User:Gwib/Archive fourteen

Rollback

Hi, i'd like to request rollback', because i think it would make it much easier for me to fight vandalism. Thanks - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll let Eptalon give you rollback, since I stole one of his earlier requests :P. --Gwib^-(talk)- 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok =) - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) done ;) --Eptalon (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback / Restore

Hey Gwib. Requesting undeletion of User:Da Punk '95 and User Talk:Da Punk '95, as well as rollback. I'm going to work hard on here for the next 2 months and 12 days, then my bans over! -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All done, now go edit! --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

QD

It's not? Aw. That's right, spoil my fun... *mutters under his breath* MC8 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

--please. MC8 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Love the 'commit suicide' one, you're a bloody great thesaurus, you know. Makes a change from our Cyberman society though ("delete, delete, delete"). --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's mainly because I used a thesaurus.... and I prefer the Daleks. And you can get Dr Who is Switzerland? o_O. MC8 (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have television here... --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

QD hunt

Hey Gwib. Could you take a look at CAT:QD for a moment please? There are currently two pages that are up for deletion, but I can't find the tags on the page. I'm thinking it transcluded from somewhere. Do you think you can find it? Good luck on your QD hunt! – RyanCross (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw them earlier, on Microchip's talk page. I removed it, but it seems it's stayed somewhere. I'll get right on it. --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Should both be gone. --Gwib^-(talk)- 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

QD G7

Those were not G7's. I did not ask for the deletion. I opposed it. And quite strongley. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, don't have a go at Gwib here. I tagged them. 3-0 is not consensus. Also, it's now 3-1 as Matilda has opposed.

I tagged them as such because if you read the comments, mine in particular, they cannot be created as is. They need simplyfying, and, amongst other things, they are not suitable for how we have discussed. If you want to comment more, take it to Simple Talk. B G^7even 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

Your name has been mentioned at AN -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You will have mail in a few minuites. Check immedially. -- Da Punk '95 talk 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I should run through RfA and get temporary SysOp access for 6 months to mentor Jonas - just in case you are on Wikibreak and he goes on a spree? -- Da Punk '95 talk 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, there will always be administrators present to block him in the (unlikely) event of a vandalism spree, temporary Sysop status would complicate things. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I need you to reply to that email I sent - with a name I can put into Basecamp for collabration off wiki for the Mentoring. -- Da Punk '95 talk 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When I have time, I'm under a worryingly large amount of work today. Expect a reply in about 6 hours. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Expect a basecamp login tomorrow morning AU time. -- Da Punk '95 talk 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But only if you reply. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

I know what you mean, Gwib. I have left another message, having looked into it more thoroughly. The creator of the model had several images from which to draw evidence. He chose to base Jesus on the depiction of a brown-skinned Jewishh prophet, not on the depipiction of a creamy-coloured skinned Jewish prophet. The two pictures are on either side of a larger scene in the synagogue in Syria. Both men have longer head, not short broad ones. One has brown skin, the other has very pale skin. In fact, the second image looks just like most picture of Jesus.

I have known three Jewish men who had round broad faces like the model that the artist came up with. One of them was possibly the handsomest man I have ever know in my life. All of them had long hooked noses of the sort that one associates with Jewish people. Only one of the three had curly hair. Two of them had creamy coloured skin and very pale blue eyes. The other was a young fellow who spent all his time at the beach. It was hard to tell what his natural complexion was, but I think he was quite brown-skinned. He had straight dark hair, rather sun bleached.

I think that a rootle around in those boxes full of skeletons might have come up with some skulls of quite different shapes. Can I suggest that the "peasant" (their word, not mine) skulls that they chose as a model for Jesus might have been just right for some of the other Biblical characters. When we look at the face that Neave created, we see the Shepherds gazing in wonder at the new-born Christ Child, or doubting Thomas seeing his Risen Lord. Amandajm (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of us are talking nonsense either way since we will never be able to tell for sure whether he was black, brown, yellow or white. Each artist would have their own little bias when painting him; European (or Roman) culture would paint him without a beard, African culture may even have painted him black. Frankly, his skin colour is so unimportant when it comes to the rest of him as to be borderline uninteresting, but here we are, both trying to prove the other wrong because it's really quite fun.

