Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question


A suggestion

Alright, all. I know that I just got through the whole 10th RfA thing and all, but I have come up with a solution to everyones' problems. If you guys don't trust me enough to be an administrator all of the time, how about letting me be an administrator temporarily? That way, you can see how I would act if I were an administrator and you guys get to have the knowledge that I won't be an administrator forever. Instead, I get to be an administrator for a period of time and you guys get to completely critize and be very speculative about my abilities as an administrator. I believe that this is a fair compromise between the two sides. What do you guys think about this? Razorflame 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but can it be done?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unless we treat adminship as a "big deal," it can be done. Personally, I like it, as it would do away with the awful RfAs here. TheAE talk 02:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I like this idea. Perhaps you just need the chance to shine. I'll support a 30 day probationary period. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but you don't need the tools to proove if you are trustworthy to have them or not. And its extremely easy to "behave" if you only have a set time limit. Say 30 days. I am not saying you personally would do this, but letting one user to get around the due process is opening the door for all the other people who have ever failed to say but what about me? Yes, our current process does suck for some users and some users who should get admin don't. But I think it stops more bad from happening, than it stops good people from getting through. If someone is deserving of it, they will get it eventually. -Djsasso (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this has to set precedent. Let him have it for a month. Then we can can choose to extend for another period, for an eventual RFA that will confirm him normally. Where is the harm? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand you opposition to it, but I disagree in this case.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>It sounds like a good idea. RockManQ (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it, however, if it's granted to one, then it needs to be for all... me for example, so I can prove I am stable and ready. BG7even 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
And thats where the problem is. I don't think everyone should get the tools to proove they should have them. You proove you should have them by making stable good editing without them. I think its very much a case of it would set a bad precedent if you let one person do it. -Djsasso (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN link

Is there a way we can add a link to the "getting around" tool bar to the left linking to the Administrators notice board, and maybe one to WP:VIP too?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded, in my opinion. The toolbar is for readers to browse the project, whereas AN and VIP are behind-the-scenes pages for editors. Juliancolton (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Then what is a link to Simple Talk doing there, hmmm?--- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Simple Talk is for everybody to participate in—including casual readers who need a question answered, or just want to leave comments. Very few people use VIP. Juliancolton (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But AN i the same way as ST.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. AN is for editors who need administrative assistance. Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe not the exact same way, but it is a common place, and this would make it easier.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 02:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it really is all that common a place. If you use it alot, just add it to your watchlist for a quick link or add it on your userpage. -Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But it is a place that should be linked there for new users.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<- If you're looking to add a link to your sidebar, en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation shortcuts should work. With regard to new users, in my newbie-to-here opinion, many new users who saw vandalism and the link would report it without going through the warnings, and wouldn't know what should be sent to the admin's noticeboard. Simple talk, on the other hand, can help or give directions on any topic, rather than linking new users to such structured noticeboards. Toliar (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollbackers

There seems to be a growing number of rollbackers in the simple wiki community. Some of the current rollbackers have been active or semi-active users who have perviously attempted to an RfA, but failed. Now many users in here and the enWP, are using the rollback tool as an alternative, or stepping-stone to adminship. While there hasn't been any abuse of the tool (thank god!) the current number of rollbackers outnumber sysops, although I don't think that is anything serious. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that people who requested the use of the rollback tool here had any intention of using it as a stepping stone to adminship. I myself did not request rollback to use as a stepping stone for adminship; I requested rollback here because I believed that it would allow me to better be able to combat vandalism here on the Simple English Wikipedia, which is one of my most favorite things to do here, besides making articles. Cheers, Razorflame 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Rollback doesn't really give users anything they can't already do with the undo button, other than making it faster to undo multiple edits to the same article. Which they can just go back in the history and edit to the last good edit anyways. So really it only speeds up what they can already do. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Just take it away if they abuse it. I am sure that with most of the users, they can use it correctly. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what the problem is; editors that submit RfAs obviously want to do more to help the project, but if their RfA fails, they are left with little else to take that next step. Rollbacker being a stepping stone to sysop is a good thing. EVula // talk // 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot

Please, please fix that bot that is reverting the articles. Each editing is reverted. Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PGA, PVGA, and proposed demotions

Hi there all. As you all might have known, there are several open proposals for VGAs, GAs, and both VGA and GA demotions.

