User talk:Gwynand

Archives
Archive 1

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool argument!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I don't know if we share the same conclusions yet, but who cares. :-) You've been saying some utterly sane things at [1] --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Gwynand.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the after closure discussion regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA

Congrats!Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Gwynand; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Hey Gwynand. Your oppose was made very clearly, and I understood it completely. I was just responding to your "nit-picky" statement. As for withdrawing, I'm going to stay in it until the bitter end, and receive all the constructive criticism I can from the experience. Happy editing, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on Dloh's talk, saying there was a "half-oppose" due to it. Heh. I just wanted to absolutely clarify. As for staying in.... yes, you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders and won't get all worked up no matter what happens. Many a user in fact can't. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks

He was really starting to bug me. I even tried to get an admin invovled. Anyways, about the sig. The "Simon" is my name and it's just there to greet people. The KSK are my links. But you're right, simple sigs are good too.SimonKSK 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes arguments can be really tough... but once I saw the edit regarding the gun etc... then it can immediately be brought to a place like WP:ANI. Things like that are quite intolerable, especially when the user then doesn't really acknowledge it as a mistake. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I laughed when I saw he changed it. Maybe he thought he can get me blocked. The whole thing was very funny.SimonKSK 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We talked about this one prior...

Just so you know, you had this one right I'm afraid. Like watching a car wreck. I never did go back and switch, glad I didn't. Time to move along! (Or as the clerk at the DMV says....Next! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how in some RfAs you can sort of just sense when the rails fall off. Especially interesting in one like that, where the candidate has some great qualities and has already garnered significant support. That copyvio issue came up and man it was basically done there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I am going to restyle it tomorrow morning. asenine ^{say what?} 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see I'm only dealing with the most serious issues on wikipedia, commenting on signatures that have a shade of blue that is bright... Yeah, I'm not sure you aren't too far from a great sig though, maybe contrast or darker, but it does look quite cool. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your RfA participating

If you have noticed, I have read all RFAs before posting my comments. I usually read all of them before replying to them at one go. Hope that this helps. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've never tried it, so I don't know, sorry. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

That article needs plenty of work, for sure. We're slowly working on it. But more hands would be helpful. I've got to be careful not to make it look too much like my article on nicknames. There is some crossover (and common reference materials) but it's not quite the same subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look further into... I've had the itching to get into some more article building recently. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on writing a co-nom?

Fritz is ready to go. If you'd like, write a quick co-nom so we can go live with it. For your convenience: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fritzpoll. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dangit, just saw it. I swear it wasn't just there....your work like magic:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, funny timing. Spent a while writing that, then even longer taking a ton of stuff out. I agree, I think this baby is ready to go live. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Identical timestamps for my note to you, and your co-nom statement edit. No one can accuse us of being socks :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more right Gwynand. I mean Keeper. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi there. Thanks for the question that you asked me on my administrator coaching page. I have replied to the comment that you left on that page. Cheers, Razorflame 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I also noticed Keeper's long message to you. I would take that advice very seriously, everything he says is accurate and would help you.

The intent of my question was to draw out how much you really desire to become an admin. I have to say I agree with Keeper. Edit the best way you know how... and if somewhere down the road, a solid editor wants to nominate you for admin, then go for it. As for having a specific date, after specific edit counts, I just don't think that is a great idea anymore. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also do not believe that having a specific number of edits is beneficial. I have actually disregarded that information mostly because it was outside of my comfort area (although I was serious about writing articles). I won't actually create 1 article a day, but I will create at least 1 article every couple of days because I really like creating articles. I wanted a general idea as to when someone thought that I should have an RfA, no more, no less. Cheers, Razorflame 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments at User talk:Steve Crossin

Your comments about me at Steve's talk page were very flattering. Thanks. Useight (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I am confident enough in my memory of an editor that I feel comfortable slinging around endorsements of them on talk pages. You are one of the few. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gwynand. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Look forward to seeing you at our forum ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick note to you...

I just wanted to say, regardless of the eventual outcome, thanks very much for the co-nom on my RfA - if I hadn't known you were at least considering it, there's no way I'd have gone ahead with it. That said, it is rather nerve-wracking, and there are another five days left...well, I'm going to say thank you anyway :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Regarding your message

Hi there. I just saw your message that you left Balloonman, and I would just like to point out a major mistake that you wrote. Though I did say that I would never try there again, that was actually not the case. The reason why I said this was because I was hoping people would pick up on the other meaning that I was trying to get at, which was that I would wait for someone to nominate me for adminship over there. I did not come over here to try to get adminship just because I failed 6 RfA's. Actually, I came over here because I saw a lot of vandalism that I could revert and I wanted to help out. It just happened to become so much more than that. Cheers, Razorflame 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Razor, I made no major mistake. This is what you posted over on simple: "I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again." That read as "I won't run again". Doesn't talk about nominations at all. You were just nominated there again I see, are you going to accept that nomination? Sorry, I see that was a few days old, already closed by someone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read this. Cheers, Razorflame 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed that, thanks for showing. I hope you wait a minimum of six months there as well to even accept a nomination from someone. You have great intentions all around, but so many things you do make it appear that you really just want to be an admin, somewhere. I know you keep telling everyone that's not the case, but the concern is more how it looks. You look willing to wait 6 months here, so that should be a good start. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My current admin target established by my admin coach and me is September of this year, because I've already gotten 2 months of activity here. Over there, there is no set time. I am simply waiting for someone from a very special list of users to nominate me (Lights, Gwib, Tygrrr, Creol, EchoBravo, Eptalon, Vector, or Cometstyles). Cheers, Razorflame 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

September sounds good. But here is a warning... en.wikipedia user's will see your failed attempts over at simple. You already have 6. If you notch up a 7th or 8th over there, each time it effectively will "reset" your wait time over here. The running too often thing is usually seen as the ultimate power hunger thing on en.wikipedia, and people here won't care that you've been doing it over on simple, it will still be considered power hunger. Just keep that in mind. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The most likely outcome will be that I probably won't become an administrator over on the Simple English Wikipedia until after September, so I should be fine. Cheers, Razorflame 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SDLexington

Hi Gwynaud, this user is disrupting other editers although im quite sure its not intentional. He/she obviously has some issues and i think we need to be extra sensitive around this. The editer has been accused of trolling, i dont want the editer to get hurt if its not his/her fault. I think you know what im trying to say, could you help keep an eye on this. Yours --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is not intentional. I think the issue, the only issue, is SDLexington's age. I will do what I can to help her be able to contribute here on wikipedia, but that can only go so far. I will keep an eye on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 04:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is just age, still i think we both agree that her actions arent malicious. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The first thank you (part b)

Hy Gwynand - in case you don't know, my RfA ended successfully this afternoon. I wanted to thank you very much both for the co-nomination, and also the discussions that you held elsewhere (I saw you cropping up on a few talkpages) in response to comments at the RfA. As I said to Keeper (who got the part a of this message), I didn't expect to succeed, but your willingness to co-nom me given your exacting standards at RfA was a confidence-booster sufficient to accept the nomination. I hope that I can, in time, justify your confidence in me. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! To prove your gratitude, you have to block any user I ask of you. :). But seriously, I'm happy that an editor like you is now in the admin ranks. Be wary of the opposition and their reasoning when you go forward, though I don't agree with opposing over it, it was definitely a valid concern. If you feel inexperienced in a certain area, remember to take a step back, read up on it, keep a cool a head, and ask for advice. Good luck to you!Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do! (the stepping back thing, not the blocking thing :) ) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prima Fascist discussion

