Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 28 January 2008

Talk archives
1 2

I think you know where my questions are going

I want you to know that I have great respect for your contributions (both in quantity and quality), your project loyalty even when as Wyss you were unduly punished by arbcom (IMHO), and your excellent boldness and energy. You seem a good sort; if you lived in NYC, we might know and work with each other. You maintain a cheerful face, your edits have an enduring quality, and you edit in a difficult beat. All that said, you'll have to explain some things about your activity here and on the Wyss talk page, if you want my support. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, please ask whatever you like and I'll be open with you. You've been around here long enough to know how this stuff happens. If you need to nudge me, please feel free. My only dilemma is that I wholly, sincerely support arbcom and what they do, along with WP policy, so although I think that arbcom ruling about me was an utter botch, helpful folks do make mistakes sometimes and I see it as a glitch precipitated by my own lack of experience at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've seen arbcom botch some big ones, cases which caused (and cause) me to edit with slightly less enthusiasm. And if you're going to seek community approval, you'll need this sort of issue out in public. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we wholly agree and this is one of the reasons I accepted the nomination. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely characterize the 19th century American history interest cluster of wikipedia editors to be reflexively defensive against edits by new users, especially when the subject edited (Naming the American Civil War, rumors of Lincoln's "gayness", etc.) has seen extensive coverage in talk or when the sources provided don't pass the experienced nostrils of page watchers. My eyes were originally drawn to the Talk:Abraham Lincoln dispute because of some language North Shoreman used in an edit summary. The amhist milhist group is not huge, and we tend to stumble on each other's hard work a lot, and that builds a certain esprit de corps and reliance on each other's judgments. BusterD (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in a few similar little sets and cliques. I've also learned they're sometimes, but not nearly always, a helpful shorthand for gleaning a quick take on something. Oh and yes, "reflexively defensive" rather much describes what I found at AL. Truth be told, I found it hard to believe at first, so I made an educated guess and ignored some warning cues, which is another reason why things flashed up the way they did. Also, I thought kinda maybe one of those editors who had made comments about the lack of critical sources (there were three in all) might show up and help out. They didn't. Sigh. Which is why I call it "no meaningful consensus among experienced editors" for those sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's likely to suggest you got an easy RfA. More like old school. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's remarks are driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply note: My association with the AL page dispute began as a content issue (drawn by edit summaries of a long time page watcher), then degenerated into a conduct issue (over why Gwen manicured her talk page before archiving). BusterD (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I strongly believe, if I had happened to agree with your take on sources and subsequently engaged in the same behaviour at Abraham Lincoln whilst supporting your editorial PoV against a different user who did not, say User:Thorsmitersaw, you would would not be criticizing my conduct at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the bye, admins delete stuff from their talk pages all the time (I'm ok with what he did there). Meanwhile, I provided an unambiguous link to the whole archive. I didn't hide a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I've tended to criticize your conduct, that's because measuring a candidate's past conduct and current ability under pressure is exactly the purpose of RfA. You were doing better when you weren't indicting others who disagree. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear your tidbits of "advice" have been crafted only to lead me into discussions which have given you a forum to post wholly unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of fact regarding my contribution history. This has all been over a disagreement about editorial content and sources and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't edited my comment so as to imply a false personal attack, I'd likely never remembered you at all. I see wildly sourced stuff all the time. When I saw how you openly gamed the system by editing relevant talk, I felt a responsibility to archive evidence for my reference. Freedom=Responsibility. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop and you know it. Sorry to say so, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this last as aberrant and chiding. Sorry if I came across as a WP:DICK. I support you as a page editor 105%. As a potential admin, I only support you 85%. When you've decided it's time to run again, I pledge to act neutrally, if not supportively. Please feel free to call on me if I can be helpful in any arena. BTW, I'm not an admin, and decided not to run before my lengthy wikibreak a year ago. Thanks for thinking I'm the admin type. One day I might run, and though I feel I could be trusted with tools, I don't have a compelling need for them at my level of participation. BusterD (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was only chiding you for saying "openly gaming the system." Could you give me the diff of what you say I edited (I only want to see, so I can grok what bothered you about it and fix things if I can, or at least share my reasoning). As I've said, I didn't mind the "old school" treatment, our disagreement only came in our notions of what it meant haha! I always thought you were trying to help: Codswallop = (at the time) "stop dumping all over me whilst pretending you're not biased!" Ok that you were biased though, hopefully that other 15% will fill in as you get to know me more as an editor. Cheers! (I will not stop saying that, I canny mean it! Besides, it's my style! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to some characterization myself. Let it all cool down for a week or so and then I'd be glad to be more transparent with you. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Truth be told, going by the totality of our interaction thus far, I think there are a couple of wiki-wide things (not having to do with you or me) we can productively talk about later, with no worries about past misunderstandings, disagreements or whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I wrote a suggestion on your RFA that you probably should consider.--STX 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs showing any past exchanges you and I have had? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the point. I really don't think you are ready to be an admin nor can you be trusted to not abuse the tools. What was the point of this edit?--STX 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A mistake, thanks for pointing it out. As you can imagine, I've been a bit distracted by the RFA. I think it's clear and reasonable, given your comments, why I'd want to see diffs of any interaction we've had in the past. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln. --STX 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I believe the above user's suggestion is driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolam

