User:Gwib/Archive fifteen

You have new messages at User talk:Bluegoblin7

Hello, Gwib. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Simple News Issue Two

Issue 2 - 13th December 2008 37,332 editors, 41,432 articles, 109,917 pages.
Announcements	♥	Administrators
Entry to the 2009 Wikicup is now open, and will close at 00:00 UTC on December 31st 2008. The cup will begin at 00:00 January 1st 2009. Did You Know? is now accepting seasonal hooks for Christmas 2008! Hot chocolate was promoted to Good article status on December 1. Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007) was promoted to Good article status on November 16. User Articles Kennedy - Article 2 It's a bumper edition from Kennedy this month, with a round-up of recent and future developments, and also news of a spin-off from Simple News. Bluegoblin7 - Article 2 In his second article, Bluegoblin7 writes of the new wikicup that has come to the wiki. Yotcmdr - Article 1 Yotcmdr writes about the Good Article and Very Good Article processes and how we need your help in his debut article.	[Subscribe] [Dates] [Discussion] [The Team]	Christianman16 has applied to be an Administrator. Yotcmdr applied to be an Administrator, and was promoted. Matilda had applied to be an Administrator, but was not promoted. Chocolates had applied to be an Administrator, but was not promoted. Gwib had applied to be a Bureaucrat, but was not promoted. 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. Las month we debuted with Microchip08. Due up next was Shapiros10 but due to uncontrollable circumstances we have had to postpone this to next month. Instead, Bluegoblin7 takes the reigns and interviews Gwib, who kindly volunteered to keep the section in this issue. Click for his interview: Gwib's Interview Everyone at Simple News would like to wish all users at the Simple English Wikipedia a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

--GoblinBot1 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Gwib, I hope that you have a very Merry Christmas 2008, and that Santa brings you everything you want :P. If you are going away anywhere, have a great time, and whatever else you do I really hope you enjoy it!

BG^7even 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oi

Read up on what WP:QD#A2 actually means. Maxim_(talk) 14:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I disgree with both A2 and A1. Content is basically the sum or range of what has been discovered or learned, thus the description of A2 is inaccurate. A1 also states that little content isn't an excuse to delete it, yet we delete orphans and one-sentence stubs (i.e. tehsils). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore the article immediately. Will you even give me a fucking chance to fix the damn article.???! Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, no need for swearing. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So stop appointing such incompetent sysops. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop recreating useless, uninformative articles... --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I utterly fial to see how it is uninformative—it defines the what the Japan Cup is. Maxim_(talk) 18:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, Gwib, you should know that if there is a dispute with a deletion it goes to WP:RFD.-- CM16 ^M_LB  00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Zzmonty's concerns

Gwib, Since you are the person in charge of the sexulaity content on this wiki, I will address the issue to you as well as what I wrote on the Simple Talk page. I think that this wiki should setup a rating program for all of the topics in the sexuality section. I disagree with you on the view of the video on the ejaculation page, but since the site is not censored, then it should be rated. One page should have that video and one page should not.

I am a mother of three boys. When my children are old enough (physically ready) I have no doubt in my mind that they can figure out how their body ejaculates that they do not need a video to demonstrate it. Zzmonty (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(sorry for jumping in here Gwib) The video doesn't automatically play when you enter the article. You have to click it to play it. No one is forcing anyone to watch a man ejaculate. All you see in the article is a still shot of a penis. I don't think that just a still shot of a penis is something that is utterly inappropriate for younger children to see. It's not pornography, it's anatomy. Either way (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Zzmonty, Either way is right. Children come to Wikipedia to learn, and without wanting to offend you, I seriously doubt that your children could figure out the mechanics behind ejaculation without having to look to an informative source (video, textbook, teacher). If you're worried about your children being corrupted by videos of ejaculation, then Wikipedia is the least of your worries.