The policy is tricky - I guess it comes down to whether or not you think the account is going to be disruptive, and whether it is appropriate to guess that ahead of time. On the other hand, looks like another overreaction to Kurt, in my opinion - what do you think? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's tricky, but do read the policy I linked to. Whoever made Prima Fascist (who also won't reveal their other account), did so to avoid scrutiny when mocking Kurt and making those votes in the RfAs. I think its clear cut in that regard. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate over at AN/I over this. In this particular case, the editor has said they plan to edit normally on this account, and not just participate at RfA. Further, they have agreed not to participate at RfA using both accounts (I know you don't think this in any case, but it needs to be said), in which case they are not avoiding scrutiny of their edits, because they are openly operating this as an alternative account, and the account's edits can be scrutinised independently of the "main" account. The issue only raises its head if they are editing improperly on the new account (personal attacks at Kurt would be an example), at which point community scrutiny would probably necessitate forcing the issue of exposing the main account. I agree that this situation is not the ideal hoped for by our policies, but I don't see it as violating them yet Fritzpoll (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly is tough. But I'll have to disagree on that same point, if someone wants to create an account to vote in RfAs a certain way (a way that would ceratainly cause problems if an established account did it), then this is avoiding scrutiny. Its like If I, Gwynand, really want to get a point off about Kurt in certain RfAs, but know people will take issue with me if I do it, so I just make another account to make those votes. It would be avoiding scrutiny on my part, and thats what I see here. BTW, thanks for coming here to discuss... pretty cool you are an admin now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it means we can get into a rambling discussion if necessary without clogging up AN/I! It kinda depends on how exactly the account makes the interaction I suppose. To be honest, I've not looked all that deeply at the edits Prima has made to RfAs opposing Kurt - if they violate our established civility policies, then the account should be outed because, as you say, scrutiny is being avoided: if the established account goes to RfA, for instance, this piece of 'evidence' (that's how it feels at RfA!) would be missing for editors to make a judgement call. I was working from the premise that if this account is simply an alternate account for editing as well as RfA, then provided the RfA stuff was not inappropriately worded, etc. then it wouldn't be so bad. The obstinant stance the guy is taking towards a six-month RfA ban, however, is not encouraging...the admin bit is kinda cool, just got to start using it (per my latest on Keeper's talkpage) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential RFA fixes

If any more ideas pop into your head regarding any theoretical way to fix RFA, feel free to add them to my newly-created page here. Useight (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Accent

It's English, Northern. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interesting in subscribing. Subscribe here. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean by subscribing? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know that stewie reads my page....:-) Hi Stewie. I enjoyed your radio program, but I won't be subscribing just yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I see that Gwynand asked on your newly revived talkpage. I've done a bit of advertising for you Stewei, nonetheless. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Subscribing means getting it every day (unless you state otherwise). StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you would just post a message on my talk page that it is ready? If that's the case, I probably won't officially subscribe, but I'll still listen to it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, I could do a weekly digest if you subscribe. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

← By the way, you can "subscribe" without receiving delivery now - Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia#Listeners who do not require delivery. I'm sure a lot of people would prefer to just keep the page watchlisted to see when new episodes were available, so this will help get an idea of the listenership regardless of if they want their talk page updated or not. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You...

Need to run for RfA. I just read your comment in mine and it was one of the best RfA comments I've ever seen. You'd be better than I'll ever be. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a given :P naerii - talk 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But more seriously: Both Keeper and I have suggested this in the past, but I believe she's holding off due to a low-ish edit count. naerii - talk 02:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both. DHMO, comments like that (not appreciating my oppose, but an oppose in general), certainly eases worries I may have about a candidate I opposed being promoted. I've opposed a few candidates that have been promoted this year, and for the most part I'm not alarmed/upset they are an admin. I'm sure I'll feel the same about you if you get the sysop at the end of this thing. To Naerii... a few people have talked about me running. I'm not quite even at 2k edits, but 3k is really the new 2k when it comes to RfAs, is it not? I might consider a run in the future. Oh, and one last thing, I am a boy (man?). Gwynand is meant to be G Wynand, or Gail Wynand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, he/she.. same thing :P I have no idea what the usual edit count requirements are, but yeah you could probably do with a few more before running. It's not really the number of edits anyway, more the breadth and quality - you've got the quality part down, but breadth - you don't appear to have many edits to key admin areas like AIV, and things like that are what make an RfA fail (as I'm sure you're aware :). You'll probably have an easier time than most at passing RfA with an edit count on the lower end of the scale; you frequently make thoughtful and interesting comments at those highly visible pages, RfA and ANI. I'll definitely be there to support when you do run, whichever time you choose... I look forward to reading Keeper's nom statement :P naerii - talk 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't doubt there'll be quite a few people watching my actions should I pass. That ensures higher quality from me which is good. Looking forward to yours. Trust me, you'll be much less controversial than mine. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutley

I have my heart set on a successful RFA in the near future and don't want to hurt my chances at all. Could we continue this here on the discussion page? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Simmons

I've replied on my talk page Bjewiki (Talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin

You're thinking of Anonymous Dissident, correct? The other two I know are Ilyanep, myself, and a third one who I suspect doesn't want his/her age revealed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently...

I'm the only one that is willing to answer any of your questions :-), regardless of forum. wt:rfa, my talk, wt:rollback, Pedro/mentoring....anywhere else you need me Gail? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, we do frequent the same areas. I think I'm going to start telling people to go to your talk page if they need to contact me... if you look at the count tool, I have 50 more edits to your talk than mine... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

With all due respect, I would have preferred it to remain open for another twelve hours or so. An administrator suggested last night that I withdraw and take the commentary and learn from it, but I asked for it to remain open for at least 24 hours to gather feedback, if nothing else. I know that I was off to an awful start and had no chance of succeeding, but I wanted to gather significant feedback, if possible. As it is, everyone pretty much picked on one misguided / misworded edit and piled on to that one, rather than digging deeper.

Ehhh, regardless, I appreciate the thought. I would have withdrawn later this evening, more than likely, anyways, so I suppose it's six of one, a half-dozen of another.

Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. You definitely don't have to say "with all due respect" on my talk page, I closed your RfA and am 100% open to anything you want to discuss about it. When an RfA has entered SNOW territory, sometimes reasons for continuing to leave it open are because of significant chances of editorial feedback. In your case though, I agree with what you are saying, in that everyone was starting pick on the "legal threat" edit. Reviewing it, I saw very little room for further contstructive feedback that wouldn't be much better suited for other venues, like Editor Review. When people come and and see that same reason for oppose, it becomes less and less likely that people are going to do a deeper review of your contribs. Although RfAs can be a great place for feedback, feedback is actually just an added bonus, but not the goal of the RfA process.