I just think that, the majority of Middle-Eastern being dark even 2,000 years ago, that Jesus was dark as well. Your paintings, murals and engravings suggest otherwise, and we'll never know for sure. I'll try to update a section on Jesus' skin color, taking all the talk page into consideration.

Gwib, where does this idea that "the majority of Middle_Eastern people being dark even 2,000 years ago" come from? Who says they were dark? This pictorial evidence from 2,000 years ago suggests that many of them were dark and a large minority were pale skinned. The vast majority of Jews, even in the Middle East are pale skinned. I put up that pic showing a comparison between a Jew and a Muslim. If Jesus was Arabic, he was probably dark. If Jesus was a Jew, he was probably whit, just the way that the Roman painter showed him.

The point is, that Roman painter didn't paint Jesus looking like a Roman. He painted him looking like a Jew. The Greek mosaicist made him look like a Jew. The Italian painter made him look like a Jew. The German wood carver made him look like a Jew. Rembrandt and Leonardo da Vinci both went out and found Jewish men to pose as Jesus. The point is that most great artists did NOT paint Jesus their own ethnic type. They deliberately painted him to look Jewish. The idea that artists generally painted Jesus to look like their own people is a complete falsehood. And you have fallen for, and your still arguing. Can't you see the evidence of 1700 years of painters conscientiously making Jesus look like a Jew? It's there before you eyes. You are believing some theory, rather than real evidence presented to you by an Art Historian, so you can judge for yourself. Go back to the talk page and look at the faces on it, right back to just 300 year after Jesus' death.

To make this clear, I am not pretending that I know what Jesus looked like, or that these artists were right. What I am saying is that it is a lie to say that these artists, all through history, painted Jesus of their own ethnic type. They didn't.

The blonde blue-eyed, snub-nosed all-American Jesus is a product of the same nation that also says Jesus went there on his way to Heaven. It was the Americans invented a non-Jewish Jesus. see "King of Kings" [1]. Very few artists prior to the Americans ever saw him as anything except Jewish. Amandajm (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Until the next, heated art/history-debate! I'll see you then. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Goya

I'm doing a major rewrite. Please don't make piecemeal changes. It's causing an edit conflict so I can't save what I have rewritten without stuffing about. Amandajm (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling isn't piecemeal, it separates the good from the better. But I'd suggest {{inuse}}? --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to remember the inuse tag in the future. I forgot about it! Thanks for reminding me. Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your Greetings!

Hello fellow Chât Wikipedian!

As part of my overall login in the Wikimedia foundation (this neat little thing that means that I can log into any part of the foundation, from Arabic Wikiquote to Japanese Wikinews - all under the same login)

Anyhoot, I am ready to help here on Simple - I will most likely work on Switzerland articles.

Regards,

Booksworm (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a Wikiproject Switzerland (as a subset of Wikiproject Geography) which can be found here. If you'd like to contribute (and I hope so dearly), you might like to start there? --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

G spot

You can't actually deny a reliable source just because you removed it. You were the one who drew it to our attention and I am afraid its evidence outweighs the sources you have provided in the article. The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology is a significantly more reliable source than the ones you ahve cited - failing to cite a source doesn't make it go away - it is merely dishonest. --Matilda (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Failing to cite a source? I've cited one in the article! I fail to see how you can accuse me of failing to cite... Online references are indeed less reliable than published ones, however it remains a citation.

You people amaze me, that you are so blind as to think that children actually come to Wikipedia to, what, masturbate to the articles? It's akin to censoring a dictionary because it says 'penis' in it. I have provided encyclopedic information, and you pious, uptight people see it as disgusting. --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am neither pious or uptight - I contribute to enwikipedia with few qualms - this wikipedia has a different purpose - if it doesn't have a different purpose then it shouldn't exist as per the challenge at meta.

You have provided a ref, which is verifiable online and it disputes the existence of the anatomical area. Moreover the ref in netdoctor.co.uk that you used also states there is doubt scientifically but you chose to use that reference selectively. You have not provided encyclopaedic information, you have provided encyclopaedic misinformation by selectively using sources, not because you hadn't found them but because you discarded those that did not suit your agenda. That is dishonest.

as for your comment about children coming to wikipedia ... well you said it yourself [2] - exactly why are you making them better with misinformation?--Matilda (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the source: "there is a particular area, located very close to the front wall of the vagina". Of course there is controversy, people disagree and there is no official place, however, I can find a myriad of sources each giving information and a location of the G-spot. To deny it's existence would be to ignore all of these sources.