Furthermore, all three of these processes are lacking participation. If the amount of participation doesn't improve soon, we may be looking at the possibility that we don't have enough active users to sustain any of these processes in the future. I am urging any active user here to please become more active in these three processes as they could very well not be able to work on here. Cheers, Razorflame 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news

Since no one will come here to ask us our opinions, I was wondering what you all thought about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm

Would the implementations work? Activity would be slowed, but vandalism would be eradicated. Opinionate me! --Gwib -(talk)- 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwib: not sure if you know how it would work, but it will not effect us unless we implement the "FlaggedRevs" extension. En are considering it (along with some others) so that's who it effects. But, for the record...
OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE... SAY NO TO FLAGGED REVS
Cheers,
BG7even 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
To see how it works you can look at de which already has it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The Polish Wikipedia also has it, but they have strict rules about who gets the Editor flag; I've requested one (so that they don't have to approve my interwiki links) and they turned me down because I didn't have 250 article edits. Grr. EVula // talk // 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this make administrators kinda pointless then, because no vandalism means no rollback, no protection, and almost no deletions...Razorflame 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I opposed this idea at en, and I dislike it even more here. We can't afford to lose any editors, even the occasional good-faith IP. Juliancolton (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, Razor. Crap pages will still need deleting and vandals blocking. The only difference is the damage won't be seen by the "public". Majorly talk 20:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Flagged revisions have already been implemented in German Wikipedia; IIRC they are quite happy with the system. Over there it works as follows: "Anonoymous users" see the last "flagged" revision, named users have a profile option where they can specify what revision they want to see. Please note however, that German Wikipedia is the second or third busiest (after the English one). Over here, it probably would not make much sense, as we are not confronted with the levels of vandalism they have. Also, we do have enough people with the rollback flag that can take care of vandalism. To my knowledge, most regular named contributors must have rollback now. So, no, Simple Wikipedia is definitely not the target for flagged revisions. (Note:I do have the flagging priv in DeWP). --Eptalon (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't use it here. Often vandalism has stuck on articles for a very long time because no one was around to notice them. Apart from IPs, most of our regular editors are either admin or rollbackers. Therefore there would not be huge backlogs. I check every IP edit on RC anyway, so I'll only be flagging it as "OK" as well. I think it's a good idea. Majorly talk 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't need it and obviously, as pointed out by BG, the majority of us don't want it.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you know the majority don't want it? A poll was never taken. His comment up there was his opinion on the matter not him saying the majority don't want it. -Djsasso (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the comments first, man, and I was referring to those that commented.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Four people aren't the "majority of us". Juliancolton (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And you your fighting my comment why? It doesn't help the discussion.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 07:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

English Wikinews also has it. I was surprised the first time I edited and it said "Draft. 1 change awaits review", but after reading what it meant and casually editing there, I like it and don't mind that my changes aren't added immediately. I also feel a sense of "someone approves of my edits" when they are sighted or there's more a respectful give-and-take if a reviewer disagrees, due to the slight hierarchy. (I could edit more often and become a reviewer myself if I wished, but choose not to.)

There are of course pros and cons, discussed extensively at en:WT:FLR, and en is not simple. But I think a discussion on *why* you think it sucks or rocks would help more than voting or standing your ground.

My opinion is I like it on Wikinews but I'm not experienced enough here to say whether it might be more trouble than it's worth. (I mean on Simple.) Toliar (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Need more bureaucrats

Like it or lump it, this project needs another bureaucrat. Julian could have been promoted hours ago, but is sat waiting because two bureaucrats simply doesn't cover the time needed. I've already had to delete a couple of pages for him on his behalf, which he is perfectly capable of doing himself.

Normally, I would submit an RFB myself, but I have doubts about running, because I'll probably fail. To be honest though, no admin seems to have the ability to pass one. But, I still have a glimmer of hope. I'd like you to imagine I had submitted a request. Try to look past the irrelevant things, but do concentrate on the one question: would Majorly make a good bcrat? I've done the job on Meta-wiki quite successfully since July 2007 - before we made every admin a bcrat, I was by far the most active one. While of course I have my feelings about certain attitudes, I would respect community consensus. One of my better traits is a good eye for consensus - a very recent example, is here. I personally believe AE would not make a good bcrat at all, for various reasons, but I would respect the thoughts of the community. I'm not inactive here (I edit here every day, and watch recent changes regularly). I might not be active in article building as some, but I do work on articles occasionally. Not that it has anything to do with bureaucratship of course, and I have the experience already. Some may also have found themselves inadvertantly at the end of a "prickly" discussion with me. I try not to hold grudges, I hope you can try too. This is not something I want to add to my trophy cupboard, it's because Simple really could do with another bcrat.