Since I didn't comment in your RfA, I'll just say that it was unfortunate, if neccesary, that the misworded edit prohibited you from passing at this time. Looking at it, and reading it a few times, I understand pretty clearly that your intent was not to scare or threaten, but rather to inform the other editor of the seriousness of what they were doing in regards to those music articles. On the other hand, BLP and Legal threats are taken so very seriously on wikipedia, that even a stumble on one of these policies causes the community to require that the editor realized the mistake, and after that, ample time before requesting adminship tools. Seeing that you are indeed a good editor, and also your ability to come and discuss something that you disagreed with but in a knowledgable and civil manner, as you've done here, I'll certainly keep my eye on you over the next few months and wait for that next RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA withdrawal

I'll do so then. What's the procedure? Ironholds 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i dont know how to close it properly; another thing i need to know before i'm admin-read, i guess :(. 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's quite alright. I've only closed one myself. I'll try to close yours now, although I'll be copying how others one have been done... not through memory just yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, (you may already know this) the paperwork (7 steps to close a debate? Egads!) is all here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keep. That reminded me that I forgot the last step. Just added. Thanks for keepin' an eye on me (I get nervous I'm going to do something ridiculously wrong when closing one of these). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for current/future reference

I recently looked over your contributions whilst trying to escape the bot saga - given today's discussion on Keep's talkpage, I jotted down what my assessment would be if participating in an RfA here - sorry for the abbreviation in the page name, but I'm lazy! :) Maybe you won't run now, but I still think this will apply Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've bluelinked the page. You've got over 6 months experience, everyone think's your an admin anyway, I could care less about "edit count". You know what you're doing here. That's called WP:CLUE. Can't buy it, can't earn it, can't learn it. Got it, or don't got it. You got it, and you'll pass. We'll wait for your wife to change your life forever (first kid? heh, been there - I acutally passed out in the delivery room, had to be dragged out by one of my wife's nurses...) Stop laughing. You'll understand soon enough....) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks to both of you. Fritz, I'm attaching that summary with my RL resume :). In reality, I was thinking I might be ready to run around my 1600/1700 edit mark, but just didnt want to mess with the community running at that number. I read through AN/ANI every day, and can really honestly say that having access to deleted edits, protecting pages, and occasionally having the ability to block would be quite helpful to me. I have total confidence in myself that I would never abuse or overuse the tools, just not sure if the community could see that yet, and it's 100% about their confidence, not mine. The edit count thing is funny, I could be as high as 500 contribs to the AN message board, but most of the time opting to stay out of an already overcrowded thread is helpful. So, I may have spent 60 minutes reading and thinking, but in the end it is close to resolved anyways and I don't feel the need to add that virtually useless tack-on. Oh well. Yes Keep, it will be my first child. I'm quite excited. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, best of luck with the new addition in a few days then. Don't leave it too long running for RfA though - if they'll give me the tools, they can't be that picky Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

For reverting this edit to my talkpage. It was rather random, wasn't it, as you pointed out in your edit summary! Best wishes, and happy editing! Lradrama 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think you gave the IP a warning recently, thats probably why he blanked you. I just reported him to AIV. Has a long block history. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Yes, he filled an article with much of the same babble about Bilbo Baggins, so I reverted it and warned him. That's probably why he did it. ;-) Many thanks, Lradrama 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aloha...

I know I said I wouldn't fight the opposers, and I thank you for even taking the time to comment, but I couldn't let that last point stand unanswered in your mind. I won't mince words here: I fucking HATE when people make it a point of who is an admin and who isn't, especially in content disputes and dispute resolution. In fact, admins are not more special in any way, shape, or form, but should (in some cases) be held to a bit of a higher standard. I would like the tools (for infrequent image work/username concerns), but definitely don't need them, nor the title of administrator. We should be aiming to devolve power and make Wikipedia more open and accessible. I sufficiently realize that saying this will not change your opinion, but it needs to be said. Apologies for the profanity. Well, mahalo. --Ali'i 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I guess I'll just say that I don't think RfA was the soapbox/platform for your statements, although I probably agree with 95% of it. It felt a little dramatic, and under the spirit of No Big Deal (which I have always interpreted differently), I see no reason to give you the tools if the nomination made me nervous. If you are familiar with me in RfAs, I occasionally oppose a strong candidate over similar premises. The nom statement alone may have altered my vote, but I don't believe without reason. Hopefully no hard feelings. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

None at all. Like I said, it's no biggy if I don't pass. I am still going to go about my ways editing. A failed request for adminship is not a black mark on my permanent record, nor the end of the world. Hope you can make it out to Hawaii some time. It is wonderful. :-) A hui hou (see you later). --Ali'i 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My first morning chuckle

was this spelling correction. Personally, I like the idea of threatening FAC better :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I laughed out loud myself when I saw I did that. "Threat" is not too far off from what many ANI threads start as anyways... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a good one - worthy of Jay Leno - or at least Reader's Digest. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this the third time you've done that? Hilarious. (and by the way, I originally typed "tird" instead of third, but caught it before saving. :-) And I agree with you about adoption. Serious flaws. Some of the "programs" are hysterical. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Third that I know of. And it's not like an inside joke, I keep making the same silly mistake. If I forget to change it, then in some cases it will totally change what I appear to be saying. Yeah... adoption. It seems that its universally decided that adopters themselves needn't have any qualification/preparation when taking on adoptees. I see highly questionable editors "adopting" good-faith newbies, and a sort of vicious cycle starts where no one is doing anything to help the project, just encouraging poor editing. I feel like if I were to ever step in and bring this up, it would only create serious problems... so, I talk about it generally, theoretically, in my safe zone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice

Thanks. Tony1 has replied - could I possibly get your take on his comment. Also, he's now leaving messages on other's talkpages, see here. I'm struggling to know what to do now. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Geesh... I saw that a few minutes ago, not sure how to respond, or whether responding within ANI will be a good idea. To take the whole ball o' wax and squish it into a marble... essentially, you just wanted at least some sort of good faith acknowledgment when asking questions to Tony, even if the response is "I don't plan on offering further advice". What makes this not so cut and dry is that if a user wants to take part in FA reviews, and believe me I am not unaware of Tony's presence there, they should be at the least responding to querys, even if just to say they dont want to answer. In this case, it looks like it is a specific issue between the two of you, and I'm really not sure how he can be compelled to engage you in discussion. I don't think you are going to get the feedback you are looking for in that article review. I don't think it should be further escalated at this point... if in the future, you question his reviews on his talk page and he continues to ignore, then escalate it then. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. What tends to annoy me is that users (not many but some) see a comment and ignore it without any good reason. I can understand ignoring comments from vandals looking for trouble or general notifications but what I can't understand is ignoring comments from good-faith users. You might want to comment on Sandy's comment at her talkpage. Anyhow, thanks for the advise, BTW. :) D.M.N. (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The bottom line is that he should have responded in some capacity. I also disagree with his description of you acting like he is your servant. That being said, Tony is likely right in that he really doesn't have to respond to someone in this situation. It's really impossible to warn him over this, or to ever to anything more than that, it's not really incivility, (or at least not that kind that needs punishment). In the end, although you aren't getting that outcome that you are looking for, or what you probably think is best for the project (as do I), we'll probably have to just live with this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I feel he's turning it to make it look like I'm in the wrong in this. I especially dislike Tony's description of me. As Tony's turned it slightly, in the future, especially at RfA, which I'm possibly heading for in a few weeks, will backfire. I'm not pursing this case further. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] I've had enough. Contact me via e-mail if necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about this more, but my advice to you is to avoid the situation now for at least a short while. ANI, the demon that it is, tends to do this. This was not a major issue, just something you wanted assistance with... and if anything, things have been made worse. I also think there is a good deal of misunderstanding going on now, I myself being somewhat guilty. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've apologised to Tony for any wrongdoing on my behalf. My hope is that it'll be left at that. D.M.N. (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do my best to help keep it at that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits, I appreciate it. I'm going to get to The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 's comments. After that, if you wish to dive in with any comments, or further edits, please do. You've been a great help so far. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Well then, you need proof Abomb dies. And frankly it's not a heated edit war: if that IP readds the false info (for the third time) I'll revert it again. I'm very careful, and reserving the right to undo the various drive-by editors is not in violation in 3RR. If you want me to add an invisible note, fine. Alientraveller (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the IP saying Abomb died has had all his/her edits reverted, so I presume this is just a vandal adding blatant lies. Alientraveller (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the same note, we shouldn't have an explicit note saying he isn't killed. Saying he collapsed to the ground would probably be the best. I disagree with any invisible note. Another reversion will be way beyond a 3RR violation... the reason I came to your page is it appeared that you were comfortable reverting because they were IPs. Unless the IPs are making vandal edits, which isn't the case here, it is most certainly a 3RR violation, unless you can point me to the policy area that says it isnt. I've looked at the rest of that particular IPs reversions... clearly trolling elsewhere, although the Hulk edit wasn't blatant vandalism. You've been reverting other IPs as well. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the Fritzpoll...

...but I wondered what this edit [3] was about? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I thought something weird about how the date the RfA would run through is triggered. Kind of wanted to see if anything happened to certain areas when I edited it... although I was 99.9% sure it wouldn't. And it didn't. Still don't think I'm ready yet... sorry to kill you :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I just tagged my talk page for deletion as a test, provoking a very rapid response from Tan. So I know how it goes - just shows we have a practical experimental mindset over some things :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RS1900 thread

Hey, no problem. Your questions were legitimate, and it was good to clarify what happened. Best, Gwernol 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

magibon edits

I did a harmless edit, and seeing that this is the meme she is related to, I added it. Wapanese means someone who is very into japanese culture etc. (n japanese is is called otaku).(Arguecat4 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

1: You need reliable sources for such a thing. 2:Despite what you may think, "wapanese" may be considered offensive, and applying that label to a living person is unnaceptable. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

duly noted, but I also consider myself to be of the same subculture. What about Japanophile?(Arguecat4 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)) Also, memes don't need to be sourced. She is the source. She is very into Japan and her dream is to move there at any possible chance. (Arguecat4 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

No. It's not a "subculture", rather a pop culture term that has a negative connotation. Please stop editing that page altogether for the moment, I am not an admin, but adding any information along the lines of what you have been doing will result in a block. You are already on your last warning. What do you mean memes don't need to be sourced? You appear to be just making things up now. Please read WP:BLP now, in it's entirety, before continuing to edit. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A meme is an internet phenomenon. They are nearly impossible to source. Also, I noticed there was a meme area under the info box so i put which one she is related to. How is that bad? Also, I already quit editing and don't care about the block. let them, this article is shit anyways, and I was trying to improve it.(Arguecat4 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

If something is impossible to source, then it doesnt belong on Wikipedia. Good luck in the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Template

Coming soon, in more ways that one! Please copyedit and approve your pending template.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha that is great, Keeper! Really much appreciated... also just added some levity to a nerve-wracking time. I can't think of any way to improve that. I'll be honored to have that up on my page when I'm doing the whole paternity thing. The advice and observations in it are likely going to be spot on... can't wait to see what this boy does to my life. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Boys are great great fun. Mine is turning 3 soon, it is absolutely amazing. Once you get past the hell that will be the first few weeks (hopefully not months), you'll never want to go back and you won't be able to imagine life from before...I'm excited for you! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I have commented on my talkpage Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a special barnstar?

		The Special Barnstar
		For a special person, don't worry....you'll be there soon DustiSPEAK!! 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You ain't kiddin brotha... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be offended if i dropped off a picture of a baby bottle after the big day? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha... no, I wouldn't be offended. Make sure it's not too big, though, :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on the RFA talk, I noticed you said "I wouldn't let a 12-year old take care of my infant". a) has it happened yet? and b) That's demeaning to a certain 12-year old who has childcare skills...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet. Isn't demeaning. Maybe Doogie Howser would be offended. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He probably would. He can perform open-heart, but jus can't get a date to the 8th-Grade dance! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RADIOWP

As the new CEO, would you also like to help record shows? I'm looking for some regular segments. Cheers, RedThunder 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the CEO, was just fooling around. I'd love to help out, but between real life work/ new baby I wouldn't have any time, nor do I have any recording equipment to do this. If I could help out in any non-audio/visual ways, let me know. After all, I am making the big bucks :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do know it was a joke... anyways, good luck with the baby! RedThunder 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

G-man, this diff made me laugh out loud. The very next edit made me laugh even louder in response. OMG, I'm gonna split a rib...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, didn't think anyone would take it seriously. Hmmm, maybe I'll put myself as chairman... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewie's edit summary, plus adding "Head" in front of his own title, I almost starting crying it was so funny. You should revert him. No, don't. That would be too much.  :-) I should revert him, and tell him I voted you in and you me=consensus on Wikipedia. That should fly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to hold my laughing in at work right now... but would love to make some further edits to that page... :0 Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've long ago stopped worrying 'bout my co-workers, seeing as how I issue the checks. That aside, I wouldn't want you to be the subject of his next airing, so maybe let it be. Best laugh of the day for me though, for sure. I hope your wife calls you in the next 5 or 10 minutes so you can logout on a high note. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I was really tempted to add myself back in as "Leader". Don't want to tease him too much, plus I seriously think the next step would be ANI... :). Yes, I hope she calls too. Ive been waiting for that call for 7 days now. You issue checks, have any job openings? Requesting that you don't publicly go guessing it, my company is actually headquartered in your state... although I've been looking to get out of this game for a while... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not hiring, but would hire if I was, on the spot. Not even sure what industry you're in, and I'm 100% sure I've never disclosed mine. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you just put yourself as the CEO. You can't just get that authority. I remain the founder, and a WikiBreak doesn't change that. There will be a more formal way of becoming a staff soon. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Haha... your not Larry Flynt are you? My current industry is the boring one. I've been paid to write op-eds on the side... but wow is it depressing how little that pays. Wikipedia fills some hidden desire, but this really can't last forever. Least I hope not. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Stewman) Sorry Stewie, Jimbo Wales made me CEO and thats final :). No... I was just kidding around, didn't think you would take that seriously. Not sure how their could be a CEO of RadWP anyways. No hard feelings? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually belly laughing at this point....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little angry. It is a collaborative project, even though I finalize it. Next week, when i'm back, I would be happy for you to help out in an ep. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, thanks for your prompt assistance in that momentary witch-hunt last week! TONY (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Baby news?