Rating is a fine idea, however I doubt it will take off. The amount of work behind coming up with a rating system with which everyone agrees if nigh impossible, as well as finding all the suitable (or unsuitable!) pages to be rated. Without wanting to scare you off, I think you should at least ask for some help before trying to tackle the monumental task of rating each article on SEWP. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, thanks for your comments to at least support the idea of a rating or tagging system of some type. I saw that you did add the link to the code that allows people to hide images through their login. It has its problems, but it is a start. Here is a link that may be useful to put around controversial images: . Basically, this code adds a button to hide or show something within a table. Adding the ability to quickly close an image or video should not take away from the content of the pages.

As for your comment about a child seeing a picture of a man's penis erect ... that is not your decision to make. I am the mother, and it is mine and my husband's decision to determine when and in what context my child sees that image for the first time. I would want it to be with us present (actually my husband), so my husband can answer my son's questions. Plus there are so many other issues involved, and the discussion is not going to be the same for even our own three children. But it is more than just the image. It is also the context that is included. What is not included. And finally, what other topics are appropriate to discuss when that topic is being discussed, for example, teen pregnancy, condoms, birth control, HIV, drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, love and marriage, family values, the responsibility of a father/husband, differences between men and women (physically and emotionally), pornography, prostitution, ... and I am sure that I have missed some.

There really needs to be three projects under the Sexuality and Reproductive Anatomy topic. One should have a target audience of adults (current one). One should have a target audience of high school students. And the last one should have a target audience of middle school students. If we wanted to be thorough maybe even include some for little kids. Obviously those would be using words like "private parts -- anything covered by your bathing suit", answer questions that that age group would have ("Why does the doctor need to touch my penis during a wellness exam?", and maybe have some rude images (e.g. Calvin peeing) and bathroom jokes.

I also want you to think about something. My son is 8 yrs old. He is learning to type. He is learning to spell. And he is learning the basics of computer searches. He would think that it was hilarious to type in the word "penis" to Wikipedia to see what comes up. Assuming that I am using parental controls of some type ... I would want him to get a hit. But I would want it to be age appropriate -- 6 yr old bathroom humor (e.g. Captain Underpants); rude images (Calvin peeing); and general knowledge that one would expect an 8 yr old to know (Why the doctor needs to check the penis at a wellness exam, and why nobody else should be checking it?). I would not want him to see an image of erect penis, because it is out of his realm of comprehension. He laughs when he see Batman kissing Catwoman and Robin sticks his tongue out (Batman Legos game). That is my son's level of comprehension on this topic at his current age.

Zzmonty (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rating system - first draft, please provide feedback

Gwib, since your project will probably be the first one rated, I would like your input and feedback on a potential rating system. [[1]]. I have not posted this on the Simple Wikipedia talk page yet. This system is modeled after the Marvel comics, because there content seems most in line with what we are doing: written text with images. IMO, all of the current articles in your project should go under the rating Parental Advisory. The reason for this is that most kids usually will see one level below the age group with their parents, and that age group without their parents. Therefore we would be assuming that 12 - 15 yr olds will read your articles with their parents, and teens 15+ will read your articles without their parents.

As for what should go into articles that are specifically rated T+, use a standard sex education middle school textbook for guidance. Somebody did write one on Wikibooks, but I do not know how complete it is.

Zzmonty (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read this before putting any rating system into practice. It brings up valid arguments, which all pose serious problems to your project. You'd have to put tags on any articles showing hair, ankles or necks for a Muslim child who may be reading those articles, going as far as putting tags on violent Biblical stories and even controversial topics such as holocaust or Armenian genocide denial (both which would require PG tags stating that only adults may read them). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget what I was saying about the ratings. It will not work for various reasons, and it is not needed for various reasons. The major one being that is not how the parental control software works. The system needs to be something that makes sense and works with the parental control software in a way that one would expect.

