This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following talk is being kept as an archive of a talk page. Please do not modify it. If you have new things to say, please use the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 I think I was placed higher because of the capitalized letter; Something like "SH" comes before "Sa", etc.
I don't really care one way or the other, I'm just popping on after getting in from 4th of July parties and noticed it and thought I'd drop a note while I was still awake enough to do so. :D EVula// talk // ☯ // 06:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not a big deal, either way is fine, it makes no difference to the software of the gadget. Hope you had a happy Independence Day! I took a portable BBQ, my dog and my girlfriend and we walked into a nature reserve near where I live and had a BBQ and a few Buds. (Yeah, I'm in England but I always celebrate Canada Day and the 4th of July!) Take care! fr33kmantalk 18:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
owe you an apology... regarding our earlier conversation. I did not mean to put forward that I was questioning your intentions... for that I apologise. I know you to be a good contributor to this project, and I praise you for your ability to collaborate. :) So keep up the good work. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, no offence was taken. Thanks for the complement! fr33kmantalk 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have it on when I'm in monobook, but I'm currently in nostalgia ;) Exert 04:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't think it is required but everyone seems to use it. Cheers!! :-) fr33kmantalk 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll just remember to clear it, when I delete a page. Exert 04:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, there's probably a fix for it somewhere! :)Exert 05:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, even if it is a manual clearing of the reasons. BTW: could I encourage you to take part in DYK? It only takes a couple of seconds to review a hook and say yea or nay? (Yes, I'm fishing for more editors to take part) :-) fr33kmantalk 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I guess I could take part. Exert 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please and thanks. I know it's shameful to ask, but I really like DYK :) fr33kmantalk 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! It's me again. I can't seem to figure out how to upload images on Simple Wikipedia. I know how to do it on regular Wikipedia, but this site seems to be much different. Thanks in advance. Thehurricane13 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't. It is not permitted by policy. fr33kmantalk 02:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've sent you an e-mail. Please check it when you get a chance. Thanks. Exert 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done Thanks for reporting; two actions were taken fr33kmantalk 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've actually got another I need to send to you. Exert 17:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've sent the info over to you. Exert 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As of Sunday 19th July 2009 137,258 cases of Swine Flu have been confirmed. 779 people have now died from it.
The QandA. Every month, a user will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taking by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlinediter, Shappy and Yotcmdr.
Thanks for the welcome. I suspect I'll keep dropping in - do claim joint authorship and/or help me by making the article even some simple. Victuallers (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll certainly review the article some more, but I don't claim authorship for work I didn't write. I only did some translation from standard English into simpler English. I only claim authorship of article I write from scratch myself (such as Color of the day (police) and even then I don't claim ownership. Glad you're sticking around!! :) fr33kmantalk 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I'm sure you're already aware, your RFB has been a success, with a vast majority of the community agreeing that you satisfy their requirements in a Simple English Wikipedia bureaucrat. Sure it's a wee bit quicker than the 168 hours these RFXs usually run but I'd hate to delay what I consider to be the inevitable. So, I'm pleased to bestow the flag upon you, congratulations. If you have any questions, there are a couple of other 'crats around to shout for, and feel free to do so. Well done, good luck with the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hate to jump on the bandwaggon, but Congrats! See, mine is better :P. Enjoy that 'crat hat, I don't think one exists yet so I will go and make one (Hat beats T-Shirt!) Goblin 18:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
I've got a task for you. I've blocked a possible impostor. If it is confirmed NOT to be Jimbo himself, please change the username so it is open for usurpation when the real Jimbo comes, that is, if he does. Thank you!-- Tdxiang 07:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is the genuine article. :) fr33kmantalk 13:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah a username was changed recently so the real one could come usurp it. Took him long enough to show up. -Djsasso (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I like to think it was the invitation I gave him on his en talk page, lol :-) fr33kmantalk 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Meah, don't worry about it. I think it was a good instinct, perhaps check SUL on toolserver next time. Jimmy was cool about it, he ":-)"'d you! :) fr33kmantalk 04:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that User:Gorila is a sockpuppet of User:Goril. They were created at the exact same time and the closeness of the usernames is enough for me. Could you investigate and block if necessary? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the edits do not overlap but they do come close. FYI the accounts were created on May 22 at 3:07. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Goril was created here. User:Gorila was created at bg.wp in 2006 and stopped editing the same year. I think that our Gorila and bg's Gorila are two different people. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you feel this needs a checkuser, could you please do it because I will be logging out shortly. I think the evidence is enough though. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think it needs a CU, but I'll ask you to do it tomorrow. I think it'd be good experience for you and I'm blocking the account in the mean time for the attack text on the top of their talk page anyways. fr33kmantalk 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, when renaming bad users with bad usernames, please rename it to the form of ^(bad username4xx) instead. This ensures that it will not show up in the user list under "b". ;)ChenzwTalk 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for that. I had wondered if I had done it correctly. I was considering asking a steward to obfuscate the log entries for the move and protection also. What do you think? Should I also rename it to ^(bad username4xx)? fr33kmantalk 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there is no need to hide the log entries; leaving them there is fine. And yes, you should re-rename that user. ChenzwTalk 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: if/when we get local oversighters, we won't have to do those types of renames anymore; Oversighters can just check an extra box when blocking and voila, the username no longer shows up. EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but I didn't want to do a steward request again but did want to rename the username as it was a personal attack. fr33kmantalk 15:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
But please don't forget that according to our oversight policylibellous (not just offending!) usernames should just be hidden by request of the attacked person. A group of persons can hardly request that. (Yes, I know that we often hide usernames which insult jews etc., but it's not very policylike.) Kind regards, DerHexer (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
hi there you deleted the article stub Royksopp and i'am just wondering why it's not notably enough i mean English Wikipedia has quite an article on them... any help in answering this question? thank you. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but after checking all the logs, I don't see that I have deleted this article or even that it was ever created here. Can you please help me locate the deletion you claim I did? After I can find it, I can explain why deleted it. Please note: I have done hundreds of deletions so I'm sorry if I can't remember this particular one. Thanks! :-) fr33kmantalk 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem Fr33kman here is the deletion log info... (Deletion log); 05:13 . . Fr33kman (talk | changes) deleted "Royksopp" (QD A4: The page does not show notability.) Thank you again for your time. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Exert! Okay, 220.127.116.11, you did not include WHY this band is important. You only included what they had done. We get MANY people who add pages about their bands in a garage somewhere. I'd advise you to read WP:N and also en:WP:MUSIC and then to recreate the article. If you read those two pages and comply with their guidelines then the band will likely be able to be added here. Thanks and feel free to ask us for help! :-) fr33kmantalk 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
someone has vandaled big time just wanted to let you know so something can be done. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What have they vandalized and who are they? I need more information. fr33kmantalk 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone named nishkid and they added many hurtful pages i guess the user has been blocked now so sorry for taking up your time. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Tha offensive pages were oversighted, so no longer visible in the logs.