I realize you're probably at a hospital right now, realizing just how insignificant and unimportant Wikipedia really is compared to becoming a parent, but please do update us when you can! You can use the village pump for your announcement. Been thinking 'bout you, hope all is well :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG! It's time? Man, I feel so happy for you! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude. The suspense is killing me. Girl, boy, alien? Inquiring minds want to know. Naerii 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling the kid will run for RfA before you do... :-( —Giggy 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted a message on Keeper's talk (all the traffic is there). Thanks everyone for coming here and posting. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the forum (and good God yes, someone else made WP:AN/K redirect to my talkpage, not I)....congrats again! Don't listen to anyone else, including me, you're gonna be a great dad, and you're gonna love being a dad, and your kid (once he's able to focus on something other than your wife's teet and other things within 6 inches of his face), is gonna absolutely adore you, whether you like it or not. I'm so fondly remembering my son and my first few days together (we had a nightmarish hospital/delivery), and I'm envious of you. Be well, be smart, and enjoy every minute of what you are doing right now, Gman. All my best to you, your wife, and of course, your unnamed (smart move) son. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved

See User talk:Whistling42#Pronouns. Whistling42 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My dispute with Whistling42

Thank you for telling Whistling42 not to edit my comments (I hope you and other editors will undo further cases of this, if there are any). Making an innocent mistake about someone's gender is not sexual harrassment or a 'personal attack.' Skoojal (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not likely going to get involved in reverts, but I am leaving fair warning to Whistling. Even though Whistling believes certain things to be personal attacks and hence thinks its OK to change them, that doesn't make it OK. A short block might be in order if Whistling doesn't back down on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was no "innocent mistake". At 23:22, 8 July 2008, I requested that Skoojal stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. At 23:33, 8 July 2008 (eleven minutes later), Skoojal used a female pronoun to describe me, blatantly defying my request. After being alerted of this through a Wikiquette alert, rather than editing zir own comment to remove the error, Skoojal instead reinstated the inappropriate pronoun several times at Talk:Conversion therapy. Clearly, this user's hostile actions are not an "innocent mistake" but a pattern of disrespect. Whistling42 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that altering someone else's comments could be considered a pattern of disrespect? I didn't refer to you as she in new comments; I simply stopped you from modifying my past comments. Skoojal (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You ignored my notification about pronouns, used the wrong one anyway. This is an example of an uncivil remark, which, according to WP:TPG, I am entitled to edit. When you noted that my edit made your comment look as though you had said something you hadn't; I responded to your concerns, and added a prominent note in bold-italic, clearly indicating exactly what had been removed and why. Despite your incivility to me, I attempted to heed your concerns. You, however, have staunchly dug in your heels and refused to admit the slightest wrongdoing in this instance. Clearly, the "pattern of disrespect" is yours. Whistling42 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin Nomination

Is there any way that I could legally pause the discussion, edit the questions, or should I just let things be? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you can alter the answers, although that is extremely frowned upon usually. If anything, you can add an amendment to them for whatever you want to say. Though, I don't believe the opposition will change just if you add new answers... RfA's never pass when run just a month or so apart. You are going to need to wait a minimum of 3 months to possibly have a chance at your next one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You were a quick responder earlier, and thanks for the support. I was looking into administrator coaching, and if you don't think that it is a good idea, I'll do the editor review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I've put the links up for clarity. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Though it doesn't matter to me... you actually didn't put them in the right spot (the box lower down). Some are sticklers against malformed RfAs... just a heads up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too. Thanks for the kind comments. I'm sure we'll speak again soon to do with a certain article which will hopefully become an FA in the future. Best wishes, D.M.N. (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted contribs

Here you go, everything from this year. I can't copy/paste the source, so nothing's linked, but you can fix that yourself... Tan | 39 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1. 11:30, 30 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:StewieGriffin! (I enjoyed your radio show: new section)
2. 09:51, 30 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:StewieGriffin! (Um....: new section)
3. 04:33, 20 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . 1Archive 1 (moved 1Archive 1 to /Archive 1: fixed name)
4. 07:20, 19 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:MaskedSuperAgent (Final Warning: new section)
5. 18:22, 18 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:MaskedSuperAgent (AN/I Report: new section)
6. 05:56, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Spartaz (huh?: hi)
7. 07:32, 27 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m User talk:OH mAh gAwD (Warning: sign)
8. 07:31, 27 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:OH mAh gAwD (Warning: new section)
9. 10:29, 10 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Category talk:100 Longest-Running Broadway shows (needs sourcing)
10. 08:58, 8 February 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Lucchese crime family (Current Family Capos: again, removed as unverified claim)
11. 08:58, 8 February 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m Lucchese crime family (Current Family Leaders: why is this here? Nothing comes up on google for this name, no references whatsover. Removing grandiose claim.)
12. 12:51, 28 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Bristo Camino (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristo Camino)
13. 11:00, 22 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Jolean Wejbe (Changed prod tag to afd tag)
14. 10:25, 22 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Jolean Wejbe (proposed deletion, non notable)
15. 19:43, 21 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . New Paper Mario (Added speedy delete tag- vandalism hoax page, no such game exists)
16. 18:38, 19 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:John Champlin Gardner, Jr. (moved Talk:John Champlin Gardner, Jr. to Talk:John Gardner (novelist): Changed to his known public name, (novelist) needed as this is a common name)

Dammit! I did it so much nicer, with links, and on a subpage. Click Here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks to both of you! If only I had the tools I could've done this myself :P. I'll be taking a close look at this. Not as concerning as I'd thought, though. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Ya I know I !voted rather quickly, and that was a mistake. Thanks. America69 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I !vote early, but that's just my style:). America69 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Going from Strong Support to oppose is weird. I know. That was a bad mistake on my part. Thanks, America69 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Braves

There is a point, though, to concerns about the unqualified statement that 14 is the number. An explanation of some kind is fair. His argument that it's 11 and not 14 is bogus. But someone else with no axe to grind might raise the same question. So a footnote to the 14 would seem a valid thing to do. However, filling the lead with an explanation why it's 14, I don't buy. Also, he caught my attention with this "last year we..." What last year? Who was he editing under before? An IP address? A banned user? (I know of one notorious case from Atlanta area). I'd like to hear that explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get such an explanation. If no sources are giving such asterisks/footnotes, then neither should Wikipedia. Even if it is logical, which it might be, we aren't here to establish any precedents for anything about the Braves and this record. We simply report what is in other reliable sources. You've done a great job establishing the point, I have yet to see anyone else question in, and I have seen no source/blog/anything suggesting any issue or controversy. It seems perfectly fine at this point. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying the footnote used for the year-by-year record already, could also be used in the lead. I'm not hung up on that, though. To me, it's largely a non-issue, but I already know the full story. A casual reader might not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

What perfect timing for my return to find that you've finally taken the plunge. Whilst I was away, I did use my mobile to leave a message sending my congratulations on the new addition - got lost on my talk page! Anyway, best of luck in both endeavours - let me know which you find more stressful ;) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Added the banner for you Fritzpoll (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fritz, and for the kindly worded support on the RfA. Baby Gwynand is doing well! Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really can't believe...

