User:Gwib/Archive ten

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Talk Page

Baseball uniform references

Ohai. I was wondering when you will "fill all those {{fact}} templates" like you said on baseball uniform. ;) Hehe. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely forgot! I'll get to it kthnxbai. --Gwib -(talk)- 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Othnx. I'll just do create those red links and copyedit the article a bit. Good luck! ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You put far too many {{fact}} templates on the article. For simple statements such as "other materials for the baseball uniform were added, such as uniforms made of satin" one wouldn't need one, only for bigger statements such as "strips came into fashion in the 1930's". --Gwib -(talk)- 14:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there are no red links left. :P I guess The Rambling Man filled those up when I was on a wikibreak. I guess I'll just do some copyediting then. Hope we don't bump into each other (as in, get into an edit conflict) when we're editing the article. :/ -- RyanCross (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, that wasn't me, that was User:Razorflame. He just put {{fact}} on almost all the sentences that didn't have a reference after then. We can remove the not needed ones. -- RyanCross (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think the article is ready for WP:PGA. I've read over the article a few times and I don't think there are any complex wordings in the article. I added a few extra refs yesterday also and I think it meets all the requirements of the criteria. Do you think it's ready? -- RyanCross (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Nominate it! I've simplified bits and pieces of it (unfortunately leading to some red links) but overall it's extremely good. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but, I agree. Nom it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for your help guys. I'll create stubs for those redlinks added. -- RyanCross (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speeling coypoedit

Thanks for that. First off I can never remember practice or practise and secondly I certainly blew it with manufacturer. I appreciate your input. Any chance of a comment at the VGA proposal? It's mighty lonely over there... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol at the 'speeling' :P. As for the comment, not much chance. I'll support it if it moves from PVG to voting, but as for comments/opinions, nothing new to say. Back to watching Spain v. Germany. Go Krauts! --Gwib -(talk)- 19:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I dodgily went straight to voting as I was convinced I'd achieved all 10 VGA criteria. I've boldly opened the voting. Go for it. Oh, and I'm watching the football too. Spain playing rather well... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Voted. The Spaniards will be going mad... I'll be listening to their bloody horns and screams for hours now. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphan

Hey, you removed an orphan tag which I've just restored. As far as I can see the article still has nothing linking to it. Did I mess up? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No no, but some people take the orphan tag to mean a lack of notability (which the article had), so I removed it to avoid others being mislead. Not exactly 'playing by the rules' but I think it usually makes things easier. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Felt the same way myself a few times on en-wiki. So, perhaps a nice little stub to link to it would be good?! Russian First Division for example? That's got three links already so that'd be neat....... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed good articles

So it's been proposed. What do I do now? Just let the proposal sit there? I'm not really familiar with the whole process yet. -- RyanCross (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Although if no one has voted on it after 2 or 3 days you can always pester them on their talk pages. --Gwib -(talk)- 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Gwib, sorry to butt in here but isn't the process that there's a two week period for comments, suggestions, editing etc and after that period, the nomination is moved from the proposal section to the voting section where it can be voted on? It's a little confusing, I must say... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh whoops, thought it was already in the voting period. I just cast a quick glance over the PGA page a while ago and saw a dozen in waiting and assumed it was one of them. --Gwib -(talk)- 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm kinda new around here, I think this and the PVGA system need some work. I know the volume of traffic on Simple is much lower than regular English but I'm not sure this process is clear or effective. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how we can improve the systems of PVGA and PGA. Maybe merging the proposals and the voting sections together so discussion and voting are held at the same time. And maybe just one week for the whole thing also. Just my opinion. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't think it's the VGA and GA system that doesn't work. It's the users themselves. There simply isn't enough discussion or voting overall. --Gwib -(talk)- 07:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's probably true. But I think maybe merging the commenting and voting and making each process 2 weeks in total would lessen the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- The article still has some major problems from what Creol pointed out. We should try to fix those in the next 19 days. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek alphabet nonsense