So please, I'm hoping you'll give me a second chance and be the extra bcrat this wiki needs. What do you say? Majorly talk 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd Support you. Juliancolton (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to agree we could probably use another one, not sure if I would support you or not due to many prickly discussions. However, I have seen you trying to be less prickly lately which is a good thing and would probably get a yes from me eventually if it kept up for awhile. I would have supported Synergy on his next one, his deletion mistake is the kind of kinks I wanted to see worked about before he became 'crat. I am pretty positive he will never take action to quickly again after that experience. -Djsasso (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, lets see who wants to run (or run again). Logically, if Majorly, with experience in cratship couldn't get it, Gwib, due to his longstanding editor status here, couldn't get it, and I, even though the community trust me (AN reconfirmation as evidence) couldn't get it... I don't know who else has the experience, trust or is eligible to request it. We just don't have any other candidate in my opinion. Synergy 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Each of you had something that caused people to have pause is the problem. I wouldn't doubt you would pass in a couple months with more admin experience which was the only real issue people had with yours, Gwib might even pass today, haven't looked at his edits to see if anything changed since he ran though. Majorly has the experience but has the prickly problem which is what his downfall seemed to be last time which is still around now and then so he might be right that he would still fail. -Djsasso (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only two issues I can recall, that led to my withdraw were: We didn't need another crat and, I haven't been an admin long enough, but was trusted. Just like with the issue we saw with Julian, some things have to be over looked. Either we overlook Majorly not working on articles as much, or me not being an admin for a year, or Gwibs mistakes (whichever they were). At the end of the day, something has got to give. Synergy 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, thats what I meant when I said admin experience...weren't admin long enough. Personally I would put up RyanCross as the most likely cadidate from the admins at the moment but people would probably knock his activity. Everyone else is too new for the most part. -Djsasso (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest considering Chenzw as well. He has the experience at admin, seems well respected and as a bonus fills the timezone most needed (we have Americas and Europe already, Asia would be a nice addition). --Creol(talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh yes, him as well. For some reason I always think of him as being one even though I know he is not. -Djsasso (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is waiting because, given it started at 22:06 on the 22st and it is currently 3:20 on the 28th , it is not yet seven days. The end date given seems based on non-UTC time (It started on the 21st in the US/Canada). Give it a couple hours as you posted this at 6 days, 1 hour. --Creol(talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My bad. Majorly talk 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting) You still want to run for bureaucrat, Majorly? If that is the case, I would not mind nominating you; that is, if you would like me to nominate you. Give me a holler if thats' the case. Cheers, Razorflame 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I would be more likely to support Gwib, AE or Synergy. I agree we need another 'Crat.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 04:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the key points in finding a new B'crat candidate is locating one that no one realy has a big issue with. Drama free is the main point. Gwib was close but shot himself in the foot at the last minute but could be a solid candidate later. Synergy, I feel, has the quality, but it is a question of too soon after becoming admin. AE.. Aside from him being more focused on other projects, his recent drama about RfA can put people off about him. Chenzw had a decreased activity period over the holidays but seems to be back up to a regular activity level currently. Majorly has the experience, but there are many people with issues in his regard (either personality or activity) that make him a risky issue. Many of our active admins who could be candidates are either fairly new or less active than people would like so finding a perfect fit can be an issue. As only one b'crat button is remotely time sensitive (bot flag - mainly due to flooding, new admin/rename can wait a couple hours if needed) and could be dealt with using the flood flag, I personally do not see this as an immediate issue and believe we should not be rushed in pushing the issue, but it is of course the community's call on the matter. Unlike admins who can be dealt with easily enough of going rogue, b'crats could effectively delete everything in a short period