Gwen, Please refer to irene-amelia.com for updated information about Irene Craigmile Bolam. It is essential the falsely contrived and illegal biography that Misplaced Pages has published about Irene Craigmile Bolam either be corrected or removed. Misplaced Pages is displaying false information on said biography page. The photo displayed is not of the original Irene Craigmile Bolam either. All of this is provable in a law court if necessary. Thanks, Electra10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra10 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen: I'm sorry but I am willing to challenge anyone in a court of law on this matter. The information displayed in Wikipdia's nicely contrived "Irene Craigmile Bolam" biography by use of conventionally available research material, on a topic that has remained a historical debate for over forty years, is "basically false" even though Misplaced Pages appears to be favoring the reporting of it as "basically true." This (unfortunately) leaves Misplaced Pages responsible in the end for conveying and therefore promoting to the public, a "basically false" diatribe of biographical information about said person. Again, so much would be highly provable in any law court. Especially where the woman's image displayed in the photograph Misplaced Pages published in the article, definitely does not represent the image of the original Irene Craigmile (Bolam.) By Misplaced Pages openly promoting said information as acceptably true material to be regarded by the masses, based on the contrivance of its supplying entity, Misplaced Pages itself is promoting an overall falsehood and therefore in violation of the law. I recommend either removing the Irene Craigmile Bolam biography completely, or re-submitting said biography as a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra10 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User history