...you asked all those questions! :). I've answered them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noted that the questions might be able to respond somewhat to some of the concerns of those opposing.

As an aside, they are my "standard questions". (See User:jc37/RfA/General questions.)

Now, that said, I weigh more than just the questions' responses. (See [[User:jc37/RfA/criteria.)

So I think I'm going to add one or two more in a moment.

In addition, if you wouldn't mind, I am curious: Why did you select this usename? What were/are your thoughts behind it? - jc37 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Very little thought behind it. I had read that book recently and Wynand was by far the most interesting character. In hindsight, Roark was just the theory of a man, nothing real, and by the end of the book I felt Rand sort of lost control of what she was trying to do with him. Toohey wasn't believable... in ways she tried to make him come off as pure evil, but I don't believe anyone really acts in the manner he did. Anyways... it could have just as easily been Tom Joad or Swede Levov, but I just picked Gwynand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...and assuming I don't withdraw the RfA, I'll answer as many questions as you like, although I'm not sure most, support or oppose, are reading them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then point them to them : )

For myself, I wish to thank you for taking the time to answer the questions. (I know that it's a fair amount of work.)

I've also commented at your RfA. (To clarify even further, sometimes an "unknown quantity" = "better be safe than sorry".) That said, I'll continue to watch, and you or others may change my mind, I dunno. (Considering the current "numbers", it's probably a moot point anyway, but I guess we'll see what comes : )

Incidentally, if, as you note above, you do decide to withdraw, if you are up for RfA again, please let me know. - jc37 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me preface my next comments by saying: I know how it feels to go through RfA. As a matter of fact, I know how it feels to fail an RfA. That said, I think everyone's experiences are as different as everyone is different to how they respond to certain situations. I note this because it's not easy for some to have their actions scrutinised, and really, "judged" by others. (Sometimes rather arbitrarily.) So I guess I just wanted you to know that regardless of what I say or eventually decide, I'm also empathetic, and have no malice intended.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that your response/comments to Balloonman put me in a quandry.

On one hand, it really seemed a sincere response, and I thought was good clarification. So part of me wants to support.

On the other hand, the clear lack "need" for the tools nags on me, as do several other things. And so for those I think I should oppose with the usual comment of: "probably support next time". (You've been around RfA to understand this, I think.)

Which is part of why I'm currently "stuck in neutral".

I'm going to give this some further thought, and do some additional reading/research (checking out your "middle" contributions, among other things).

And I do intend to finally decide one way or the other. It probably makes little difference in the larger scheme of things, but I thought I would let you know what I, at least, was thinking (and that I was indeed thinking : ) - jc37 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Its though at first, but if you are willing to accept it for what it is, accept that you are not God's Gift to Wikipedia, then it's not so bad. I appreciate you being so thorough in your review and am eager to see the final !result. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify/rephrase the above? I'm not only not understanding it contextually, I'm not really understanding it at all. (I'm guessing that a typo or two have me hamstrung, for one thing...) - jc37 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, confusing with my hypothetical "yous". I meant to say that I think many candidates go in with the thought of, "Gee... what a great editor I am, surely the community will love me." Coming to realize that isn't the case is necessary for a candidate to have a healthier reaction to the critiques in RfAs. By the way, I withdrew. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

And since you withdrew, I guess my comments will be indefinitely stuck in neutral.

Considering all the comments at the discussion though, I think it's probably fair to say that should you try again, you'll likely pass.

And... Enjoy your bourbon, I'm sure others are jealous : ) - jc37 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I have changed my opinion in your RFA. Reasons explained there.. Best Wishes :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops.. I cant believe you withdrew yourself!...I guess nobody had much of oppose reasons other than your lack of mainspace contributions.I wished you had continued till the end :| Any do come again on RFA very soon, I will be happy to support you again -- Tinu Cherian - 11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chin up

I know from experience that failing RfA is anything but the end of the world. ;-) —Giggy 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I knew I was going to make a decision this morning... and at first when you've seen you've gotten several consecutive opposes, I sort of made a small grin and said "oh well". Personally, it's only upsetting from the perspective that I thought I would pass. It's not that I think the community "got it wrong", but rather, was surprised to see that collective opinion about me as an editor. Ego bruiser. Thanks for stopping by. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't wait too long...till your next rfa! Best, --Cameron* 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not fail -- the system failed you. Let me know when you are ready for the next go-round and I will be standing with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Seriously, I have never seen a more capable candidate for the mop than your good self. Shame the standards are so tight nowadays. Best of luck in the future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What Giggy said. It's not that the standards are "tight", or the bar set too high, as some would have you believe. It's that the process is fickle, arbitrary and nonsensical. Don't take the RfA result as the community's collective opinion about you as an editor, it's light years away from being that. It's just the belching of a few malcontents with nothing better to do than to hang around the slough of despond, trying to drag in innocent victims by making them as miserable as themselves. If you even think about retiring over this I'll be exceedingly disappointed in you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, your time is much better spent with your little one than pressing some silly buttons. =) –xeno (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be more administrators like you. There are too many drama mongers running the show here. Unfortunately, you can only vote admins in, not out (usually).

If every administrator was as level headed as you, I would be contributing tons of content to the mainspace. After learning how this site is really run, however, I have no confidence that any edit I make will remain in any shape or form after 18 months (probably 2000 of my edits have already been removed from this site). You failing the RFA only does more to discourage me from actively improving the 'encyclopedia' that's become a giant (bad) soap opera.

You'd certainly be more reliable and competent than most current administrators. Good luck with your next RfA, which I will hopefully be here to witness. Just don't give in when the usual suspects ask you, "Come on, play right!" SashaNein (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdraw from the RFA. I am almost certain, that with a bit of article work (possibly a GA in the bag), you will become an admin in the future. Please do not become disheartened by this, you are a great user and will undoubtedly be an admin in the future. D.M.N. (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"With respect", I think that's possibly the worst advice you could possibly give. Gwynand, like every other editor, ought to spend time doing those things that he enjoys. Not going around with a shopping list of places to be seen and things to be done before an RfA. And if that doesn't suit the inhabitants of the slough of despond, then tough. We'll all get the crappy administrators that we deserve, and have to a large extent already got. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone stopping by here. Just wanted to say that I certainly understand all the perspectives people are giving me on how I would pass a second RfA, and they are helpful... when it comes to passing an RfA. In the end though, I think I agree with Malleus the most, and have actually given that same advice to others. If the way I edit means I can never become an admin, because of certain "ratios" in my work, then really the ultimate power-hungry thing to do, and least logical, would be to start altering what I do here in order to pass another RfA. I've never thought I've strayed too much from articles and -- prior to my RfA -- I don't recall anyone suggesting I was ever being unhelpful or acting like my main goal is to tell people what to do, or "run" wikipedia. Considering I was at 50 supports, 20 opposes when I withdrew, and I'm familiar with how RfA works, there is a clear path I can take over the next three months to virtually guarantee a pass. The problem is, I don't believe that path will help wikipedia the most, articles or elsewhere, nor would it help me become a better admin. Considering all the ranting I do regarding standards of editing and the like, it would be just way too hypocritical of me to ensure I act a certain way -- and worry about ratios -- in order to pass RfA #2. So, we'll see. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just dropped by to thank you for voting in my RfA - I didn't realise you were on the same trail. Keep up the good work - when you have a little more mainspace work under your belt I hope you'll try again (one of my very first friends here had to try three times, and is now highly respected sysop). All the best, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So, editing...