without even being noticed (bot/admin/b'crat 20 forum friends on a vandal spree, let half of them bot/admin others while the rest are busy deleting). Not like any here are in that category, but if PersianPoetGal can get checkuser on her(his) sockpuppet account, playing it safe is not that overrated. This is nearly ultimate trust we are talking here. Taking the time to find a fit for almost everyone should be worth the time investing in looking for the right candidate. --Creol(talk) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, RF, but I'll probably leave it for now. Majorly talk 04:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support RyanCross, Yotcmdr, Majorly or Kennedy, if the latter came back. TurboGolf 08:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is about trust - Bureaucrat even more so; I agree that a third bureaucrat would be nice to have, but they need to be chosen well. If we find a candidate to run for crat, ideally they should gather no noticeable opposition. Both Gwib and Majorly tried a short time ago, and failed for what I would consider "petty reasons". Looking at it geographically, I am sitting in the middle of Europe, Creol is in the Americas. If we could get one from Asia (Chenzw), or Australia (I fear Peterdownunder has not yet shown his adminship skills). AmericanEagle would probably also be a good candidate, if he were more active; Synergy.... The third crat would also allow the other two crats to vote in RfAs (We rarely do this, to avoid that the voting crat closes the RfA). So, in short: yes to a third crat. One option we might consider is to find the (eg.) 5 most likely candidates, have them run, and promote the one who gains the most support from the community.--Eptalon (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree we need another crat and quite fast. But as Creol quite rightly said, we need to take things slowly. Eptalon's idea doesn't sound too bad. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Eptalon's proposal. Let's have Chenzw, Synergy, Majorly, Gwib, and AE or someone else run for it and see who gets the most support from the community. Also, Archer7 wouldn't be that bad of an option, either. Cheers, Razorflame 14:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We can't turn RfB into a contest. Synergy 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Actually, we don't have to. Chenzw has agreed to let me nominate him for bureaucrat. I am typing up his nomination now. This should put an end to this discussion as we should, in all likelihood, have our 3rd crat. Cheers, Razorflame 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Face-glasses.svg ..--Cometstyles 10:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't going to have a 3rd 'crat. Please see here. --Chenzw  Talk  11:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well with that turn of events I definately think we need another one, and probably two. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats quite dissapointing. Did he give any reasons or a statement anywhere? Kennedy (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that I am aware off. Just speculating here, but I think he probably finds it rediculous that a perfectly good candidate for Rfb is being rejected not because he can't be trusted but because he doesn't have some ideal activity amount or that at one time he didn't think we needed more crats. Probably mad that a community that wants help can't help itself. Maybe its none of those things and the timing is just a coincedence. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's sticking quite a lot of words in his mouth, so many that saying "just speculating" doesn't quite justify it. Creol is not the type to leave over something like that. But he doesn't share much of his personal life with us, so I guess we'll have to leave it as it is and elect someone else. And although I thank Razor for the nomination, it's obvious I'm not active enough to be able to handle it. Archer7 - talk 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd find activity a "ridiculous" criterion for adminship, but for bureaucratship, I expect a decent amount of activity (i.e. everyday). We have a shortage of bcrats, and it would be better to fill the slot with someone who is actually here on a daily basis to do the work. This would be slightly hypocritical, but my own RFB failed for fairly "rediculous" reasons, such as not doing enough article work(!) (nothing to do with bureaucratship). The "one time" was in fact less than a month ago, and occurred in the opposition of three of his fellow editors. Majorly talk 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we need to get people running for bureaucrat as soon as we possibly can due to the severity of the situation. I have already offered to nominate Archer7 (who declined), Kennedy (who I am waiting on), Chenzw (who has accepted), and Majorly (who has declined). These users are perhaps the only people who can run for the bureacrat flag right now due to the fact that none of our other active administrators have the experience necessary in order to handle the tools yet. Razorflame 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Solving the bureaucrat issue