I can change the hook (add ', although this has not been proven'), however, there is appropriate information there which should not be censored. Legitimate information, sourced, and meeting all the DYK requirements is being disallowed from qualifying for DYK because it is deemed unsuitable? It's a joke. Children come to Wikipedia, but all they find is informative and interesting articles.

Unfortunately, you have begun selecting information which should be available to children and information which should remain hidden. If you call that a small qualm, you should probably find a different Wikipedia to edit on. --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am an active editor on enwp not just here (currently I am on both projects - I am not banned, blocked, or even disenchanted with enwp - I am not, unlike many other editors here, a refugee from that project). I am here because this is a different wikipedia - if it isn't a different wikipedia, it shouldn't exist.

There is a policy here and on en about Verifiability and also Neutral point of view - the latter policy states here at Simple: NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about, and make them the main point of the article. The article you have written breaches the policy on WP:NPOV. You have not used the sources correctly - eg in using the netdoctor.com.uk source you have failed to acknowledge its leading statement: If you think the G-spot equals mind-blowing orgasms, think again. With Italian research the latest to lay claim to this fabled female erogenous zone, our experts explain why medical opinion remains to be convinced. Emphasis of course mine to draw your attention to it. Changing the hook to confess it is a considered by the scientific community to be a "fable" doesn't make the hook OK. If you cannot write articles that meet the basic policies of any wikimedia project, you should be considering whether you should be here. Selectively quoting sources fails to meet WP:NPOV.

I fail to see your point when you say Children come to Wikipedia, but all they find is informative and interesting articles - if you intended a pun - that is pathetic - grow up. If you didn't intend a pun - then ... to answer your argument,because the purpose of this wikipedia, as opposed to enwp is to provide information for children and those learning English a a second language, then "yes" the reading experience should be "informative and interesting". It should also be encyclopaedic - otherwise they could stick to reading fiction. This is not a competing encyclopaedia in the strict sense.--Matilda (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Haha! Didn't notice the pun, actually. But to counter your arguments again, I say nowhere in the hook anything about mind-blowing orgasm, that 'some women', not all had a sensitive region near the anterior region and there is an explanation on that very URL about controversy. Once again, just because a matter is controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't appear on DYK.

Would you censor hooks about Israel? It has the same effect. Finally, in what way is any article mentioned in the hook unencyclopedic? The G-spot and vagina pages both offer interesting information expected from an encyclopedia. It's you who is splitting hairs because you want to selectively teach children. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is not neutral, I shall now tag it as such. A "controversial" article, because it does not meet our policies on neutrality and verifiability should not be included on DYK - it is not encyclopaedic if it quotes selectively from carefully selected sources to give a POV not held by the scientific/medical community. The G-spot article is pretty much rubbish actually - see my discussion above about how you ignored one ref (now inserted by me) and quoted far too selectively from another. How about you deal with the {{fact}} tags on the article. Haven't bothered to read the other article - I don't have to get my titillation from reading or writing encyclopaedia articles.

I would censor hooks about Israel if the article was not neutral. It is a topic that is hard to be neutral about for some people - generally not a problem for us in the antipodes though - but we do have our own controversial topics.

Your efforts basically lean me to supporting the deletion argument on meta because, you do not seem to share the same view of the difference between here and enwp. Can you clarify for me what you think the difference between the two wikipedias is, other than a refuge for banned or blocked editors from enwp or those who can't otherwise mange to participate in the bigger and more robust community at enwp?--Matilda (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will read your message tomorrow and give a response so you don't end up refreshing my talk page repeatedly for 6 hours - how boring do you think my life is? The watchlist tells me all I need to know with popups preview.--Matilda (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This caught my eye. Is there a way in which we can move this along, towards coming to an agreement, and fixing the problem? I'm seeing a lot of mudslinging and less progress. Synergy 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the article - I would suggest a focus on whether or not the content meets our policies might be a start. The correct place for that discussion is at the article talk page in my view. --Matilda (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your suggestion of proposed wording. I have replied on the article talk page to your proposal. The suggestion I have in its place is: Doctors who specialise in the anatomy of women say there is no anatomical evidence for the "spot".[cite netdoctor and AJOG and Time]. This would be in the lead to make it quite clear. My explanation to come up with this wording and response to your proposal can be seen at Talk:G-spot#Proposed wording by Gwib and reply Regards--Matilda (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hooks for controversial articles