Yes; the revisions are deleted, but all deleted edits are visible to administrators. The only way to hide revisions from administrators is through use of the oversight tool, but that tool is strictly limited to libelous content. Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I told an editor on my RFA page Mr Bauder deleted the pages over a year ago because I was worried they were scattered with bits of personally identifiable information (not libelous information), and the editor said, "but with this RfA in mind it might have been better to just oversight the inappropriate information and leave most of the history intact." However, isn't it true the oversight tool would have been inapplicable to solving the problem in this case? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the identifiable information was; I'm not aware of what the problem was in your case. If the problem was a few individual edits that were quickly reverted, oversight works well. If it was something that was on your page for a while (e.g. information at the top of your talk page, that stayed there for a long period of time), oversight is ineffective; as far as I know, edits must be oversighted one by one, and would probably be stretching the rules of oversighting, because using the tool would completely erase your history for administrators as well. Ral315 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is I said to you so long ago must have been so unhelpful. Regardless of any concerns I have about bringing this up, in this way, on my RFA, I'm happy to address it. I don't know what it was I said, but I have no problem apologizing for it and assuring you it couldn't happen again. I was sharing some of my thoughts about civility with Coppertwig when I thought of you and maybe you'd like to read them here when you have time, since it might help. It's not a comprehensive retelling but it gets to the pith. If you would like to discuss this further with me (anytime in the future), I'll be glad to do so. Thanks again and all the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has sent the comment to me. First, I have to apologize, I'm laughing at the moment because your line, Ral315, is hilarious and multi-layered, as you meant it to be! Now, at the time, I was grasping about (humilated as I said in q3 on my RFA), trying to understand the underyling wiki-dynamics of what had happened, why I had been slapped with such an unfair topical ban (again, though I still disagree with the ruling, I got over all of this long ago, support arbcom and understand fully how I got swept up by the mop of what they do). Anyway I had gotten to where I was recognizing the sway of WP's community aspects (which aside from some AfD participation I had ignored as an early editor, focusing only on article content, so I was clueless). I, along with some published IT commentators back then, saw those community aspects as sometimes having the characteristics of a MUD, a role playing game. I had not yet come to understand how many users there are here who simply don't have time to edit articles because they are so busy with their administrative tasks, which are essential to keep Misplaced Pages going. Now, we all know role playing for its own sake has happened around here, but happens a lot less these days (there's an ironic, extremely oblique and unintended reference to this in my answer to q3, which only experienced and knowledgeable users will "get" and which I will not explain further). My response to your attempt at humurous diffusion was indeed witty (as Hoary has implied), not in the least "untasteful" in any way or anything like that, but very, very, very unfair to you, which is why there is no need to copy it back into the viewable wikispace. You were offering me the olive branch but my skepticism was turned all the way up at that long ago moment and I wince at the lost opportunity. Having seen the remark now, I'm more than happy to apologize to you for it. What I said was uncalled for and at its pith, lacked WP:AGF and lacked understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. You have given so much to Misplaced Pages. Anyway, out of 26,000 edits, that one may take it for snarkiness. Uncalled for. No way I would say something like that to any Wikipedian now (as I hope my contribution history shows). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah...!

"(Header)Edit summaries
Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"

It is a shame that perhaps the pail will not be shared - this time. Never mind, take in those comments where there is the facility to improve, keep editing the encyclopedia and build a cadre of people who appreciate what you do. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I ought to be apologising a bit. I didn't pay enough interest in your RfA, and I didn't realise that some people were simply using the process (IMO) to reactivate some past grievances about some articles. While using diffs to indicate the reasons why they might believe you should not (yet) have the communities trust I feel that some went too far. When you next run (and I would really give it several months) I will happily clerk the request, and remind those that need it that they need to concentrate on your recent history and suitability, etc.

It may be wise, if you do decide to run again and take up my offer, that you copy this message back to me then - so I am not too confused. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket affair ...

... was promoted to GA class. Congratulations! — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

You'll find I don't mind a bit discussing positions during an RfA, and sometimes changing them. It's meant to be a discussion, not a vote, this whole thing of saying one is "harassing" opposers by clarifying things is ridiculous.

We actually did meet at one point, though it was not under the best of circumstances. That's ancient history, especially as time flows around here, as is the bit with your previous identities, so I'm not really concerned with either. Also, I see what you mean regarding the name, though with the various people I hear from with pretty silly names (and they're verified, so they're not just something someone thought was funny), I don't really presume there. I should clarify my own position as well—I see nothing wrong with consenting adults participating in the adult industry. However, many people would be harmed by someone stating that they personally have done so. (Imagine your local newspaper running an article stating how $YOUR_REAL_NAME or even $YOUR_STAGE_NAME_AS_AN_ACTOR_IN_NON_ADULT_FILMS had starred in a multitude of adult films!) It would be the exact same if the article asserted, without sources, that the person held a controversial political view, or was of a certain sexual orientation, or whatever the case may be. Many people may be quite proud to be gay, or to support/oppose abortion, or what have you, but when it comes to asserting it about an individual, it's still potentially controversial until we have sourcing stating unequivocally that it is so. At that point, it's verified and evidently already public information. I can see your rationale, though, and can certainly see where you were coming from. I'll think on it a bit more. Seraphimblade 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These are all very meaningful points and you got me to thinking about it the first time you commented on it. I'm sure I'd arrive somewhere very close to your perspective after handling only a few articles like this (for context, I've always avoided having anything to do with porno articles here!). So yes, although my rationale would be ok and reasonable when evaluating such an article specifically about a Britney Spheres, when it comes to these topics it's safer not to even ponder the name but either find verification (in your words "stating unequivocally that it is so") or delete the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at Talk:Haymarket affair.