Being proactive

Hello all,

it very much looks like we need more bureaucrats; Chenzw is currently running. While I do not want to influence his chance of success, I nevertheless want to state the following:

  • Cratship is about trust
  • an RfA or RfB is not the place to test a tit-for-tat strategy (You didn't, so I won't either). It is also not the place to settle personal disputes.

This is not a democracy, so I will expect the following, from every active admin (and any named user who wants to participate):

  • Name 3-5 people you think would be fit to stand a vote for cratship (note: per our current rules, these must be admins).
  • For the admins: self-nomination is excluded.

In addition to this, we will need another Checkuser. This will be difficult:

  • The nominated admin must be 18, or adult where they live
  • They must identify themselves to the foundation.
  • In a vote (with at least 25 legal votes), they must get 70% (18 of them) in support.
  • Per our rules, CUs must be admins.

In a week's time we can then nominate the most likely candidates for cratship/cu, in the hope of replenishing the ranks.

I very much regret it has come to this --Eptalon (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I am available for Crat (2 people offering to nom) and I could do a CU too. (Over 18. Can identify myself to foundation). Two people who I would also support cratship right now: Chenzw, Majorly. Kennedy (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I seriously think we're going to struggle getting another checkuser in this climate... Majorly talk 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know; in theory, we have two, but the other is not that active. So while this may formally be a legal situation, it may not be in reality. In other words, we would fall back to the state of having ot rely on stewards...--Eptalon (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup I agree with Majorly, but for what its worth I am over 18 and willing to identify. Chenzw, Kennedy, RyanCross would be my picks as mentioned earlier in the conversation...well not kennedy cause I assumed he was gone when I made that comment. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Mad as it sounds, you are probably the best CU candidate. However I'm not sure we need another CU so badly. Majorly talk 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since we're being asked, out of the current admins, I would support: Gwib and Synergy. I did notice Kennedy "retired" just the other week though, so I'm not so sure I would support right now... For checkuser, that's a different story. I'm not sure I could support anyone frankly. Note that I would oppose any other person who ran most likely. I don't think times are that desperate. Majorly talk 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support Chenzw, Synergy, Majorly, and Kennedy for bureaucrat at this time. I would support Djsasso, Malinaccier, Synergy, Kennedy, RyanCross, or Chenzw for CheckUser. I myself am over 18, however, I cannot be a CU because I am not currently an administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 16:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is a huge deal. Majorly, with his vast experience across the Wikisphere, knows the privacy policy inside out. I would back him to only run checkuser when needed and I would urge others, if Majorly would offer himself, to put aside any issues they may have with him in favour of choosing somebody who would follow the privacy policy - that's all that matters Soup Dish (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note to other users here, I have decided to nominate Majorly for Check User at this time because he is the only one, I feel, with the experience necessary for this task at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait to see what Eptalon is trying to do before there is a race to nominate everyone. He might have a plan for how he was going to set up a !vote or whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
My nomination for CU for Majorly has already been posted. I should have waited to see what Eptalon might have to say before I did so, however, I feel like it was an appropriate move at that point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on his original post I think the idea was to get a list of names and then in a week nominate. But if you already posted it and he accepted it I guess its good to go. -Djsasso (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't accepted it yet. I am still waiting to see if he will or not. Razorflame 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether to accept or not. Obviously, I'd like to help out further, but I fear that I wouldn't get enough support in order to pass. CU is one of the most powerful tools on Wikimedia, which is why it's only given to certain people under strict requirements. While of course I feel I have the knowledge and suitability for this, others may not agree, and I don't know if it's worth accepting if it's going to be a SNOW situation. Majorly talk 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You will never know if it will be a SNOW close or not until you go for it. I feel that you won't have any problems with it, but that is my own opinion. Cheers, Razorflame 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Do bear in mind I had an RFB recently, that failed quite badly. Majorly talk 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of the users who opposed your RfB have either retired or haven't edited this Wikipedia since then. Most of the people who supported do still edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Plus, I don't think that that should have any impact on what I have nominated you for. Cheers, Razorflame 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I do believe he also failed a RfCU request before as well. But the situation was alot different back then. Atleast I think it was you....if it wasn't then just slap me with a trout. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was him. Razorflame 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking about it. I'm also talking to Eptalon to see if another CU is actually needed. I'd prefer it if someone else ran at the same time as well. Majorly talk 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had a failed RFCU as well. But that was indeed a different situation, and we really didn't need another at that point. Majorly talk 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already proposed to nominate Kennedy for CheckUser as well on his talk page. Don't worry, Majorly, I won't let you run alone ;). Cheers, Razorflame 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Idea is very simple: ideally, we will have a few people who volunteered for CU, and some candidates for bureaucrat will be more popular than others. We need at least one CU, and ideally 2 crats. This means we must nominate at least 2-3 CUs, and 4-5 Crats, in the hope one of the nominees makes it. Another reason: Chenzw volunteered for Crat, in a week's time we will know whether he made it. People should at the moment focus on his nomination, and not be distracted by others. In other words: at the very least, we need 1 crat and 1 CU. --Eptalon (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already nominated both RyanCross and Majorly for CheckUser. I was also thinking about nominating Synergy for Checkuser as well. Cheers, Razorflame 17:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RF, it might be better to halt with the nominations. I would consider nominating people for bcrat instead of CU because fewer people are eligible for checkusership. Majorly talk 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am done nominating the Checkusers now. I was only going to nominate both you and RyanCross for CU at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Razorflame, and I don't believe all of those you have "nominated" are 18 or above Soup Dish (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Increase in vandalism

Hi there all. I have noticed an increase in the amount of vandalism that has been occuring on this site ever since that note about flagged revisions has hit the news worldwide. I was expecting something along these lines, however, I believe that the amount of vandalism on this site has increased substantially since the amount we've been getting for the past couple of weeks. I just wanted to warn everyone on this site to keep on your toes, as we seem to be a magnet for vandalism lately. Cheers, Razorflame 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why were you expecting something like this? Toliar (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It does indeed seem to be increased as of late, but it's not unmanageable. Juliancolton (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup scoring bot problem?

The Wikicup bot has not updated the WikiCup Pools since the 25th at about 18:00 Eastern time, what's up?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked the Bot's owner? He would more likely be able to tell you what is going on with his bot. --Creol(talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is the Bot owner?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 07:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
User:ST47 according to the bots flag request. --Creol(talk) 08:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tharnton345