Hi - please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know‎#Censorship for my (and others') thoughts on hooks for controversial articles - not just sex, but politics and religion and anything else controversial too. Given that there is no forbidden knowledge as per Eptalon's point, then when looking at hooks for controversial articles, if any reviewer deems an article controversial then we (as a community) need to review that the article meets reasonable standards of verifiability and neutral point of view to let it though the keeper - it can't be blocked merely because it is controversial or an editor doesn't like it, but editors have to agree that the article is encyclopaedic and meets WP:Rules. Or to put it another way: articles on DYK need to meet WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral Point of View policies - for controversial topics, the whole article (not just the hook) must be verified and comply with neutral point of view. This means inadequately referenced articles on controversial topics will not make the grade, including those that are tagged with some fact that needs proving. Your views would be appreciated. --Matilda (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NCD

Can you move this page to my userpage? I need a little time to simplify it. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All done, it should be found here. --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a bot

Tell me when you're done.. :) --Eptalon (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFB

Accept I hope?! Majorly ^talk 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wayne Kerr

Thank you for deleting that page, Gwib. I was just about to mark it as a QD:G3; look at his name closely, and you will see it was rude. The article stated "his teachers felt uncomfortable calling his name at roll call." - You removed it anyhow, so thank you! :) Iceflow (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Didn't notice that until I read it aloud just now. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky fast or ESP??

I reverted the archiving of the Rf.. d-A(?) as while you were archiving, I was submitting the request to get them de-admin'd and used the page as the discussion link/proof of concensus. I reverted the removal on WP:RfA temporarily until the stewards get a chance to look at it and take care of the situation. -- Creol(talk) 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already been chucked in with the rest at Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive3 so you should just need to remove the template from WP:RfA.

Thanks for notifying me though, but you'll never be as sneakyfast as me. (/challenge?) --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK project member review sought

Hi, following some discussion which has now died down I have proposed some rules for DYK which refine those we already had and are based on our recent experiences and the discussion. As a member of the DYK project, could you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposed rules and give your comments. Thanks Matilda (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there, good work. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Five tildes

Hi - yes I did mean to put five tildes since I hadn't done the actioning but I wanted to indicate that nobody need go look since you had got on top of the situation so quickly :-) Thanks --Matilda (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC) (with only 4 tildes!)

I use

because I'm far too lazy to type out ~~~~. Thanks for the quick notification on ViP! --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1891

Perhaps you meant to address your remarks to ChristianMan16 but there is no need since I had removed the template [3] - I agree with you! --Matilda (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Shock and horror! An agreement! I'm off to find an unsuitable event to stick in there ("1891 was the year where the first Italian orgy was performed" or similar) and propose it for DYK, just so things can get back to normal :p --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I searched in vain for an unsuitable event :-( I lack imagination obviously. Some would say that the birth of Henry Miller might not be suitable, but that is as close as I got! Good job on reacting positively to the provocation of an unsuitable template. Regards Matilda (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted Squidward Tentacles, a page a created, as G3:Vandalism...

But it wasn't a vandalism page???? Please explain your actions. LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Content before deletion was "DELETED AS NOT NOTABLE BY TTN!" by the IP 86.146.38.170. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people vandalise a page. Instead of deleting the page, you can simply revert the vandalism. LukeTheSpook (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Template:Hidespoilers-start