Test results for Vista Parental controls and current category names

Last week I put a parent category Category:Sexual reproduction on some of the articles in the Reproductive anatomy project pages (ejaculation and penis) and the filtering worked correctly. When a bot removed them (due to parent categories be included when it should only be children categories), the Vista parental controls did not filter them. The vista parental controls did not recognize Male reproduction and Female reproduction as being part of Sex education. I had specifically said that I wanted to block out Sex Education websites. Vista allows the ability to distinguish between sex education websites and pornography websites. The pages in this project would fall under "Sex education".

I want to do a test on a couple of pages in this project. On two of them I wanted to add the category "Sex education". On the other two, I want to add the category "Visa sex education". I am hoping that the "Vista sex education" one would tag things properly. That way we can mark that category as being used for parental control filtering and not to create sub-categories even if there are a large number of pages in it. FYI: There currently is no category called "Sex education". There is only a page that is not very useful.

Zzmonty (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just finished doing the test results. Both "Vista sex education" and "sex education" work. If a use selects that they want to exclude "sex education" websites, those pages are not displayed. Gwib, do you have a preference? The only issue with using "Sex education", which I vote for, is that the person who is writing the bot to remove categories will have to make an exception for "sex education" being listed even if people create sub-categories later. The code should allow it to be done. It is now a matter of if the person behind the code is going to write in an exception.

Hiya

Hi there Gwib! Long time, no see, eh? Anyways, I just stopped by to tell you that I am back for real this time and that I will be actively editing on this site from now on :). Cheers, Razorflame 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

:D --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember that picture ;). This time, though, I am back for sure and will stay active :). It took 4 months, but I have finally gotten over that last RfA of mine. I am going to re-read it again to figure out what exactly it is that I need to work on for my next RfA, which will happen sometime in the new year :). Also, if you haven't already noticed, I haven't requested adminship for well over half a year now :). My last RfA request was in June of this year, which is 6 months ago. Cheers, Razorflame 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Hi there Gwib. Since you have been active whilst I have not, I have a few questions for you that I would like you to answer for me as completely as you can:

1. What major (and I mean major (like Benniguy major)) events occurred whilst I was away (if any)?
2. What major vandalism issues occurred whilst I was away and what are the details of said vandalism issues (if any)?
3. What new users have started editing on this site whilst I was away that are still active?
4. What major changes have happened to the Simple English Wikipedia whilst I was away?
5. Which users that I have known in the past have either retired from this site or stopped coming without letting us know about it?

Thanks for answering these questions as it will help to get me back into the loop again after nearly 3-6 months of being away. Cheers, Razorflame 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Razorflame, quite a bit happened whilst you were absent.

User:Cassandra and User:Matilda have retired. The Wikipedia:Wikicup was created, which, in my opinion, is not needed, and whoever signs up for it is not a dedicated contributor, as they would not need the feeling of fun and competition to stimulate their writing. User:StaticFalcon was banned, and after a discussion on Simple Talk, was unbanned (now editing as User:FastReverter). On Wikipedia Review, en:User:Whitstable revealed that he created the sockpuppet User:MindTheGap to (successfully) convince the Wikipedia community, or rather administrators, to ban Benniguy, and that it was a single-purpose account. I guessed this from the get-go.

I was banned, then unbanned, then banned again from the #wikipedia-simple IRC channel, for criticizing the Wikipedia governance model. This was something that User:Majorly and User:SwirlBoy39 (the latter of whom I warned to the IRC crowd was merely a social climber who desires power and wants the Wikipedia inner circle to accept him as one of their own) agreed upon, conspired off-wiki about, and eventually did.

Bluegoblin7 and Yotcmdr have begun editing, the latter of whom lately became an administrator.