Hello, I'm in the process of cleaning up some misinformation systematically spread across multiple wikis by User:CBMIBM. Please see the relevant discussion on meta: [1]. The image I removed is too much factually mistaken to be useful. It contains letters that simply don't exist, purports to display an alphabetic order that doesn't exist, and contains spurious glyph variants that are irrelevant. CBMIBM has been on a hugely disruptive cross-project "original research" campaign spreading some bizarre ideas about the Greek alphabet that for him are apparently part of some pseudo-religious belief in Greek as the primordial language of mankind or something like that. If you think that image is useful, please discuss. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yot (letter) may be a hoax, however letters such as alpha (letter), beta (letter) etc etc throughout the greek dialect aren't. Forgive me for so quickly reverting your deletions, but I simply assumed that since only one letter in the alphabet was a hoax, the rest could be kept. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few other dubious elements in there. Not that the symbols don't exist, it's just a matter of whether they really belong in a representation of the Greek alphabet. It's a bit as if you were claiming the English alphabet was like: "abβcçćgȝɣđƙƨƹƿƪƞƒȢ...". Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take the appropriate actions. Thanks for the explanation. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick note

Gwib, strange one this but I thought you'd like to know. Someone over on EN appears to be claiming your girlfriend is their girlfriend (| here). Unless I am going totally mad. Again. MindTheGap (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd E-mailed RyRy about that, thought it was very strange. :) -- America †alk 17:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, given EN user RyRy is User:RyanCross here, it just seems a little creepy MindTheGap (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should get the message across. She is indeed mine and no one else's. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Replied. And I already said that wasn't me at all. Cheers, RyanCross (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To MindTheGap: It's strange to use two different user names across Wikipedia? I don't find that strange very much. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Most editor use one (A Link to the Past, Chenzw, Gwib, Lights, Creol, Swirlboy, American Eagle, Majorly, Maxim, Phaedriel, Eptalon to name a few). You and I are probably the only ones (don't quote me on this) that maintain different idenities. I haven't yet disclosed mine, but it's not as if I've completely changed my habits; at least one editor should be able to discern who I am on en. Cassandra 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniela Hantuchova

Hey Gwib. Thanks for promoting Ana's article earlier and adding the link to the language. As you're probably aware, I've got Daniela sitting there waiting for your attention (not literally!) so if you get a moment, could you have a look at it and offer suggestions/opinions? Cheers dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Grr, you'll be glad to know you were right. I've now added in her WTA doubles titles (which passed me by completely, duh), a couple more images and a summary table for her victories. It now exceeds your minimum article size and (I think) is better for it. I hope you'll have some time to revisit the article and perhaps change your opinion at the PVGA. Thanks for your time so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! Sorry for being so picky. I'll re-read, maybe add/remove things and then vote again accordingly. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's fine, it's your job to picky! Thanks for the current copyedit. Hopefully when you're done you'll be happy to support. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool job. You done? Fancy a support? Not that I'm begging. I think it's in a better state now than when I nominated it, mainly down to you so thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
All done. I'll still keep on adding though. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
ps. Woohoo!
woohoo indeed! Pity we can't use those images...! Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!!!!

Yes Gwib, aren't you proud to be an American? *Hehe* I bet most Europeans didn't even know that today was Independence Day in "The States." LOL and a very proud Cheers! -- America †alk 23:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I did celebrate it with a bunch of friends (most are American - some are Swiss, English, South African etc). It was a sort of international 4th of July :P. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh that's cool ;) -- America †alk 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gothic Architecture

Hiya. I have also done a few Cathedrals and links in the article. The last three red-links seem to be in in Depressed Arch. By the way, we have two versions of the Cathedral in Vienna, St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna and St Stephen's Vienna; If you are interested, there'd also be Bad Doberan Minster to proofread/expand. --Eptalon (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll expand on some of the stubs which looked very interesting (Abbot Suger etc) and Bad Doberan Minster in a few days (holiday!). We'll get it to GA status yet. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

91.108.0.0/16

This IP range was blocked by Creol on 9 May this year for crosswiki vandalism and sockpuppetry (block log). Do you think it should stay blocked? The tool I am using to check global contributions does not work for IP ranges. Chenzw  Talk  10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, it says it allows account creation, yet the IP claimed that he wasn't able to create one. I'll try to re-block but with account creation allowed. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Where did it say that? Block log? It says "account creation blocked" there. Chenzw  Talk  13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it was re-disabled when you re-blocked him. But apparently there was collateral damage (as shown below), so we could possibly take a chance? --Gwib -(talk)- 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I reblocked the IP range under the original settings. In the 24 hours it was unblocked, 7 new socks appeared:

This IP range does have one GF user, so it is soft blocked but as it is the home range of Kevin Scally (da Scally, kevins friend Liam, and dozens of other abusive/attacking/harrassing socks) this block needs to be kept and only unblocked for special cases for short periods of time (such as SUL creations). -- Creol(talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and for the soft block. Hard to believe some people are so bent on vandalism. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey man, thanks a lot for that! 91.108.218.200 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AA11

Hey Gwib. Thanks for your support. Can you point me to the sentences you think need to be fixed, or are you going to go and do it yourself? I'll also go dig out some more "other websites"... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, the film was United 93 wasn't it? Not American 11? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh right, sorry. I just know there was a film about the WTC attacks and assumed that all three planes were involved. Nevermind. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It was United 93 - that was a great movie. -- America †alk 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

O_O

Welcome Back, that was a very long retirement, I hope you had spent it wisely :P ...--Cometstyles 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hey! Your back! What? 21 hours ain't enough for ya? Anyway, I just wanted to show you this. Welcome back! :) -- RyanCross (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, after discovering that I wouldn't be getting a pension from Jimbo Wales, I decided I'd be better off doing something useful here rather than just laying about. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Tease. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
;) --Gwib -(talk)- 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Hey Gwib. :) Do you think I should let everyone know of the new design at Simple Talk or should we just let them find out their own? It would be more fun to see everyone fuss over the main page design. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You could let everyone know with a big, colourful distracting message if you wanted.--Gwib -(talk)- 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh, we'll just let them find out on their own. I just want to see how others will react to the whole thing. Thanks for your help. ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Amazing. Microchip 17:02, Friday, July 11 2008 Utc

Ryan designed the whole thing, I'm just the fat, hairy foreign guy who moved all the boxes from the old place to the new. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. :) Gwib, who knew you were fat. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Carol Yager got nothing on me :). --Gwib -(talk)- 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Duh. That's why his retirement was so short, he used up all his saved money on cheetos and corn chips. -- America †alk 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Hey dude, your sig is currently adding 1 Kb every time you use it! Until you get the code sorted out, fancy switching back to a relatively normal sig? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I knowTemplate:Broken anchor. -- Gwib
I've replied here. - tholly --Turnip-- 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw :). But is it me, or isn't it changing colours? --Gwib -(talk)- 15:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It does appeared to have not changed, let me have a look. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

Replied. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Put anything you want, it's just so that users don't think of each other as letters. A few others already have it, you know. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay, thanks. By the way, I like the new signature? Is that Lights' sig (and Chenzw's), because he used to have that changing colored sig. -- RyanCross (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it's fixed on one colour. Tholly is slaving over fixing it and then I might :). --Gwib -(talk)- 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Done! Sorry for the wait, my keyboard has stopped working and I'm using the on-screen one... - tholly --Turnip-- 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done... now what? -- RyanCross (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Tholly - SUCCESS!
@ Ryan - Replied over there, check your wall! --Gwib -(talk)- 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a member of Simple Wiki project Heavy Metal

Thanks for signing up to SimpleWiki project heavy metal! I finished making the userbox just now, my first self made userbox, so add it to your page if you want. Also if you know any other users that might be interested in the project please tell them about it. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting User Pages

Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted a bunch of user pages from serious (non-vandal) editors who are working on this wikipedia, with the reason given as "vandalism". This seems a little heavy handed to me, since the home pages (user pages) in question, did not seem particularly offensive or gaudy, and are, after all, personal home pages. I think that home pages or user pages should be held to a lower standard than article pages; but anyway I was wondering if there had been any discussion on this matter anywhere lately? Cheers, Blockinblox - talk 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you back! Now, onto business. I deleted them under G11: Advertising, which they were (not vandalism). If you'll look at their userpages, you'll see them simply spamming a link to a camping site. Similar userpages are also a cause for concern, as they could be sockpuppets.
I think there was a discussion about something a little more serious, but none-the-less relevant here. The user had a link to an inappropriate site on his userpage (which was deleted). A little more serious than a camping site :P, but it got deleted. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "advertising" instead of "vandalism". I still disagree with deleting the user pages, the "camp" in question is a computer camp and this notice was to identify students at that camp who are using wikipedia as a resource, not to advertise them.
I also disagree with your deleting several places in Pakistan without discussion on grounds of notability. This needs to be discussed. It was agreed at one time that all places are notable (see WP:SETTLEMENT) and there is certainly more than enough room for them. Unless this policy has changed, please stop mass deleting places in Pakistan, it seems like a knee jerk reaction. Blockinblox - talk 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
When articles start getting 2 or 3 results on google, I deem them worthy of deletion. And as far as I'm concerned, linking to other sites for the purpose of attracting 'potential clients' is probably advertising. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ps. "all places are notable"? "The settlement is near a place which is of historic significance", "the settlement should have at least 10.000 (or 10,000) people". Also, discussion was started...
One problem here is confusing titles. Looking at the Google results you listed, Bakrani Tehsil is en:Bakrani, Hasan Abdal Tehsil - en:Hasan Abdal ("famous for Gurdwara Sri Panja Sahib, one of the most sacred places of Sikhism.", population over 50,000, history traces back to atleast 1521 (over 200 years)) . Going through many of the others that were deleted, the same pattern appears regularly. Tehsil seems to have a range of meanings about Pakistani local government from municipality to county (and hense it is the administrative center of the region). Googling the terms should not include the word Tehsil. -- Creol(talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Even without "Tehsil", I would question the notability of the articles. On the w:Bakrani article at EN, it has gone through editing of only one account (a few others copyedited it), a user:Siyal1990. I would say this could well be our own IP address since he also seems to edit similar articles over there.
en:Hasan Abdal was probably notable, but as for others, I still think they lack importance. The matching articles over at EN have no interwikis, so it seems that they only appear here and over there. They're all written by the same user (Siyal1990), are all stubs both here and at EN and fetch no more than 5,000 related google hits with or without the "tehsil". --Gwib -(talk)- 10:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) This is not the first time someone had to mass delete pages due to articles not showing notability. This morning (my local time), I picked one random article that was deleted and took a look at it. Content was: "xxxxx is a state/municipality/state in xxxxx." That's all. Chenzw  Talk  12:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


A few other non-notable locations which still meet WP:Settlement standards - four picked at semi-random (I liked the names) :

  • Sehwan Sharif - Major religious significance (pilgrimage destination) which was settled at least as far back as the 13th century. 15,200 ghits for "Sehwan Sharif" although a large chunk is also for the airport there.
  • Dokri - Population about 40,000. 15,800 Ghits
  • Okara - Large industrial and commercial trade centre, site of a national military dairy farm (cows with guns??) and Livestock Research Centre and has a government college affiliated with the University of Punjab. Pop. (1998 prelim.) 200,901. (per Britanica Online) 66,400 Ghits for +Okara +Pakistan (8600 for "Okara Pakistan")
  • Landi Kotal - large amount of fighting going on at this Pakistani/Afganistani border town. As a border town which is a major trade center, the highest point on the Khyber Pass and a transportation hub this place tends to be a constant battleground such that new articles abound about the constant fighting (800 news.google links dating back as far as the 1950s with 33 in the last month) 29,000 Ghits

While I am not arguing that the quality of our articles on these locations was vastly lacking, I do have to point out that many of these easily meet our proposed notibility guidelines for settlements. -- Creol(talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The names are quite dashing. And I suppose that even an uncatted stubbed article needing cleanup and lacking context and a NPOV is still an article to be improved and not deleted. I'll restore some of the ones I deleted and try to clean the others up. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Kournikova

She's waiting for you at WP:PVGA - could you do me a favour and have a vote one way or the other? Or make some comments? She's getting lonely. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented. The results could be useful, but may be a tad complex. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Responded. All her titles are incorporated in the article already. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for semi-locking my user page.

