised as "right" in any circumstances (in my two going on three beer induced opinion). In my mind, the multiplicities of out of process and "messy" decisions can be excused (however inappropriate) by the out of order creation of this article. btw, I read your Essjay thing essay yesterday and think you are right on the mark on all points. John Vandenberg 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the very kind words, guess I was hinting I thought you were skirting the suburbs of wikiwonkthorpe but in a good faith kinda way. Truth be told, I was indifferent to the existence of an Essjay article in the encyclopedia space until I saw the RfC being luzzed down the memory hole against overwhelming desire among the community to talk about it openly. That effort to erase WP history in itself drove the newsworthiness and significance of the incident, both in WP:Space and the media, since it gave WP's critics something big 'n fat to chew on. Wales made a big, docking botch from start to finish on this one which he has admitted and apologized for. We can disagree on whether or not the creation of the article was out of order but either way, talking about that in this context is IMHO, a wonk. Meanwhile, I agree it's so painful to watch when one thinks of how Essjay must feel. Here are some of my thoughts on that. Gwen Gale 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. it really has gone. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay has been "archived" , and the talk page with it. I knew it was out of process but ... has it been moved somewhere without the redirect ? If it has been outright deleted, I guess that is one way to stop the recursion, abruptly but sparking more controversy, instigating another recursive process. John Vandenberg 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it's there, or click on the link below the notice. I don't mind telling you there was quite the struggle to keep it in the project space and I don't think it should have been closed but that's another tale. Gwen Gale 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a rant on the DRV; thanks for pointing me in that direction. fyi, the link on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay should be updated to point to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/User:Essjay/RFC.

Also, in case you haven't seen it already, a well written balanced piece on essjay has emerged. I smiled/giggled a few times while reading it. John Vandenberg 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I stumbled across that one meself earlier today 'n I agree. I liked your twist on the lynch mob thing, I think it's true by the bye. Gwen Gale 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin abuse

I would like to see them, I guess. They are irrelevant in any case when they are violated, or maybe if the person violating is important enough they don't apply. In any event, I know there is nothing a person like me can do, so would it even benefit me to know? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are two links then.

Mind, trolls and cranks wontedly nettle admins with empty cries of abuse so one should approach the whole topic so gently and with plenty of diffs (links to specific edits) to show what happened. One might think of asking about quietly before launching any sort of accusation. Truth be told though, there are ways to wholly get around a dodgy admin without stirring up a fuss. Let me know if you need a hint or three. Gwen Gale 16:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up to the admin involved (no response); another user brought it up to admin involved (no response); it has been brought up by two other users in an Arbitration proceeding (no response and was not addressed). I requested an Advocate regarding the issue. At that point the admin sent me a post basically angry with me for asking but not explaining anything, saying he did not remember the details. What would you suggest as the next step? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That one action last summer/fall by that admin, has resulted in an endless and still ongoing mediation, an RFC/Mattisse, an endless and still ongoing Arbitration, endless and still ongoing accusations, filings on ANI etc., constant harassment and stalking of me, open proxy attacks on me and articles I work on . . . Mattisse 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First question then, did these all belong to you before you had a clue it wasn't the thing to do? Gwen Gale 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure they do all belong to me. That is the problem. I need to know who really is and who isn't. How was this established? A list was left on my talk page. I know my granddaughter made an account but I don't think hers is included in that list. I would prefer to email you if you want to get into this. My stalkers currently are blocked/banned for the time being, but they still may be monitoring me and will use this conversation against me in the future. --Mattisse 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Email me then (there's a link on the menu at left). Understanding what's what with that would be the first step. Gwen Gale 18:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you a short note. I wrote a long explanation but it really did not fit well in the wiki email (no spell check etc.) plus the whole story is long. It probably would be better for you to ask the parts you want to know. --Mattisse 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Gwen, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on this article. Working with people like you is what makes Misplaced Pages such a joy! If I belived in Barnstars, I'd try to find a good one to fit. So I just want to thank you for "writing for the enemy", keeping a cool head in a ver controversial subject, and for the mild approach you took the entire process. I especially am glad you supported my wholesale swap of your initial language for the prior contentious article. Thanks --Trödel 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha what swap? I thought you (and the others who edited here and there) integrated my framework/new start wholly and wonderfully! Anyway I think all those kind words could be looking-glassed straight back to you. Truth be told this article is an example of dispute resolution through rigorous citations, no "arbitrary authority" needed, as is being discussed now on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Cheers to you! Gwen Gale 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Grauniad reveals all...

A heads up, though you'll have probably noticed, that I've posted some links at Talk:Essjay controversy#Guardian coverage. The first one seemed to me to be analysing the MUD issue you've been describing, though others may also have mentioned it, while the others show more positive ideas. This is getting a bit much for me to keep up with, so will try to get back to my part in the continuing British Isles war. Anyway, time for walkies first! .. dave souza, talk 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. Here's a better link to it.

Yeah, it's a MUD and some folks likely need to learn a thing or three about personal responsibility. For starters, don't lie about your CV online, that's mean. For seconds, don't do volunteer work at WP if you expect to get something back from it other than a bit of personal growth and experience or the happiness which can derive from knowing you've helped spread a bit of supported knowledge into free and open text oh and thirds, somebody may make a tonne of money off this, but when it happens don't be mad if Jimbo doesn't call you up with a cushy paid job managing RCPatrol. Gwen Gale 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan mopping

This is what I have to say today about the wonders of open source. Gwen Gale 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet admins

I've responded to your message on Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_accountability#Admin_identities_-_how_many_will_we_lose.3F that there are sockpuppet admins. Please provide examples so we can begin an investigation immediately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't make any charges against anyone, it's not worth the burn. Meanwhile, there are dozens of helpful admins. Moreover, nothing I've said should be taken as an accusation against any admin with whom I've had contact throughout my edit history. I've replied in full at the above project page but I'll repeat here, thanks for caring, that's cool :) Gwen Gale 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly

Would you mind taking a pass or two at this article on RegisterFly and let me know what you think needs adjusting? I had asked Hipocrite a week or two ago to look, and he seemed to think it was alright, but he is gone now from Misplaced Pages... I think I did a good structural job on it (it's a bit complex, with two interweaving lawsuits across four parties, and fairly absurd allegations--see the $6,000 chihuahua) and it's all 101% sourced... but there is really little postive press/news on them unfortunately. I keep looking at it, thinking it might be an attack piece, but I think I may be looking too hard. Seems like a low-notability super successful company that imploded and is getting lots of fame for that, ala Enron (but smaller scale)... please let me know what you think, and make tweaks as needed if you have time or the inclination, or if you can share any advice. This was the most complex thing I've done on here yet--like 99% of the edits are me. thanks! - Denny 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done :) It seemed accurate, balanced and wholly sourced but the narrative was an utter docking mess, which is understandable for a fast unfolding saga, so I did a sweeping copy-edit is all. See Wikipe-tan above haha! Gwen Gale 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

warning to me

I have reverted an anon at Lisa Nowak twice over unduly weighted PoV in a section heading. 3rr is in effect. I will not be an edit-warring bitch 100x on the green board, my fingers dusted with chalk. Gwen Gale 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bordering 3RR on Lisa Nowak

You have been warned. --71.106.148.28 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)