Jonas D. Rand ^T 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to Jonas' comments above, a Simple version of DYK has been set up by Bluegoblin7 and others. It can be found at WP:DYK. There is also a monthly 'newspaper' circulating (WP:SN) which contains most of the major details. I recommend, for some indepth study on all RfA, RfB and news overall, that you delve into the archives of the newspaper - it's all logged and written about there! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 23:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple News

Special New Year Edition 39,214 elves, 42,705 reindeer, 112,260 presents.
Annoucements	♥	Plans for 2009
You can find the wikicup pools here, tomorow! They were chosen randomly by our judge, Bluegoblin7. Happy New Year everyone!	[Subscribe] [Archive] [Discussion] [The Team]	Shapiros10's plans for 2009. Yotcmdr's plans for 2009. Kennedy's plans for 2009. FastReverter's plans for 2009. Jonas Dalton Rand's plans for 2009 RyanCross' plans for 2009. Bluegoblin7's plans for 2009. GoblinBot's and his family's plans for 2009.

Sorry it's no collapsible, no solution found yet. Yotbot (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block

IPs actually do have the right to blank their own talk page. It usually means they have read the warnings, RyanCross @ 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but often, blanking warnings on IP talk pages is considered vandalism. While I would let registered users blank out their warnings, IP's simply wish to blot out the warnings to be able to vandalise more. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users are no better than IPs, so IPs shouldn't be treated any differently than users (except they can't be blocked indefinitely of course because they tend to change from time to time). But I'll take your word for it for now. The last vandalism edits from that IP were pretty severe, so it is a pretty low chance that the IP would start to contribute to anything positively (it does happen though sometimes. I know a few IPs who did have a change of heart for Wikipedia). RyanCross @ 19:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the block wasn't indef, it was a standard 24hour block. If ever the IP wishes to come back, s/he may without problem. However, removing warnings, even if they are on a talk page, is misleading (I'm starting to sound like Majorly...). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said you blocked indef, I was just saying you can't indef block IPs, and yes, I know you know that, I'm just saying. ;-) RyanCross @ 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Thanks. Your talk page is great. :)

You're welcome. ;-) RyanCross @ 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pools for Wikicup

What on earth are they doing there? There not even the agreed one's (unless you changed,...) Entry ends tomorrow too...

Didn't get any messages about 'agreed ones'. The pools are fine, and I doubt any new competitors will sign up in one day. I'd rather get on top of things now whilst I have some free time rather than wait until the last minute. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin sent me the pools by E-mail, I was going to put them tomorow. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see I was kept in the loop on that decision. Judges make the pools rather than the competitors. I've made the pools, they're fair, with more experienced editors competing against each other and the less active editors pitted against each other as well. I'll discuss whether or not they are suitable with other judges rather than competitors. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, whatever you like. But I didn't draw the pools, BG7 did. Anyway, I'm disapointed... Is it the top 2 or 3 from each pool that go through? Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 22:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To tell you guys the truth, I think that either pool would be fine. The pools aren't the important thing about the Wikicup. The important thing about the Wikicup is to get less active editors on here to edit more, and to get already very active users editing insane amounts, not who is in what pool. It doesn't matter which pool you are in so long as you just participate in the competition. Stop worrying about whether the pools are one users' or the others'. They are fine any way you make them up. Razorflame 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reblock on Jonas

I have a question about your reblock on Jonas. You did it so that he cannot edit his own talk page and linked to the en.wiki ban policy. In en.wiki, a user is supposed to appeal a ban through the arbitration committee. Since we do not have an arbitration committee here, how would he be able to appeal a ban? Either way (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I was highlighting more the fact that an appeal doesn't take place on the talk page (thus, I left him able to e-mail users). After re-reading the policy I linked to, I can understand why someone might misconstrue my reasoning, but basically, I wanted to show that a block isn't a ban and ban appeals are not for talk pages. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to note that somewhere, like on his talk page, that if he wants to appeal he needs to email someone. Otherwise, it could be read as "you should email the en.wiki ArbCom to appeal this block." Either way (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already sent him an e-mail regarding the situation. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Just checking to make sure it's clear to him, because it wouldn't have been fully clear to me. Thanks, Either way (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored my original block. He has not abused his talk page, and he can appeal his ban when he see's fit, on his talk page, or through e-mail. Synergy 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WC09