Hi Gwib. You closed this RFD as keep. I really think it should be closed as no consensus, with an explanation. A close of keep indicates there is a consensus to keep, this is clearly not the case in this discussion. Please consider reviewing. Cheers, ס ^Talk 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When there is no consensus, an RfD should be closed as keep. "Better safe than sorry" principal - it can't be deleted without good consensus. The exact closing comments shouldn't matter too much - "What does closing with no consensus mean?" - it means that the article/page is kept. Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When there's no consensus, it should be closed exactly as that. No consensus. A close of keep, as I indicated above, indicates that there was consensus to keep, this is not the case. ס ^Talk 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What's more, the only two RfD closing templates are {{keep}} and {{delete}}, and the hidden html comment tells the closing admin to change the {{in progress}} to one of those templates. Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Then that standard has to be changed. I don't see why an administrator cannot use a custom closing summary. ס ^Talk 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should clarify how you found no consensus. There are 5 delete !votes from the nominator (Samekh), Majorly, Tygrrr, me (Matilda), and Bluegoblin7. There are 3 keep !votes from Yotcmdr, TheFlyinSpaghettiMonster, and Tholly. I fail to see any compelling arguments that mean the the numbers do not prevail - ie majority does not have to rule if the arguments are compelling otherwise. You obviously found some compelling arguments. You should explain that in your close. --Matilda (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't include my !vote in the final count. I also don't see any compelling reason why numbers shouldn't prevail in this circumstance, though as the nominator, I have a bias. I'd like you to clarify your closure of this RFD, as I feel there was no consensus to keep. ס ^Talk 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To me the nominator is obviously !voting delete and should be included in the count--Matilda (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I think my nomination rationale should be considered, as well as all the !votes, and their rationales. I do think in this circumstance that consensus was not judged correctly, however that is my opinion. I'd ask that you clarify your close, with a thorough explanation, as to which arguments in favour of keeping the template had enough weight to trump "numbers". ס ^Talk 01:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A ration of 5 delete to 3 keep is 5/8 = 62.5% - not quite the same as 55-60% - did you not count properly (4:3 = 57%) ? If you had taken the trouble to explain your rationale - even in an edit summary - people could have pointed out the error in your calculation and you could have reconsidered. To close with a minor edit marking and no edit summary at all [4] was misleading - I did not even realise you had done it at first. I personally do use page history to understand activity.
Re your comments at ST I don't think any differently of you and I respect your contributions to simplewp which in my view certainly are all about improving the project! --Matilda (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given my $0.02 at Simple talk. I don't think differently of you as an editor because of how you closed this RFD. While I disagree with the outcome, I don't think less of you because of it. I do think it would be wise to explain your closure, however. I've updated {{kept}} and {{deleted}} so you can include a closing rationale, eg {{kept|No consensus to delete}} or something like that. It's really up to you. As the majority in this case did !vote for deletion, I think it would be prudent to explain your closure, or, consider overturning your close. Best, ס (Samekh) ^Talk 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Manchester

Dude what were you thinking when you deleted that? At least start a discussion before deleting an established article like that! In any case, it's perfectly fine! I'm sorry to say, I'm starting to regret nominating you for bcrat when I keep hearing about bad mistakes you've made... :( Majorly ^talk 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple News Issue One


Issue 1 - 15th November 2008 31,511 editors, 39,781 articles, 106,605 pages.

Announcements	♥	Administrators

Wikipedia has 40,000 articles - Yotcmdr created the Grambois article. Rollback enabled - See the Administrators noticeboard or an admin if you wish to use it. Wikipedia has 39,000 articles - The life of brian created the Down (band) article. Did you know... that the did you know section was added to the Main Page? User Articles Kennedy - Article 1 In his first article Kennedy welcomes you to the first Simple News newsletter, and explains how you can get involved! Bluegoblin7 - Article 1 Bluegoblin7 writes in his debut article about the DYK procedures. Watch out next month too!	[Subscribe] [Dates] [Discussion] [The Team]	Congratulations Synergy! - For passing a request for adminship! MC8's RFA ended on 1st November but he did not get enough support votes. Majorly had applied to be a Bureaucrat, but was not promoted. Seven Administrators have had their rights removed due to inactivity. User:ChristianMan16 applied to be an administrator, but was not promoted. User:Gwib has applied to be a bureaucrat and the voting will end on the 16th November 2008. QandA The QandA. Every month, Kennedy will interview one of Simple English Wikipedia's editors, asking them about themselves, and their opinions on Wikipedia. It is an exciting insight behind the anonymous face of an online username. First up is Microchip08! Click for his interview: Microchip08 Interview --GoblinBot (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

fail -- Creol(talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Harsh, much? --Gwib^-(talk)- 11:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