SQ has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. I am starting in the mainspace 1 by 1. Cheers :),  ThePageChanger 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also can I ask for a favor from you?  ThePageChanger 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think this is ready for mainspace or does it need to be simplified more.  ThePageChanger 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgent deletion needed

Gwib, if you get this, could you please delete User:David Shankbone and hide the edits that reveal personal information? I've already contacted the English Wikipedia oversighters, though I'm not sure if they're the right people to contact. Cassandra 23:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response. Cassandra 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests

Hey Gwib. Could you delete 56 charlie as an A4 violation? And while your at it, could you deal with the unblock request of User talk:S-man? He's been sitting there for a while now. Oh, and if you want to chat, I'm on facebook. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, there are about 500 matches for your name, assuming that "Cross" is your surname. Cassandra 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, are you talking about facebook? If so, I wouldn't talk about that here, it's not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a facebook. -- RyanCross (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For some people, it is. :) Cassandra 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, heh, well for some people like us (hopefully), it isn't. ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Request handled, although knowing Kimberly, it might come to the worst. Page deleted but I'm going to bed. Waking up bright and early tomorrow to see someone, but I'll leave a message on your wall! --Gwib -(talk)- 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me. I barely know who Kimberly Ashton is... so "Kimberly Ashton sockpuppet" seems kind of unusual... --S-man (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, could I ask that my user page could be unblocked? Thanks. --S-man (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but woe betide you if any vandalism or sockpuppets are committed. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Edit war?

Actually, it's not an edit war if the edit is vandalism. ;) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't gone through the diff's yet, but continual reverting does justify a protection. Also blocked the IP and will put the page on my watchlist. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. The article went through 4 repeated reversions, having the IP, Razorflame, and me involved. Yeah, a protection and block seemed good. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't like the 3RR rule. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's only a 3RR if the edits are not vandalism. If an article reaches 4Rs, and it's just reverting vandalism, then that doesn't violate 3RR. And in this case, the IP's edits were vandalism. ;) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Even so, it doesn't make much sense that a user only gets 3 'warnings' (3RR), whilst an IP gets 5 warnings ({{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, {{test5}}). --Gwib -(talk)- 10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to use all the templates. If it's obviously malicious vandalism rather than "test edits" then block sooner rather than later. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Warner

Is your oppose to this on the grounds of the lack of non-web-based citations for real? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, among other things, but they're not so serious. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
But which guidelines state that web-based-only references is bad? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
None. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I think that's absurd. Using references we can all access is 1000 times better than nebulous paper-based references which would necessitate a trip to a library at best to confirm. I think you're not really helping the current process crisis with crazy opposition like that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but websites are just less reliable than books. And books can be found online, you know. Look at Wikisource for just one example of an online library. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How are websites inherently less reliable than books? —Giggy 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. Books are published once and that's in - they can be rife with error and are immediately out of date. Websites are often maintained all the while and will contain up-to-date and accurate information. Your oppose is pointy. Why not oppose the use of web references on the VGAs and GAs then? Get them all demoted. That'd be a good move. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personally... I support the use of websites as sources, but for things such as statistics, I think that published works are more reliable.

Indeed, see w:Wikipedia:Verifiability for more informaion. Basically, it says that "opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's [scientific] work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text". --Gwib -(talk)- 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything personally, your oppose is simply invalid. Why quote scientific work to me when this is about an American footballer anyway? You're making a crap system crapper with this sort of nonsense. Even English Wikipedia doesn't have this level of rigid demand, they live in the real world where references from the BBC, Sports Illustrated, ESPN etc are considered reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) By the way, Wikisource (per s:WS:WWI) only accepts public domain texts; as a general rule that's stuff published pre-1923. I think a lot of reliable sources, both on and offline, have been published since then. —Giggy 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
To TRM: I put the 'scientific' bit in brackets on purpose. Statistics should have sources. Basically, websites can say anything. I know you'll disagree with me violently, but websites can and do say BS sometimes. Books are simply more reliable and only go out of date with changing issues.
Things such as statistics, discoveries won't go out of date.
So the BBC, ESPN etc can say what they like? I don't think so. And books are more reliable? I don't think so. When Nature magazine checked Encyclopaedia Britannica against Wikipedia (arguably the least reliable website in the universe), they found the same level of accuracy in both. And BBC etc don't have the same open editing policy as Wikipedia. Your argument is deeply flawed and is a de facto oppose to all GAs and VGAs here, FAs and FLs on English Wikipedia etc. I think if you are going to vote like this every time you should at least be strong enough to get it included in the policies. Otherwise with the level of voting here, you'll just wreck the system further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And have you not heard of the reliable sources guideline on en-wiki? That's what I use to judge website's reliability - I don't wave my hand and say "websites are less accurate than books. period..." Perhaps you should create your own RS policy? Something useful may come out this charade. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
To Giggy: The link doesn't work. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; [2]. My apologies. —Giggy 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I opposed not because there were only websites, just because one could easily find book sources for the article in question. Even one or two book sources are easy to find (Hendrix) and IMO book are more reliable than websites.