Why is my successful DYK not listed in the pools?-- CM16 ^M_LB  19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not going to hound every user to count each and every edit he's made, simply so the pools can be up to date. If you want to add something in, add it in... Judges don't update scores (check the history), they verify them and declare whether or not a user proceeds to the next round or not. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok.-- CM16 ^M_LB  01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I just blundered in looking for something else and got distracted, but thanks very much for the welcome. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I really felt that the CU request that I posted on the Request for CU page was appropriate at the time that I made it because of a couple of suspicious edits. At the time, I did not look into how his account was made or other things like that, but now, I know better and will look at that kind of information first before I make requests in the future. Thanks for helping me understand this fact ;). Another new thing learned today ;). Razorflame 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid request, considering that Jonas evaded his ban only a few days ago. I was just adding more information concerning the users which may be of help to the checkuser handling the case (as their checkuser-results are often inconclusive). Happy editing! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I will still look first before I request CU involvement in the future ;). Cheers, Razorflame 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup it's really me

Good Lord. Yes, it's really me. I will go and do that right now. Gosh, I really should not have changed that spelling! Sorry. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (accept no substitute)

Here, try this for size ... :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to fit pretty well, welcome to Simple! The only Wikipedia which attempts to get you banned before you actually start editing :P --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Excellent. Oh well, I should have looked before I leapt so it serves me right. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Long time, no "see":P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed

Your comments are needed.

I have written an apology for enWP here that I intend to present to the enWP community somehow and I would like some constructive criticism please. Please read the "letter" and comment on the "letter" here. Thank you.-- CM16 ^M_LB  07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.-- CM16 ^M_LB  19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

an

One of your wikilinks is red, I tried to fix it, but I rollbacked myself since I'm uncomfortable editing another's comments. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in my RfA which passed 24/0/0. I will do my best to better Wikipedia with the administrative tools that the community has seen fit to grant me. Special thanks to Shapiros10 for nominating me and if you ever need anything, feel free to ask! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal

After I just got done injecting humour? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am killjoy, destroyer of all things lulz. That section would have erupted into a climactic argument resulting in several retirements, a headache or two and possible a hernia. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the section, minus the humour. This is a serious post, do not remove it. Djsasso basically just said I'm the number one reason for people not wanting to come here. Either it's true, and I should leave, or it's completely false, and he should face consequences for making such a nasty statement. Majorly ^talk 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The snide comment about 'letting the project fail' if you're oh so ceremoniously removed from the project by votes from our editors is insulting. I'd remove the section again, but since you seem to want to know what people really think about you, even though it will do no good, let it go ahead.

No good will come of this. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about voting. All I want to know if is his comment is true, or simply a petty attack on me. If I am indeed causing people to not come here, I should not continue editting here. It's not like I do anything useful. Just ask Creol. Majorly ^talk 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were the #1 reason. I said people have told me that you are the number 1 reason they don't edit here. And its quite amusing that you would ask the people editing here if you are the reason...considering the people who said it don't edit here. Obviously if the people are still editing here they can't say you are the reason they don't edit here... -Djsasso (talk)

Teletubbies

Hi, I saw that banned user Bambifan101's socks and this version of the Teletubbies could be of use, but it needs work. Do you think you could help? Also I think the characters need their articles restored. Thank you and please continue to help with this and The Mighty B! Hfhfdhfdhfhgdh (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I simplfied The Mighty B!. See my contribs. 207.201.216.12 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way's RfA

The candidate has not accepted the nomination yet. Wait until the RfA goes live if and when the candidate accepts the RfA nomination. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue Three

--GoblinBot3 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection on B. Obama

I'd like you to unprotect the article. We should not get into the habit of protecting articles where the subject is a current event, unless other options have been explored (like blocking). Synergy 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard my friends talking about the vandalism that would happen to the McCain-Clinton-Obama articles today. If premeditated vandalism doesn't deserve a brief protection, what does? I remember reading somewhere that in light of potential vandalism, an article can be protected (don't ask me where). Besides, what would a block accomplish? An IP simply looking to write something amusing on Obama's article once doesn't deserve a warning, as the average 'Joe the Wikipedian' wouldn't ever edit otherwise.