I have no intention of reverting your change, but it seems clear to me (from an examination of the user's other contributions) that he is a troll who uses talk pages as a forum for his complaints, and has no intention of helping improve the articles, or Misplaced Pages in general. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing you for removing the dissenting comments and agree they're a bit irksome in their tone (never mind I don't agree with much of what he has to say) but it's a controversial article and I think comments like these on the talk page help show concerns like this have been heard and hopefully addressed. As for calling someone a troll, I understand that too, but I like to avoid using the word altogether since it can alienate an editor who might otherwise come around to making helpful contributions and a true troll will ignore being called one anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

I've made a closing statement. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen - I !voted support and stand by that, but if I could provide some unsolicited advice on your next RfA (you're going to get the mop eventually, unless you decide that you don't want it) it would be to let some comments go without replying to them. You have, to date, made 199 comments on your RfA (not including the six on your talk page); this is more than five times as many as any other candidate of whom I'm aware (full disclosure: I'm not that active at RfA). If somebody says "I don't think Gwen deserves to be an admin based on her conduct at Abraham Lincoln," maybe consider just leaving it at that; not every oppose is an invitation for refutation. A lot of the time, things seem much more scandalous when there's an enormous conversation on the subject, rather than just a single comment.

Anyway, this is just advice from a user who'd like to see your next RfA go better than this one. Consider it, and then feel free to disregard it if you don't like it. And happy editing (it is my style). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! (the "happy editing" :) Thanks for everything and yes, I do agree with you about the commenting and it's helpful to hear what you have to say about it. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I hope you are not too disheartened and will take onboard the concerns raised by those opposing and will consider running again in the future when you feel you have addressed them. Best wishes, WjBscribe 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to have gone through it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about what happened. I still think you'll make a great admin, however, and I plan to support your next RfA. Just take the entire event as a learning experience; just listen to what the opposers had to say, improve yourself, and try again in a few months. Don't worry, I didn't pass my first RfA either. Good luck. Acalamari 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Acalamari, that means something to me. You know, lots of helpful things have happened because of this so I'm more happy about it than anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I'm glad you're taking a positive additude to this. I look forward to your next RfA. Acalamari 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this RfA process work? I can't seem to find the answer. I noticed that you had 43 supports and 27 opposes. Does this process go by what the different members say or by the numbers in each column. I guess I don't understand what constitutes a consensus. In other words if 100 people suported you but were not very detailed in their reason for support and 2 or 3 people gave detailed reasons for opposing, would those 3 outweigh the 100? Sf46 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Famously, it is not a vote. Actually, it's pretty much a vote. Consensus means that everyone agrees. Actually, people don't have to agree. What it generally boils down to is an 80% approval rating, plus or minus a few percent. That plus-or-minus-a-few part is one place where the "bureaucrats" get to exercise their judgment; otherwise, a person votes as forcefully as possible not in order to impress the vote-totter-upper but instead to sway later voters. The whole procedure is pretty dodgy but not obviously more dodgy than any alternative I remember having read about. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen, for your kind note on my user talk. I assure you that, were your interactions between yourself and others to show that you truly are avoiding unnecessary confrontation, I will personally lead the charge to get you adminship. Nothing established here today was final. Wikipedians are a really forgiving lot, on the whole, and believe it or not - despite the fact that my !vote was not in your favor - I want you to succeed (both personally and for the sake of the encyclopedia). Best wishes, - Philippe | Talk 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Gwen, a few people really gave you a bollocking there. Some seemed close to adding "and she's my enemy for life". I fear that it means that anyone who might later think of running for mop-pusher can only make anodyne edits to any of the many articles on issues or personages about which lots of people tend to get emotional. (Which isn't to claim that all of the complaints made were baseless. But a number did seem overegged.) Oh, and that changing your ID and having your previous one deleted mean very little.