This is just two different opinions. Also, The RS policy says "published sources", which websites don't qualify as, I don't think. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect me to believe you don't think websites are "published sources"? As en-wiki says.. "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information - the activity of making information available for public view." But wait!! That's just one opinion... Cornell University says to publish is "To make information available and distribute it to the public." Bristol University's computer scientists say to publish is to "upload files to the server and make them accessible"... Princeton University says it's to "prepare and issue for public distribution or sale". I think we've moved on since the invention of the printing press. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You can go at this all you want, I simply think that books are more reliable than websites and should therefore have priority over them as a result.
I'm not trying to 'convert' you, this is just two different opinions clashing. I stand by mine and you stand by yours. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the Hendrix books you refer to, what on earth makes you think they're accurate? Have you actually checked that what they're being used to reference in the article is actually what the books say? Are you going to do that for all articles you review at PGA and PVGA? At least with on-line resources, you can check them and, if you doubt the credibility of the source, suggest another is found. Am I to assume that you just "accept" book references without checking them?
And no, you should not stand by yours because it is flawed and is going to destroy what's left of the PGA and PVGA process. You should be voting against all nominations on this basis, not just Warner. How on earth do you think en-wiki would get on with your odd view of RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, every single one of their FA have book references, so they'd probably be alright. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. Here's a few that I found without "your version of what a published source is" in seconds... w:Tropical Storm Edouard (2002), w:V for Vendetta (film), w:2007 UEFA Champions League Final... you're lying. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted they use mostly websites, but books (and even official reports) contributes to the articles reliability. Now can we please stop arguing? We'll never accept the other's view, and I'm fine with you having yours. Besides, what harm will letting me get published sources do? Apparently I'm the only one who has strict criteria, so I'm not compromising any potential (V)GA. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're killing me! You found one book link out of around 300 citations! And that's okay with you?! The two PDFs are published on-line! They're no different from anything else you may find online. Here's two more: w:300 (film) and w:Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Believe me, I'm well aware of how to provide citations on en-wiki, I've got 11 FAs and 17 FLs and two featured topics. Claiming that en-wiki featured content always has book references is a lie, and you should not use it to oppose. Worse still you are giving other editors the impression you understand the process at en-wiki which you don't. There's not one shred of truth in the requirement for book sources to achieve featured status. And by the way, you're opposing a GA not a VGA, the standards at FA on en-wiki are WAYYY higher and they still don't mandate these paper sources. And why aren't you opposing Scottish Premier League on the same basis? At least be consistent. It's unfair to selectively oppose if you hold this viewpoint. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So, really you need to compare GAs here with GAs on en-wiki, not FAs. Also, you should consider why people use books. It's most certainly not in preference to a reliable web source, it's almost always because the information is simply not available elsewhere. It's really that simple. And you never did answer my question about checking the validity of, say, the Hendrix book sources. Are they accurate? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Last time I'll say this. I prefer books. It's really that simple. I won't give a 1,000 byte answer to your 1,000 byte accusation, it just narrows down to "I prefer books". --Gwib -(talk)- 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's still a bit weak - 'I prefer books'. It may be your opinion but is no reason for an oppose. TRM, what do you actually think of the article? You haven't yet voted, and it should still pass if it gets enough supports (in reply to your 'another editor wonder why they bothered' thing). - tholly --Turnip-- 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, weak is an understatement. You've created a de facto oppose "reason". To be fair to the other editors involved, you should at least tell them before voting commences that you'll oppose. Do you intend to check that the book refs are correct? If not then your argument is 100% flawed. I will not drop this as you are contributing to the death of another process. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<--- Wow I hate controversy. Okay. None of you have ever read his book, All Things Possible: My Story of Faith, Football and the Miracle Season, I did. The entire book (written up to about 2000/01) is referenced in it. On EN, that book is a "Further reading" thing. But I found more books by him and merged them together it its own section. I really dislike book references because they are impossible to prove or read into unless you own the book/magazine. With reliable websites (and they're not Jack and Harry's book of Stats.com), you can check the facts in it. With books, you have to trust that the user who added the book reference was not just playing a joke with something he made up. I do not think VG/GA's should ever be oppose solely because the references (45+) are available and on the Internet. I do request that you don't keep articles from being promoted only because I don't own many books to look them up in. Thanks --American Eagle (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like no one listens to me here. So I'll say it again (like I said it before, again and again).
Websites are less reliable than books.
Anyone can start a website, but it takes a lot to write a book. Not only will your name be on the line, but publishers will check the book throughoutly since it's expensive to print books. They won't want to print crap. However, websites are free to start, anonymous and one can write anything. It's really not that hard to understand.
Some may say I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. But if your only complaint is that websites are easier to access than books, then go to a library. No doubt I'll get a million and one people saying what an idiot I am, but alright. Type away, I'll still read your accusations. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You should read w:WP:RS - if you think ancient printed text (and that includes newspapers printed yesterday) are more reliable than the BBC, Reuters, Associated Press websites then I can no longer respect your judgement. Nonsense. Just to let you know I'll be vociferously and permanently working against your biased and unsubstantiated opposes in future. By the way, Alba is up for VGA, I can't wait for you to oppose and expect you to do so. I'd ask you to prove my paper sources are actually correct. You seem to avoid that question persistently - have you actually ever checked the paper references are correct? No, I doubt it. If you're prepared to oppose a nom based on this fallacy then you should be prepared to improve the Wikipedia by modifying the guidelines. Instead you just say "I prefer books" or "Websites are less reliable than books." without any substantiation whatsoever. You assert this opinion with no evidence at all. And that is pathetic for someone who is supposedly an admin and aware of policies and guidelines governing the development of good and very good articles on Simple English Wikipedia. You keep harping on about "Anyone can start a website" - but I keep reminding you of the English Wikipedia reliable sources guide. Come on. Pathetic. "It's expensive to print books" - my goodness I've heard some futile arguments but that takes the biscuit. More importantly, you're happy for en-wiki to have FAs (not GAs, FAs) with one single book ref out of 150 refs (149 web refs) but not happy to have a Simple English GA with nearly 50 web refs to be a GA? Why does one single book ref make a FA okay but no book refs here not acceptable? And for the third time of asking, have you checked the Hendrix book refs you referred me to? Do they substantiate the claims in the article precisely? Please start answering the questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
PS why haven't you opposed the Scottish Premier League GA yet? You must be fair to all nominators. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually writing an essay about this at the moment (or trying to, it's quite hard). Whether or not it's possible to have objective knowledge or not. Apparently not. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we all agree that anyone can make a website and put any random information on the internet. The point is that some websites have earned a reputation for fact checking and reliability, so people know said website won't just write any old junk. Those websites are as reliable as books, IMO; can we compromise with that? —Giggy 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(dragging along argument) But then how would we distinguish the valid websites with those not valid. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
w:WP:RS. You have to use your judgement. If the community thinks a ref is unreliable, it can't be used. Otherwise, it can. I feel the same way about book refs, have you actually checked them? i doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, basically, if a source has been given a reputation in reliable sources for fact checking, etc., it's OK. See (for a random example I've been involved with) how one website's reliability was demonstrated using book (and other) sources. It won't be the same in every case but it's an example. —Giggy 09:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