Hi Gwyn - I wondered what kind of articles you like editing. I have a handful of pages on my to-do list that I could use a hand with, but I wondered what interests/expertise you might have. I'm really annoyed about the RfA (not at you) hence some extensive comments at WT:RFA and on Keeper's talk. On the other hand, a chance to grow, and I could use a hand on my cleanup tasks. Let me know if you're interested. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Once I get some momentum on an article I seem to enjoy improving it. There are a million things I like, I've always specifically been impressed with Wikipedia's coverage of various alcoholic beverages... there is actually no others website better for confirming recipes and learning histories. Anyways... that's just the first thing that came to mind, but I'd love to see what are some of the tougher jobs on your to-do list now. Perhaps you suggest something? I'd love to help. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Breathing easier...your post here Gwynand is much much much better than the "retirement" post I was pessimistically expecting. I thank the good lord you aren't leaving. Keeper ǀ 76 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha Keeper your nuts... I did take the day off of work today. Saw a 10:00 am showing of The Dark Knight (great flick), and did yard work from about 1 until 5. Then went to food and liquor store. Now I'm stopping in before cooking, actually in quite a good mood now, was in a lousy one this morning. No retirement for me :). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You've done nothing to convince me otherwise that RfA is broke, and you are not. Feel free to use my talkpage for anything you need. My arbitrarily "earned" admin buttons are yours for the asking. (Your post above only confirms (agreeing with Malleus) what I already knew about you. Keeper ǀ 76 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my response up there sort of sums up why I said I felt sad about the failure. I was always genuinely trying to help, and felt that a deep review of my article article talk user talk actually showed a good portion of what I was doing was directly related to article work. Sure, if I have 5k edits next time around, that'll help, but I'm really not sure what to take from the opposition in terms of how to act differently... for every one article edit I make, make sure not to make a user talk edit? I've explained my thoughts before to you on how I edit articles and the style just never lent itself to making a large number of edits. Not sure how to explain that in an RfA, and I probably wouldn't attempt to. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand - well, the list is buried in a notebook at the bottom of a bag at the moment. The one that comes to mind is a follow-up to my work at Robert F. Kennedy assassination - a subject I knew nothing about, but sat and researched. Much like you, I gain a bit of momentum once I get started! The joy of clean-ups is that you don't have to write as much fresh material (which can be daunting) but rearrange, attempt to source, and make conform to our guidelines existing material. The one that might be easiest in this respect is Robert F. Kennedy itself. This might not be that interesting to you (although it gets more interesting as you start reading!), but I'm assuming the physics ones I'm thinking of are a little out there for ya!  :) If RFK isn't to your satisfaction, give me an hour, and I'll dig out some more from my notebook. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to do article work, Gwyn, my personal list of "started" articles are sublimely paltry at best. Fix em! Make em better! Or not. (Cripes, I certainly haven't yet...) Certainly not as controversial as an assassinated prez-nom, though. The irony of course, is that I sailed through RfA with those exact same "mainspace" edits last January. Timing is everything, I suppose, meaning of course, that you were completely mistreated and robbed...Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after hitting save, I realised that only I might be mad enough to dive head first into that problematic an article. Give me a while, and I'll see if I have any drinks-related articles on my list. Do you prefer spirits, mised drinks, beer, or wine? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, ok - this is perfect! This may seem a little daunting, but it'd be a lovely little project for you to dip into from time to time when you feel up to editing/doing some research. How about Beer? Needs many more citations (it's beer, these can't be difficult to find) and potentially a bit of reorganisation and some rewriting here and there. With a bit of work, could be pushed up to GA (currently B-class) quite easily. The trick with that article is to decide a structure (propose one on the talk page so that other editors can help) and then move the exisiting material to fit the structure. Anything that doesn't fit probably isn't needed. Then you can rewrite, cite, etc. It's a lovely little topic, and I'd love someone to collaborate with about it...is this to your taste? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I passed my RfA. I seriously meant what I said in yours. Tan ǀ 39 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Prodding you - any thoughts on the above? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfA

Regarding your withdrawal statement at the RfA, rest assured (as you drink your 12 year old bourbon), the problem is not with you. The process is broken, and the standard that people set is just, well, strange sometimes. That's all I will say. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MFC's RfA