Thank you for your help. --M7 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I bet you were counting the minutes until this was brought up, but at what point does 68.8% support (11/16) equate to being in a discretionary range where we advise "a consensus of at least 75% supporting votes" to promote. This would have been a close call for adminship, leave alone 'cratship. And I read, with some fear, that you are effectively discounting votes from people who are concerned with the number of bureaucrats already on this Wikipedia. Regardless of the fact I opposed this promotion, and regardless of your explanatory notes, I think this has now set an unhealthy precedent, and one which will be wheeled out for years to come (should this Wikipedia exist that long). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with TRM. You promoted DJSasso to a 'crat, but our criteria says: In general, a successful request for Bureaucrat status should have a consensus of at least 75% supporting votes. The RfB of DJsasso has only something around 69%. A 'crat have to realize the community consensus. Your action is against the community consensus. This is clearly this, what a 'crat never should do. Sorry, but what I've said in your RfB, that I trust you, is no longer the case. Barras (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I will have to reverse your decision. There is no clear consensus to promote in this RfB. Unless you are able to clearly justify your decision of promoting and also explicitly state the circumstances that caused this exceptional promotion, I will go to Meta to request a de-crat of Djsasso. ChenzwTalk 10:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If you guys feel I should have closed it differently, then I have no issues with it being reversed. I do stand by my closure however, because I felt that the too many crats comments were not against the candidate, but only against the number of bureaucrats itself and so many members of the community had indicated both at my RfB and here that they felt it was not an issue; this included an opposer of Djsasso's RfB. Thus whilst I did not disregard them at all, I did give them less weight than the other oppose arguments. After having done that, I felt that the call was then close enough to exercise discretion and make the decision to promote the candidate. Clearly you feel I was wrong, and for that I apologize. I shall avoid such decisions in the future. @Barras; if you no longer trust me, than I feel you are within your rights to request my de-bureacrating on this project. Sorry, that you feel I've let you down. I knew that this decision would be questioned, but I did indicate during my own RfB that I was not a number counter and would give more or less weight to some arguments at RFA/RFB. fr33kmantalk 10:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Judging a consensus is fine, but here, there was insufficient consensus to promote. Every opposing voter explained themselves fully. Your action has effectively set a precedent that certain arguments will now have to be discounted in the future for the sake of consistency, that's the danger. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've said, I will not object to a reversal of this closure, so I don't think it sets a precedent. As also stated I would never discount any argument at RFA or RFB; but I do feel it was appropriate to give them what I felt was due consideration. I certainly do feel that the community should begin a discussion about ratios of crats:admins and admins:non-admins since the argument has been raised and others have countered it. fr33kmantalk 11:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would note a single !vote would have pushed me above 75% so I would say a single vote definitely falls into discretionary range. Exactly how much closer than a single vote can you get? Reversing it sets a worse precedent in that now RFX becomes a pure vote by the numbers instead of a discussion and weighing of arguments. We elect 'crats exactly to make these sorts of decisions. I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction you all have had. You have also set a precedent that if one crat doesn't like the decision of another they can just overturn it. When the CFA was written we specifically used the words "in general" to show that 75% was not a required percentage to reach but just a recommended one. One would also think that the following line in the criteria would hammer that fact home. Bureaucrats make their decisions based on the consensus of voting users -- not simply on the percentage of supporting votes. -Djsasso (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As would this edit by m:User:DerHexer on meta in regards to this incident. I said I would not stop the steward action to remove the bit, nor do I support it. Frankly, I feel I was right and would ask an uninvolved bureaucrat to reclose the RFB based on their take of the situation and either promote Djsasso again, or not. fr33kmantalk 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly my belief that it was a guideline. I still 100% stand by my closure, but won't stop others requesting it be overturned. fr33kmantalk 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The above talk is being kept as an archive of a talk page. Please do not modify it. If you have new things to say, use the current talk page. No more changes should be made to this section.