I'd like to propose a ban of this editor. Just lately, he has become increasingly disruptive on this project, posting absurd comments such as questions about his death, whiny comments about not getting a Christmas greeting, calling another user a "dope" because they called Kosovo a country (admin only), claiming he looks like a "dick" because he is last on a friends list, claiming he looks like an "absolute fucking shitty dick" (in big), again because he is last on a friends list. These are just some of his immature comments. There's also this, which is highly hypocritical, considering he called users "dope" and "troll". He has had something like 5 RFAs, all of which were obvious fails. I'm thinking he is becoming a net negative to Simple. Majorly talk 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a ban, but I have to admit to running across most of those diffs on my own and being somewhat concerned. The question about his death was just... bizarre. EVula // talk // 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A ban on edits to project and user talk space would be fine. Majorly talk 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Project and user talk space is fine with me (except when the user talk space directly concerns an article). Maybe a 1-3 month ban to see how it goes. I support the idea, but that's just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't. TurboGolf 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not? What positivity have you brought to the project space, other than blatant attention seeking? Majorly talk 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think just remove his non valid opposes in votes. Other from that, a ban seems a little harsh to me. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The opposes are a non-issue in my opinion. A 'crat can ignore those. We're talking about the rest of the above. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yot, even for the blatant attention seeking on this page, the attacks on other editors, and the ridiculous comments about him looking like a... well you know what. Majorly talk 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and behave better. TurboGolf 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I am completely opposed to a ban as that's way too harsh, but a block, maybe. I think you're over reacting a little (not by much), Majorly, maybe a 45 Day block?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If this was enwiki, he'd have been blocked for his behaviour long ago. I don't see this as an overreaction at all; these are legitimate concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally agree, but a large percentage of editors here are already banned/blocked from EN, so if their "style" was used here, there wouldn't be many editors left! Soup Dish (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but a straight ban is still harsh, bans are for when a user has exhausted the communities patients, which this user hasn't at this point in time.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This user has most certainly exhausted our patience. Juliancolton (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Bull, we have not even tried near enough to straighten him out it took 4 blocks before I was banned on en.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I will Support a year long ban at least, maybe longer. FRSign Here 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! A year? If banned it shouldn't last anymore than 2 months, IMO.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Bans are supposed to be preventative, so a namespace ban seems more appropriate, as that sort of editing needs to be prevented. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at what he has done. He acts so inmature and should be able to mature in one year at least. FRSign Here 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black? It was the community's good faith that allowed you back after your own silly immaturity, FR... :/ PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(Double edit conflict) I was trying to say that.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally I try to keep out of this sort of bickering, but this "calling another user a "dope" because they called Kosovo a country (admin only)" is a serious problem, we do not need to abuse people at any time. I am not sure a ban is the answer, let's give him a final chance, any more of the above and I would support a ban Peterdownunder (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Per Peter above, give him a final warning on his user talk. Then block (or ban) if he continues. Let us not forget this is a project, and not a playground. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with NVS above. Give a final warning on his or her talk page and then block if any further disruption occurs. Cheers, Razorflame 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset) I think I was the first to suggest this ban, so i'll clarify what I had in mind. A ban on all Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk: User: User talk: (Except his own) space pages unless it is constructive edits such as reporting vandalism, vandal warning etc. At this stage a full ban or block would be punitive and would not achieve anything. If the user breaks the "terms" of the ban, then we can look at blocking for short periods of time. If the user is "reformed" or w/e then the ban can be lifted, I suggest 3 months-1 year before a review is made. Thoughts? Goblin 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sound good.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We could also look into mentoring though i'm not sure if it would be particularly succesful going by past experience. As for his current !votes, we should let them stand provided that they are not stupid or w/e, though that would be at the 'crat's discretion regardless. Best, Goblin 23:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would Support a project-space ban and a mentorship with an admin (such as Synergy or Kennedy). Shapiros10 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea (for 3 months), but I think he should have only two chances before a full ban/long term block (6 months?) is imposed. - tholly --Talk-- 08:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As I am the one who is getting banned, I would prefer a month-long ban. TurboGolf 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like 2 more warnings, as Tholly suggested. TurboGolf 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was calling the IP a 'dope' because he thought Kosovo wasn't a country. TurboGolf 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are currently the one considered for a ban, I don't think you are in any position to prefer ban times. Chenzw  Talk  08:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes: as YOU are the one being banned, you should not influence the decision at all. And a ban is permanent, a block would be for a certain time. Indef blocks implement bans. Two warnings is OK, but that doesn't mean you are meant to 'use the warning up'. - tholly --Talk-- 08:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
And please post everything at once, ec x2 before Chenzw came along. - tholly --Talk-- 08:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(Just a procedural note, bans can be permanent or of fixed duration. Blocks implement bans only when there's ban evasion, or in cases where the editor is banned from the entire wiki. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
I did post everything at once. TurboGolf 08:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shapiros10's Ban/Mentoring Plan

I will be working on a ban/mentoring plan in my userspace. When it is finished, I shall post the link here. Shapiros10 13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

here it is. Shapiros10 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I Support Shap's plan. Especially that last note at the bottom about learning policies. ѕwirlвoy  16:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) See my comment(s) below. ѕwirlвoy  16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as well.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r