Hello Gwynand. I just read your comment in MFC's RfA and wanted to say how reasonable I thought it was. I don't know if MFC will ever be ready for adminship, but if he is I'd wager it'll be from taking what you said (or the same sentiment from another source) to heart. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope he does read the RfA, but at this point I'm worried about his reactions to the whole thing, based on him basically dissapearing when the RfA started going south, and his one post since then. I wrote a post a while back about problems with RfAs being taken so personally, and how we as a community should attempt to alter that. My thought wasn't received well. Regardless of MFCs maturity, it's hard to think anyone could go through such an RfA without feeling a lot of strife from it. Indeed, many editors reel out of control from such scathing reviews and either become quite bitter or retire. I hope he does neither. The fault, as I've said, rests with the community, and we have to stop the culture of bare advice consisting of "do this in 3 months and then I'll support". We need more realistic bluntness early on, advising certain candidates that adminship will be something farther in the future than the standard 3 months. Statements like this will start preventing the overwhelming amount of nasty RfAs with candidates that are angry and bitter with the results. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind Gwynand, but I told MFC (on his talkpage and mine) to specifically read your "neutral" comments. I found them to be the most appropo comments of any left on his RfA. Sound logic and reasoning, polite yet firm. For what it's worth, I apologize to you for my "combativeness" when you said you were "thinking about opposing" on my talkpage. You had this one right (you have no idea how hard it is for me to type that :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad you did, before I reminded you to =) –xeno (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, to keeper)I just noticed that, thank you. No need for the apology... I think that there was still lingering tenseness from last week and it was affecting all of us. I normally would have been an earlier opposer (possibly the first oppose) of MFC, but held off because I do now know how hurtful opposition can feel, regardless of how plainly worded or nice they are. Plus, I sort of hate when my oppose is basically saying to the supports, "I think you have this guy wrong". I've learned that a single well worded oppose can derail an RfA, encouraging others to make "drive by" opposes when they've essentially reviewed nothing but that one oppose and the 2 diffs in it. RfA is much too subject to whims and I believe that is what makes failing so painful... you think, "if that one guy wasn't so brutal, I would have had 10 less opposes". I hope MFC reads this and knowns I'm in the same boat as him... we both failed an RfA in the past week and we both know it sucks. I'm not sure if its likely If I'll ever try again, but I do know that ultimately I'm still happy to be here, helping how I choose to, and I hope MFC can feel the same way. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (edit summary) question, hell no. I can't imagine opposing an Rfa of yours. At the time of my posting that comment directed at you, there were not yet any opposes in MFC's rfa that were anything of merit (IMO). More stuff came to light, legitimate and egregious errors on the candidate's part, enough so that I, (one of the easiest admins to get added to the support column) had no choice but to abstain. I'm wondering if perhaps I'm a bit too easy at RfA, or a bit too forgiving? My RfA support ratio is well over 90%. I know that yours is lower than that Gwynand, (and ironically, led to opposes on your own rfa). Would you mind looking at my rfa criteria and telling me what I'm missing? Am I being too easy? Too lackadaisical (I can't spell that). Two things you should know about me, one, I'm a sucker, and believe whatever anyone types. Two, I'm a "good-faither", and believe that mistakes happen, and with confession and contrition, there is no reason to oppose for "past mistakes". Am I being too lenient at RfA? Keeper ǀ 76 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, those percentages are deceptive. I know that you don't make inflammatory switches to opposes, or opposes that are unnecesary, because you see that the RfA is going south and such a vote isn't neccesary. That is an admirable trait, so many editors seem to love getting in that big oppose when the candidate is already burning in flames. While it appears that I love to oppose people, in reality I simply don't spend much time with the quality candidates that are already at 50/2 (Kurt and Les Grand)/0. The candidate looks fine and I dont need to spend time investigating. If I was more in to politics, I would "make sure" to get in and add my supports to those so I dont look so nasty, but I just never felt it was neccesary. Your criteria is fine and you are an asset to the RfA process. The only difference between you and I is probably how discriminating we are when considering the CLUE of a candidate. If there isn't much evidence of it (through talk/user talk/ noticeboards etc) then I tend not to assume the candidate has it, and will look much closer at the questions and answers. For example, if someone can't talk their way through Xenos hypothetical Q, (Q4 on MFC's RfA), then it's hard to support. It's not just that admins need to know when to block, but how to properly discuss/describe what they are doing. That is very important to me, and I need evidence of that to give support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And a note... I could talk for hours on this, as everyone knows, but generally I'll say that the biggest single problem I see with some admins is not "bad blocks" or "bad page protects" or things like that, but rather, how god-damned poorly they go about speaking to others. A lot of cruelty, a lot of dimissiveness, basically the opposite of how you act in general, Keep. I need proof from candidates that they are capable of handling tough situations without resorting to petiness and the like, and I won't assume they'll act that way. The community has made incorrect assumptions far too often, and we need to start relying more on concrete evidence of CLUE. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent thoughts, G-nand. I perhaps need to re-evaluate my own assessment of what exactly equals "clue", as that, frankly, is my primary reason for supporting/opposing. I, without question, got MFC wrong, I didn't do enough research into his contribs. I don't want to make that mistake again (and I'm glad I was able to move from support to abstain before it was withdrawn). Again, what am I missing? Even though I support more than I do anyting else, I still only support after making sure that the candidate meets my criteria. Are my criteria bad? Keeper ǀ 76 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought

I was contributing to Jack Daniel's earlier today and as expected, writing about it made me want to drink it... at 9:00 am when I'm at work. This could be problematic. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I also much prefer when Jack Daniel's contributes to me. Saw your work there, coming along nicely. You should add a big fat {{underconstruction}} tag when you are doing massive amounts of work, simply to help curb edit conflicts for your larger edits. Not necessary, but definitely showy. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from this article then, Gwynand. Tan ǀ 39 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• sniff* Why? *sniff*. What's the big deal? *sniff*....I can always go edit this next...Keeper ǀ 76 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, no, that'll come later. Not a successful writer just yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that if you struggle to reference something that looks worthwhile, just do a good old fashioned {{fact}} tag on it - someone else might find the source before you. Has worked a few times for me, and if nothing else, acts as a reminder later on! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Shapiros10. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Heh! I warn Gwynand for vandalism! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :). Feels good to get one vandalism edit out of the way! Promise not to do it again! Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

KK. But it's now your next RFA that's going down in flames. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're all nuts. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we go about desysopping Fritzpoll for personal attacks? :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, Fritzpoll. *huggles* Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed you were actually members of the NUT because of your incisive commentary to each other. My mistake... Fritzpoll (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Clever. Extremely clever...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They don't call me CleverBrit(tm) for nothing. In fact they don't call me CleverBrit(tm)....at all. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Something more sensible for a change...

I chucked down a draft article structure on the talkpage of Jack Daniel's for your consideration. See what you think - you don't have to write it all on your lonesome! Also, leave the lead until the end - you'll be wanting to summarise what you've written, which you can't do til you've written it. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you two work together about articles on liquor? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because we both have such sober demeanours Fritzpoll (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. BTW, spam for both of you to come on the Simple English Wikipedia. [4]. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping

(Insert annoying AOL voice here) You've got mail. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And again Fritzpoll (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Since you have experience of the discussion at Talk:Atlanta Braves involving this editor, you may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159 and share your view. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack

How goes work on the JD article? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Crazy... I just messaged you on your talk. Answer there. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Third time lucky?

Hi Gwynand. I've come back off my vacation, and, as we discussed before my vacation, I have nominated the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article for FA status. Please comment at the FAC. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I never thought it would happen... but it did. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss seeing you around

Hope you and your family are doing well. I just told Fritzpoll that I think you are perhaps the smartest between the three of us, seeing as he and I continue to deal with this shit. Anyway, pop over and say hey. Keeper ǀ 76 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

dispute resolution?

In response to [5] ...

As the receiver of the brunt of Jaysweet's displeasure -- the alleged "isolated jackoff" and "ignorant asshole" in question -- I'm a little puzzled by your comment about "decid[ing] to avoid dispute resolution". I don't really see any dispute to resolve. I mean this with all possible respect and no sarcasm or reproach, but can you please explain? - Revolving Bugbear 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay helps out at wikiquette alerts, ANI, etc... general "dispute resolution" places. Not his argument with you. His general response to this recent RfA stuff was that he was gonna give up on all that, I was trying to encourage him not to. The negative response he got regarding his potential as an admin in the near future clearly hurt him, and I was doing what I could to encourage him to continue the good work he's been doing.

I'm surprised he continued to seek any formal admin coaching, I was one of the many people who told him it would probably do nothing to help him other than get through an RfA. I know you probably disagree with that view on coaching. His response to the semi-rejection for not just his chances at RfA but also his candidacy to be coached clearly upset him. I can say that his response was, from what I have seen, highly uncharacteristic of him and I think he misread your comments as being cruel, which I'm sure wasn't your intent. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. Of course it wasn't my intention to be cruel, which I hope (and believe) shows itself in my comments. Cheers, and happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, you are alive. Good to see you, Gwynand. Tan ǀ 39 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I miss my friends

Hey Gwynand, hope you and your family are alive and well. Miss you, and Tanthalas, and Fritzpoll, who've all seemed to disappear. I may not be far behind. Keeper ǀ 76 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

résumés

Hi Gwynand.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on an AFD. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ramiele Malubay

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ramiele Malubay. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiele Malubay. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Eve Carson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Murder of Eve Carson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Eve Carson. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Magibon

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Magibon. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)