On the other hand a lot of the people voting "support" would have kept the AfD on their watchlists, would have seen the "oppose" votes mounting up, and chose not to change their minds. This in turn might have resulted from voluntary blindness, wishful thinking, pigheadedness, etc.; but it might also have come from a feeling that the complaints were over the top.

Take my own case, for example. Before my RfA, I edit-warred to some extent. I think I did so following the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines, and also (so far as I'd bothered to read and remember them) following their letter. (Certainly I was never had up for 3RR.) Perhaps as a matter of dumb luck, nobody brought that up in my RfA. Since the RfA, I've continued to edit-war to some extent, again following ditto. But I keep separate the roles of (a) "scrappy if conscientious editor" and (b) admin. I've had complaints (some perhaps justified) about the former but I've rarely heard complaints about the latter. Of course there's been the odd moment of "rouge admin" / homicidal fantasy, but I don't recall ever having seriously considered using my superpowers to zap somebody with whom I was having a content argument, and I see no reason to think I'm unusual here: I'm disappointed by others' degree of certainty that potential admins would do this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to agree with your take on this Hoary. Meanwhile I do understand what happened and I was rather happy at the end, with how things wound up with almost everyone so I think a bit more time will do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Takes some class to thank your opposers. :) I also appreciate the kind note, and barring anything bad in the interim, I believe next time around I'll be supporting. Regardless, I certainly like the new you far better than the one I met almost a year ago, and I really hope you keep up the great work. Seraphimblade 08:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just slip in here with the other respondents to your RfA... Thanks for your kind "thank you" note and that wonderful Waterhouse image...

And as the boat-head wound along

The willowy hills and fields among,

They heard her singing her last song

But let's hope not, eh? That was certainly a very aggressive process, but your attitude of taking the "criticism" on board is admirable and I hope/expect that your next RfA will be successful. In the meantime, I look forward to crossing paths with you on some articles. All the best. Pinkville (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta! The Waterhouse image has been on my user page "forever" so no worries about any foreboding symbolism there. I picked it because I like so much about the image and it ties in with my Swiss-English background (both cultures were swayed by Celts). When I thought about the "last song" symbolism (a year ago?) I was able to twist it about in my mind into a fitting notion but otherwise it's meaningless, since I'd have done the same with any allegorical image I liked enough to put on my user page :)

I'd noticed the Waterhouse image on your user page some time ago... but hoped Tennyson's words hadn't suddenly become appropriate! The Swiss were swayed by Celts? I knew of Galicia, but not this. Fascinating. Pinkville (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Helvetii then! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Of course! I've read Asterix and Obelix...! Pinkville (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks...

Hey, are you sure you meant to post this edit to this page: ? Or am I missing some hilarious wiki in-joke? Lankiveil 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

Argh! Thanks so much for telling me about this! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome for the support. :) I'm sure that if you address the concerns listen there, you're next RfA will be a success. I responded to a some opposes for you during the RfA. Good luck. :) Acalamari 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw them and they were very much appreciated and yes, I think so too. Thanks again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't make it this time; I've seen nothing but good work from you. Next time, however...--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck on your next attempt! WBardwin (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gwen, I'm sorry to hear about your RfA. Better luck next time. You have my support again the next time around. Take care, Postoak (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that...

Yo, I just reverted a minor edit of yours; in constructions of the type the fact he, "the fact" is the object of the sentence, whereas what was meant in this case was a further proposition which was being identified as a fact. Regards, Skomorokh 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this conjunction is sometimes needed to clarify meaning it is more often than not considered extraneous. See this usage note in a standard dictionary: "The omission almost always occurs when the dependent clause begins with a personal pronoun or a proper name, for example: The mechanic (that) we take our car to is very competent. The films (that) Chaplin made have become classics." It gives other examples. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant that it's not cut and dry and I am not a prescriptivist, but this case differs from the examples you correctly cited above. In the above examples, "the films" and "the mechanic" are both the objects of the sentence (having the car-taking and classic-becoming "done" to them) whereas in our fact case, "the fact" is not intended to be the object i.e. the fact is not supposed to be not matching eyewitness descriptions, he is. This is clearer if you take your version of the clause as its own statement: "Despite the fact he did not match eyewitness descriptions" - it's ambiguous, and needs either a comma or a "that" after the word "fact" to be made clear.