13 people opposed, 9 supported; which means 9/22 support (41% support; 34% off the 75% needed) -People commit errors, 'crats do too. The question is how the individual rates an error made by a propsective crat, like the forgotten closure note on an RfD. Even if my personal views on the subject might be different, at 34% off the mark (with less than 50% support overall), there is not really much choice for whoever closes the RfB. Otherwise put: Cratship is about trust more than anything. To me it looks like while some of the community trusted you (I remember you being over 70% support at times), they do not yet trust you to a point where they expect you to fix the errors you make yourself. Had you handled the situation differently, we might be looking at 72-73% support (at which point making you a crat might well have been an option). Sorry --Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Harsh would have been "EPIC FAIL!!1!!"[5]. That was just a little fail. -- Creol(talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon: thanks for your continual support and neutrality in closing the RfB. Don't worry though, I'll stick around to fail a few more RfB yet :).

Creol: im in ur wiki, phailing ur 'cratships. --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Sorry, but I can't seem to de-pixellate the picture. Could you please help me. Thanks Yotcmdr (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, I've only got photoshop 7 and CS2, they don't have the feature. :(. Yotcmdr (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Heya Gwib; I am currently busy writing something (off-wikipedia). This often takes up all day (meaning: I am tired in the evening). For this reason, I have used IRC less lately. I guess this situation will not improve, nevertheless I will try to be on IRC more often (you weren't on irc either, lately...) --Eptalon (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Danial

is the Hebrew version of Daniel. What about that that violates our username policy? alexandra (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone may ask me that. Basically, Daniel helps violate our username policy ("Do not use a name similar to another user"). --Gwib^-(talk)- 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

France

Hi, those huge spaces as you said were put deliberately so that the layout looked better. The litterature and reference sections are now to high it doen't look as good. Yotcmdr (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Big spaces like that are looked down on, if you want to space things out, use {{-}}. It's cleaner, more accurate and doesn't give huge chunks of white space. --Gwib^-(talk)- 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

BS

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For actually taking the time to sort out the Pakistan ip's contribs. Synergy 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. /stabs Synergy. --Gwib^-(talk)- 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

CfA

Note I put it under the checkuser section. It may not be immediately obvious that a checkuser must be over legal age, due to privacy concerns. Age and adminship doesn't bother me. ;) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for 'new messages' bar. Gotta love that cheery orange.. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. ;) And they had better not ever change it. :) -- American Eagle (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New discussion

I'd like to inform you of a new discussion here at Simple talk. God bless.-- ✧ CM 16 06:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

France article

Hi, I've seen Mars, has changed many things in the article. In my opinion, it's made the article look worse. I was wondering if I could revert to before he started changing it. Thanks. Yotcmdr (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it, please feel free to revert back if you think it was better with his version. Yotcmdr (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you opposed The PGA, and I respect that decision. I am going to put the pictures back as Mars had put them. I'd also like to know why you've oppose (telling me what you think is missing!)Yotcmdr (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

S'il te plait, répond moi! Yotcmdr (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there, sorry it took so long. --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

COI

Note I have requested your further comments on your COI allegations at my RfA - please respond there. --Matilda (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should I? I've no interest in explaining myself to you. You're aware of my opinions, my own ideas have been expanded on in the 'Oppose' section of your RfA whilst your better qualities are being discussed above it. Stop hounding me because you're desperate to clear your sullied name. --Gwib^-(talk)- 16:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You should explain because I categorically state there are no COI issues. You however state otherwise but decline to clarify. I am not the only person who has requested your explanation. I suspect you feel harassed because you cannot justify your comments. --Matilda (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not Gwib. but one pretty obvious COI that I could see (and I am not saying you are doing this) is that you want to be an admin so you can be more effective at forcing people into your vision of what simple.en should be. To be honest thats what some of your actions on here could be construed as. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerned

Gwib I'm concerned about your block of Incnis Mrsi. Nothing he added was incorrect information, and wasn't so much as even given a proper warning. Indef? C'mon... please undo it. He's now piled on to the support to close this project. Actions like that (biting the newcomers) isn't the way to go. Majorly ^talk 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about him. Basically, we've had so much trouble concerning that branch of articles, when I see mass addition of categories to those articles, I wanted an answer as to whether or not the edits were legitimate. Thus, his block was indefinite, as a potential reply to my message could come at any time (indefinite).