E-Mail

You have mail. -- Total Spastic (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd, but replied. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your methods

I must say. I am at particular odds with your delete first, ask questions later method. I've left a response on the projects talk, we can settle the matter there. Regards. Synergy 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply because I saw the stub, saw no need for it and deleted it. Many people have imported stubs over and they've been deleted by other admins as well as myself.
It was only after going through the history of it that I saw it was actually part of a wikiproject and so DIDN'T delete the other stubs, instead I asked a question first. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes but this is not a positive quality to be displaying when there are few highly active contributors here. I simplified the template for betting understanding, as it already existed. You deleted it saying it was mine and not to use it. I'd like to ask that, in the future, you ask questions first, do a little digging, then act. You'll find a more positive response, and productivity will be achieved in the process. Regards. Synergy 06:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you've noticed how many times categorigal stubs have been discussed and deleted. No 'digging' was needed, so your accusations are unfounded. Don't think I don't know what I was doing. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Being an admin means much more than hitting the delete tab. Accountability is just one of the many things an admin should show. This is what I was talking about. You have to actually check to see who created something, before you accuse other editors. Likewise, if you make a mistake, you have to own up to it. Synergy 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I thought that leaving a message informing you both why the stub had been deleted and that it had been deleted in the first place is more than simply "hitting the delete tab".
I saw it was part of a wikiproject concerning purely QD-appropriate material. But I asked questions and didn't delete anything else. Indeed I even restored the deleted stub. I can't see any accusations or even mistakes. Again, I know what I'm doing. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Whats done is done. I don't wish to argue about it, as I only wanted to bring it to your attention. Happy editing from Synergy 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Alright, Thanks! It's a drag, I'm going to have to update the "MOST WANTED" every hour with someone like you around! --Gwib -(talk)- 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

(Deletion log); 06:07 . . Gwib (Talk | changes) deleted "List of Software Licenses" (QD R1: Broken redirect)

Ohai Gwib. I tagged the above page you deleted as WP:QD#R3, but you deleted it under WP:QD#R1. The list was actually being redirected to a category. You just couldn't see it since if something else is on the page besides "#REDIRECT [[List of Software Licenses", and it's being redirected to a category, the category will just become a category of the page, which means the only thing you see on the page itself is "#REDIRECT", and the category is on the bottom of the page. :P So does it still count as a R1 violation, even if it technically wasn't broken? Well, until I added the tag, yeah, I broke it. But still, does it? Oh, and I tagged it under R3 because the name of the article that was being redirected to the category really didn't make sense and it had an awkward title for an article to be redirect to a category. Sorry if this sounds confusing. :P Hope you understand what I'm saying. ;) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy reply. We don't have WP:QD#R3 on our "List of Reasons to Delete". So I just chose the reason closest, which was WP:QD#R1. As far as I'm concerned, "Reasons" are expendible (eg. "test page", "vandalism" and "nonsense" all meet the same basic qualities) and shouldn't be taken too seriously into account. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Whats up? Synergy 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment was added by User:Edge37 not Synergy...? - tholly --Turnip-- 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw, Synergy usually has Regards on the end of his messages (politness :)). --Gwib -(talk)- 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Edge37's only made 3 edits, the other two have been reverted and now this. Do you want to give him a warning? - tholly --Turnip-- 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I doubt he'll take any notice. Impersonation is serious. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. - tholly --Turnip-- 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Aww, pudgy. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Right...
Anyway, can you give me AWB access please? I have it on enwiki and like using it, but there's no formal request page here. - tholly --Turnip-- 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This Edge37 guy also said he was an admin on American Eagle's Active User list. ThePageChanger! 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
He DID? ThePageChanger! 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The above comment was by Edge37 again NOT ME. ThePageChanger! 16:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright everyone, calm down. Edge37 has been warned. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He was warned after he impersonated Syneregy and then he impersonated ME. ThePageChanger! 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorrz couldn't reply to the AWB comment, internet cafe time ran out. Edge has been warned again, and anz more vandalism/impersonation will lead to a block. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's OK, Creol's just done it. thanks anyway. - tholly --Turnip-- 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for salting

Can you salt this page? Recreated 2 times in the past 3 days. Sebb Talk 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done --Gwib -(talk)- 13:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Tah! Sebb Talk 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gwib/Archive_ten&oldid=9498307"