But the real reason I've spent ten minutes working through this is because I am a closet grammar nerd and enjoy geeking out over unimportant minutiae instead of actually improving the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Skomorokh 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This made me think the sentence construction was lacking elsewhere, so I've tried a wording which skirts this altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that this edit (if it's what you're talking about) is an improvement. However, let's be precise in our grammarnerditry: "the object of the sentence" is a slightly odd notion: in English, verbs and prepositions routinely take objects. (Occasionally other things do too; in "He's just like his father", "his father" is the object of the adjective "like".) Above, "the mechanic" is the object of a preposition, not a verb. This has been an unsolicited message from supernerd 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! It's not at all a grammar error to include it but as grammar.ccc.commnet.edu says, As a general rule, if the sentence feels just as good without the that, if no ambiguity results from its omission, if the sentence is more efficient or elegant without it, then we can safely omit the that. No ambiguity= no that. The conjunction is wholly unnecessary in this one. Drummed into me little head first year in college and I've never looked back :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

if the sentence feels just as good without the that: But to Skomorokh and me, it doesn't. I can't speak for Skomorokh; but for me this isn't a stylistic (non-)issue (as that in for example "She said (that) she'd be late"); instead, it's cut and dried. I mean, as a linguist I wouldn't preface the "that"-less version with a "?", I'd instead preface it with "*" for ungrammatical. So we actually have different intuitions here. I don't say "You're wrong, I'm right"; I do say that what's right for you is (here, and rarely) very clearly wrong for me. Whatever this may signify. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, truth be told, don't you think, we don't wanna dig too deeply into what this conversation signifies for any of the three of us ;P Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. We couldn't have brought the article to GA without all the hard work you've put into it over the past few years. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're so welcome and thanks for the kind words :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also thank you for your thoughtfulness, but would humbly stress that I was not nearly as significant to the development of the article as Malik, or yourself. Still, I accept your appreciation for what I did contribute, and hope to work with you further in the future. If you are at all interested in contributing to other articles of significance to the philosophy of anarchy, please feel free to join the Anarchist Task Force. We'd be happy to welcome you.--Cast (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome! The quantity of your edits wasn't high but their helpfulness was overwhelming, both on the talk page and in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Jayjg 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you also. Good luck.--Ѕandahl 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that your RfA is over, I hope you'll take a moment to read and think about this post. First of all, I am neither male nor, as you put it, an "SPA." Under my registered account I made well over 1000 edits (a pittance compared to your contributions) in a variety of history and science articles, most of which are directly related to the two doctorates I hold. Since you're obviously mistaken about who I am and where we interacted, you might also want to revisit your allegations that other editors have found me disruptive--it's patently false and if I choose to comment (under my own account name) on your next RfA, it will be at least nominally embarrassing for you. Finally, my assertion about your use of sockpuppets was not the paranoid ravings of a madwoman but rather informed opinion after being made privy to several Check Users (I believe that's the term, forgive me if I'm mistaken) that were run on your aliases, which were provided to me by some of the others that do indeed belong to a "Wyss Survivors" group, though you may not wish to believe it. My advice (take it or leave it) is to stop prevaricating and shifting focus in this regard as there are obviously others far further up the Wiki food chain who have run these checks who may comment themselves on another RfA. Also, I am not one of the two people who posted "graffiti" to your talk page, which is easily verifiable using WHOIS (unless you believe there's one individual flying around the world to post from country and region specific DSL accounts). I do want to make clear that as a Professor I am used to peer review and even challenges, but in the halls of academia one is usually treated with a modicum of respect, which most likely plays into how appalled I was by your treatment of me. Cheers. 24.22.24.202 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)