This avoids unnecessary blocks as well as any potential vandalism to the article. Hell, I could even classify his article as a 'highly visible page' :P. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But, all they wanted to add was he was president..... and it certainly didn't deserve to be reverted. Just adjusted since it looked like the ip was having a problem formatting it properly. Synergy 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Synergy here. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection. You say this: "I remember reading somewhere that in light of potential vandalism, an article can be protected (don't ask me where)." I'm not sure where you read this, but it's wrong. Protection policies do not allow for pre-emptive protections because "we think it might get vandalized." In the last 24 hours, there have been two instances of vandalism; that is not enough to justify protection at this time. Either way (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about all the 'highly visible templates' that have been protected? {{Support}}, {{oppose}} and {{tl}} to name a few. When something is potentially viewed by a huge amount of people, there is justification to protect it. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Highly visual templates are protected because there is the potential of more severe damage if one of them is vandalized. If someone vandalizes Barack Obama, it affects that one page. If someone vandalizes a highly visible template, it affects that page, plus every single page that uses that template. Instead of just one page having, say, a picture of a penis all over it, you might have two hundred pages with it, though only one actual act of vandalism has occurred. Either way (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwib: Templates are not articles. They don't need to be updated due to current events by ips. In any template situation, such as the ones you mention, these never need to be updates again (unless we decide to remove certain bits of code that they use, on all templates, but wouldn't we be the ones to do that?). Synergy 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As the page has been vandalized 5 times by three different IPs in the last 36 hour and is likely to receive a lot more given the push in the media that he is the second coming of Christ, closing it down to random driveby editing for a couple days only seems to make sense. If it were a one person issue, blocking would work, but given the level of notability and how big of a target the article is for fucking with, short term protection seems the best option. Given the high level of English speakers (with a large number of US) and a childlike mentality being very common, current US presidents tend to be a high level target for vandalism. At the height of the furvor about his becoming president protecting ourselves from providing bullshit coverage is only wise. The article was unprotected just after the election and lasted only four days until excessive vandalism caused it to be temporarily reprotected. Interest as high is this is now warrants similar action to prevent further damage to the article. --Creol(talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wheel_warring_over_Barack_Obama, Gwib. Please comment there. What you did is wheel warring and cannot happen on Wikipedia. You need to seek consensus and discussion first when you know that others object to your administrative actions rather than just acting on your own accord. Thank you, Either way (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Creol. What you aren't seeing is this. Before the 20th there was 1, 2, 3 edits made and these edits are the only bad faith edits there were. Giwb protected the article after an ip misspelled president while trying to place it into his profession. My point here is simple. This is damaging to our wiki. Attempts have to be made to block the people from editing first, so that others may still make good faith edits. Keeping editors off the site is very damaging. This was not "excessive" vandalism and as such, I unprotected it since Gwib gave me a bullshit response above. And then he had the nerve to reprotect it saying I never messaged him? Interesting. Mind checking the time stamps? I posted here before taking action, Gwib. Blocks should always be placed before protection. We just lost editors. Great job. Synergy 11:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nudity

You commented at the voting discussion for Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles#Nudity_2. Another user has expressed concerns that there are some sourcing issues with the article that need to be addressed before this is passed as a very good article. Would you mind reviewing the discussion at the vote page and adding your input (or help to find sources, if you can)? Thank you, Either way (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk

Just a note, but should not this redirect be titled Wikipedia:User talk? Cheers, Razorflame 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as there are redirects linking the names, and the main one has a title that everyone can understand, it should be fine. Personally, "Wikipedia:Talk page" works best for me (I think they use that at ENWP, but not sure), but then' we'd have to incorporate article talk pages as well. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with implementing either of those into the page as both of them are major parts of Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(TPS) Yes. MC8 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Gwib, just wanted to let you know I left a comment for you at my RfA. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean Paul

I am kind of curious as to why you remove the Category:Jamaican people from the Jamaican singer Sean Paul. I mean, ok redlink, but there are at least 3 other Jamaican people who would fill out that category and warrant its creation (Sean Kingston, Bob Marley, and Peter Tosh).--Creol(talk) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jamaican music is not my preferred field (20's blues and 60's rock that being), and I only knew Bob Marley as a famous Jamaican person. Red link categories are usually simply removed, and as I didn't know whether or not there were enough famous Jamaican people here to warrant its creation, unwashed miscreant that I am, I just removed it (since it had been there for like a month as a red link). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew we had Marley and a quick check in Category:Jamaica got the other names. I'm checking the links to for Jamaica now to find if there are others missing the cat out there. --Creol(talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You've found 6 people to categorise, brilliant work! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I moved the discussion from your userspace to a proper ST subpage. Please consider doing this to the *entire* discussion, instead of just moving text after the first discussion break. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The above was not discussion. I moved to get a fresh start and proposed new criteria to be discussed, thus making it a different discussion (not talking about criteria, RfA process, leaving big all-caps messages, just new criteria). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Skopje

Hello and thanks for your welcome. Can you please tell me why did you revert me? What was so harmful? Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert you. Our vandalism bot is having some problems at the moment, and it reverted your changes to Skopje. I reverted them back, since they were good edits, and changed the grammar a bit. Good work on the article! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I feel better. I asked my self what did I wrong? :) Regards

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a total of 21/5. I will try to the best of my abilities to maintain the trust of the community, and I will carefully consider the opposes to learn how to further improve. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

College

So I've started taking a few college classes this year. I am currently taking a Physics class, as well as a weather and climate course. Furthermore, I'm finally getting my own computer!!!! Yay me! I can haz adminsmeship now that I haz my own labtop? It'll arrive between the 5th and 12th of February. (By the way, that was a joke about the adminsmeship now that I have a labtop ;). Cheers, Razorflame 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

retiration

I'm sad to see you are retiring. You were one of our best users. TurboGolf 13:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So long

You'll be missed Gwib. The project does have problems, indeed it is falling apart. But, why give in? Why not work with us users who are trying to keep it together (I think i'm one of them, I hope i'm one of them) and fix it? I understand if you do not want to!

So long, good luck with whatever else you do!

Goblin 13:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're leaving, after such good work and efforts. I hope you will still be around on IRC sometime and that you will succeed in real life. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cya Gwib. Good luck IRL! :) Kennedy ^(talk) 13:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwib, I always thought of you as a friend here. I will really miss you, and hope you have a really good life. Shapiros10 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you freaking serious?!? I might be the next one to go if this keeps up. I cannot believe the number of users leaving this project! You were one of the best editors on this site, and you will be missed. Razorflame 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualty List
Creol
Maxim
Archer7
Gwib
Cometstyles

Feel free to come to b:. Inviting all non-drama-peoples. And stay on IRC. And Facespace. MC8 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*Shrug* So much dramaz. Good luck, Gwib, on whatever you do. :) TheAE talk 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No good-bye statements? ): --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fuck. :-( Sorry to see you go, Gwib, best of luck elsewhere. --Dylan620 _{(Sign this plz)} 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Dear Gwib, even if you are not reading this, thank you for participating in my RfB, which ended with a tally of 21/5. I appreciate your support and will do my best in this new role. Thanks and good luck in your future endeavours. Chenzw  Talk  07:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue Three

Even though you are retired - Notice I've managed to pu it in a collapsible box (there's still a problem though, but as long as it's in a box... =D ) Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 5

GoblinBot3 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 6

GoblinBot3 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)