For all I know, it's like someone adding [[Category:Pakistan (occupied)]] to all Israel-related articles! I'd have done the same to anyone mass-adding controversial categories to articles, but if you think his categories are legitimate, then feel free to rollback DP95 (FYI I wasn't going to rollback his edits until a reply was given, since it's rude to automatically undo anything). --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the message. I was wondering, I noticed you were an admin - could you add me to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, please, or does this require more stuff on the SEWP side of things? I am already accepted and on the checkpage on en, I just don't know if there are different criteria here. Thanks! :) — neuro^(talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Spiderpig0001

Can you please protect the above fully? -- Da Punk '95 talk 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any need to fully protect it yet. --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hey Qwib. Why did you delete Thermocouple per G11? Synergy and I both agreed it didn't look like an advertisement. However when I tagged it, it was a blatant violation of G12. I found it here. Thanks, ѕwirlвoy ₪ 14:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:SPAM and, as it seemed to fit right into that category, I deleted it under WP:SPAM :). --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Universe

I reverted your changes to Universe because "Origin myth" is an actual ethnographical term, and is not meant to be derogatory to creationists. Jonas D. Rand ^T 07:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right-o, thanks for notifying me. --Gwib^-(talk)- 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot status

I dub thee Gwibbot (for now).-- Creol(talk) 07:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And.. I taketh back -- Creol(talk) 10:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Communes of Bouches du Rhone

Do you want me to add found instead of located to all of them? Yotcmdr (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can help, if you want. Start at the bottom of the second column (i.e. Vitrolles) and work your way up. We should meet in the middle. --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. Yotcmdr (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are still communes of Mayenne, Vaucluse to do. Yotcmdr (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		I award you this half Barnstar for our cooperation on the Communes of the Bouches-du-Rhône department! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Da Punk '95

Please read it and take action as requested. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've protected it for 10 days (11 technically, in my time zone) so you can come back before the 29th if you wish. If you think you're suffering from depression, I recommend a break from things which may 'set you off', so to speak. However, don't convince yourself you're depressed because an internet trawl said so, try to seek help from someone more qualified. See you soon, and good luck! --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing school chaplin today. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why

Did you block 166.113.0.55 (talk · contribs) with creation left enabled? He went on to create LOLLERBALL (talk · contribs) and continue to vandalize. Synergy 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out Special:BlockIP/166.113.0.55. Underneath the table of controversial IP's, it says to block anon only. Feel free to change the block settings, but if you do, you should maybe change the message on the BlockIP page as well to prevent the mistake from happening again. --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who put the message there for the UK ip's. The ip you blocked is from the US. Its not listed as one of the ips to soft block. Synergy 20:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a message on the page at all then? --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read any of the discussion on AN yet? Because if you haven't, you should. Synergy 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this, of course I read it. It doesn't explain why there is a message on a seemingly unrelated IP's talk page. --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What in gods name are you talking about? Special:BlockIP/166.113.0.55 is not the ip's talk page Gwib. Its a message to remind you of special ip's and how to handle them. 166.113.0.55 (talk · contribs) was not one of those ips on the list, so you better start making sense, or just stop using your tools for a little while to take a break. Synergy 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd always assumed that each Special:Block page was unique for each user/IP (since there are past records of blocks unique for the user on each Special:Block page). In the meantime, I'm in no mood to take a Wikibreak, and ask you to keep a more civil tone in your comments. It was a mistake and has been sorted, you didn't need to discharge all over my talk page to correct it. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being uncivil Gwib. I need you to put more thought into your actions, that's all. The way I was speaking to you, was out of general confusion. Its rather odd that you didn't know that, as I would have expected you to. Synergy 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I read all of the policy and admin-related pages when I was promoted. It's not on any (note to self: should probably add it to one somewhere). However, it's a perfectly logical mistake to assume that, when every Special:Block page is different and has a file for each user or IP ever blocked that there is a Special:Block page for each user (as there are talk pages). You corrected me, and I know see that there is a 'template' for each one. Simple mistake, really...

ps. "What in gods name are you talking about?" and "you better start making sense" are pretty uncivil and impolite. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I say worse than that in irc conversations, seriously Gwib, you know that was not me being uncivil. Synergy 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)