Comment Why aren't other regular editors such as myself noted in the possibility of a mentorship? I am quite knowledgable about the policies and I wouldn't mind doing the mentorship as well. Cheers, Razorflame 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As was decided with FastReverter, someone would require a) the extreme level of trust an admin has and b) the tools to block. It's nothing personal, but admin mentors just tend to work better as I've seen. Shapiros10 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I think mentorship is a good idea. TurboGolf 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you refrain from being a part of this discussion Tharnton, as it would only seem to be harmful to your position here. Razorflame 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. TurboGolf 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally I would agree, but in this case, supporting his own mentorship is a good sign. it shows that tharnton is willing to be mentored. Shapiros10 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If you were up for a possible community ban, the user in question (I.E. you), should not be a part of the discussion as it could definitely bring up a possibility for a COI or other such things. Razorflame 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, but this is a proposal for mentorship. While I agree that Tharnton should not comment on the subject anymore, the edit in question showed no COI, just that he agreed to being mentored. Shapiros10 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support mentorship idea, but I think a clause for editing pages like WP:VIP should be added in, as well as editing the AN when admin attention is required. SteveTalk 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the plan, but I think reasonable exceptions should be allowed such as the use of WP:VIP as Steve Crossin said. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, do not agree with a mentorship plan. This child is a timewaster, and I think we are being lenient even letting him edit articles. Majorly talk 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Majorly. Just get him out. How well do you think he can edit? He'll make mistakes and we'll have to follow him. I support a ban. ѕwirlвoy  16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with majorly. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont really feel mentoring will help. Agree with Majorly Kennedy (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support as long as he is allowed to edit WP:VIP and WP:ANI as mentioned above. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I, Tharnton345, the baddest user on wikimedia, would like to banned. TurboGolf 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop with the self pity, Tharnton.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Ban

Propose project ban Clearly having a net negative effect on the project Soup Dish (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Project ban and by the looks of it, Djasso and Majorly do to. Can we just get this over with please? ѕwirlвoy 
  • Support Ban from entire project (just in case people are confused, not just project space). Majorly talk 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ban from simple.wikipedia.org, totally. MC8 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support complete ban. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support project ban user does not contribute anything worthwhile towards this project and needs to go. If this user is causing other users to leave this project, that is a sure sign that something is wrong here that needs to be fixed. Cheers, Razorflame 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I wasted my time on a mentoring plan. :P Shapiros10 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support I am too bad to be on this project. TurboGolf 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have struck you vote Tharton as this is about you so you cannot vote, and self pity will not be tolerated, IMO.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose - must we really resort to a project wide ban?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to be an ass, but seriously, anything less than a hard stance is just asking for future wastes of time. Ban for a year; we can see how much maturing has occurred then. EVula // talk // 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess if it must be done, I really want to see Tharnton improve. Which is more than i can say about en when it come to me.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Kennedy (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - But not an indefinite ban, probably 2-3 years, then we will see how he has matured. Chenzw  Talk  11:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, long-term (as in: half a year and longer) bans are counter-productive, most of the time. Secondly, is Tharnton really seen as such a problem for Wikipedia? - Of what I have seen there seems to be willingness to improve, so rather than banning, we should try to help him get an accepted editor of this wikipedia. I know this is neither youtube nor facebook. This is about making an encyclopedia that is easy to understand. Editors being sociable and generally nice to talk to is a side-effect. So in my opinion, we should first try with socialisation measures, so some kind of mentoring would probably be a good thing. As to the mentoring, it should probably be done by a (or a number of) trusted members of the community. These are just my thoughts, anyone is free to disagree. --Eptalon (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Reluctantly. I agree with a lot of points Eptalon raises above, but that simply won't work in practice. In order for someone to learn, they have to have an understanding about what the project's about, and not simply attempt to fit in. It has come to the point where his edits are disrupting the project on a fairly regular basis, and despite being warned, he has been repentant and continued nonetheless. I agree with Archer7, actually, that his age is a big issue in this. That's not ageist, just common sense. Mentoring will be ineffective in both the short term and the relatively long term. Mentoring will, in my opinion, serve to waste both his time and our time. I would like Tharnton to take a relatively long and enforced break away from Wikipedia, to think about what others have said, and we can re-evaluate the situation at a later date. But right now, I don't see mentorship as a viable option. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportIs overall unhelpful. FRSign Here 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per PeterSymonds. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, I didn't realise how young this user is. That shouldn't be held against them if they can prove they are mature enough to edit, but that clearly is not the case here. A one year ban should hopefully mature this user somewhat. SteveTalk 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I move to close this with the result of ban tharnton for one year during this time he can learn policies and hopefully mature. ѕwirlвoy  00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Synergy for one year. Move along. ѕwirlвoy  00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrators calling vandals 'idiots'

Here on Simple English Wikipedia, I see admins calling Vandals 'idiots'. This is not very nice. So why is this? TurboGolf 08:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree. Calling them idiots is not very nice. But vandalising WP isn't either is it? If you were called an idiot here, you would be less likely to come back. So perhaps that is the thinking behind it. Its not a big issue. They mostly are idiots anyway :) the vandals I mean. Kennedy (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Kennedy. Majorly talk 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Majorly. Razorflame 15:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Razorflame. Kennedy (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with you all. Whether you like what they have done or not, admins are still bound by policy. This should not ever be done, even to a vandal. TheAE talk 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we were all just poking a llittle fun at the vandals; it wasn't like we were actually meaning what we said ;). Cheers, Razorflame Public (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Razorflame Public. Majorly talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well alrighty then. ;) TheAE talk 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with everyone. Even though I am an enwiki and commons vandal, I not a vandal here. In fact I am one of Simple English Wikipedia's finest users. :D TurboGolf 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what a vandal has done or if you mean it or not, there is still another human being on the other side. Would you like it if you were called an idiot?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If I was being idiot, it would be justified. Majorly talk 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE states, "Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other." Not calling "idiots." TheAE talk 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to wikilawyer all day, WP:IAR, a policy, trumps WP:SPADE, an essay Soup Dish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
To me that seems a little heartless, Soup.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
IAR shouldn't ever be used to avoid policy (or policy essays). You could say that for NPOV, blocking, etc. IAR is used only when something keeps you from contributing to the encyclopedia. TheAE talk 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If I was called called an idiot then I would revert the personal attack against me then I would warn tjhe user whoi made the personal attack against me. TurboGolf 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The only real issue is whether it encourages them by getting a reaction out of us. Vandals aren't going to suddenly stop and think "OMFG WHAT AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE?" just because we call them an idiot. So it's not that big of an issue really. Archer7 - talk 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"I am an enwiki and commons vandal"... 9_9. But anyway, I think civility is important. If a vandal is editing pages going "User:X is a fag" or something like that, I think responding to it with something like "You're an idiot" is just descending down to their level. Shouldn't we show that we're better than that? SteveTalk 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
IAR is completely, totally, and utterly wrong to use in this case. I can think of no feasible example where calling someone an idiot (regardless of how much it may be justified) improves the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The flaw in the logic of that argument is assuming no such feasible example exists because you can't think of one! And come on, you must see how it is slightly amusing to compare the amount of time this thread has wasted compared to the initial incident in question?!? Soup Dish (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about the debate or how much time is/isn't being squandered here; my point is that your citing IAR was way, way off the mark. Read en:Wikipedia:Understanding IAR. EVula // talk // 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New page patrolling

Hi there all. I was wondering if it would be at all possible for us to be able to get new page patrolling on the Simple English Wikipedia (the kind that the English Wikipedia has). Would this be at all possible? Cheers, Razorflame 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can file the bug tonight, unless there are any sensible objections. I've been wanting this also. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What does patrolling do? Majorly talk 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
(multiple c/c)Not really needed. See Special:Newpages, or have a direct link in your browser. Unlike enwiki, we aren't inundated with pages, so new pages won't flood the log. It'll be easy enough to do it manually. Just my 2p. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it could be done manually, but currently, only administrators are allowed to patrol here. I would appreciate it if autoconfirmed users here would be allowed to patrol new pages as well, and for the yellow highlights to be in the new pages. While it might not be needed now, it will be needed down the road, so why not get it working now? Also, I am itching for another way to help to community out :). Cheers, Razorflame 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the point is new pages don't need to be patrolled really because people are quick to qd bad pages etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then. Never mind. Razorflame 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New propose guideline

I have copied a proposed guideline from en that I think would be useful here, it called, "Wikipedia:Use common sense". Please check it out and share your opinion on what should become of it on it's talk page. Thank you!-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Block/Ban templates

On blocking/banning templates that do not have a place on their own and the {{banned}} template, I see people using 'editing' instead of 'changing'. Why is this? TurboGolf 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also on the {{semi-retired}} template, on blocking reasons (see "cannot edit own talk page"), on usertalkpages and [formerly] on reverting summaries (i.e. Reverted edits by 83.67.71.54 to last version by ZedBee). TurboGolf 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone gonna reply? TurboGolf 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Relax, it's been less than an hour since your first post. Juliancolton (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And is anyone gonna reply? TurboGolf 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Calm down; asking if anyone is going to reply isn't going to make people reply. Perhaps they, like me, are confused as to what you're asking about; Template:Banned uses "change", not "edit", and has since before you asked the question (same with Template:Semi-retired). If you're asking why people say "edit", that's the word that is generally used, and sometimes people forget that it should be "change" here. EVula // talk // 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually changed both templates to say "change/changing". But why didn't people use "change"v in the first place? TurboGolf 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, "that's the word that is generally used, and sometimes people forget that it should be 'change' here". EVula // talk // 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A pre-pre-policy proposal

Just to throw this one into the open. This project is meant to be for Simple English. Before I begin drafting one, would I be wasting my time if I suggested ALL pages on this project are in Simple English, namely not just the articles? Soup Dish (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That is already the policy, just some of them haven't been as translated as they should be. -Djsasso (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I mean all of the non-articles as well? Such as this page, RFA, AN, RCFU, RFD, etc? Soup Dish (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So do I. -Djsasso (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I see! It's just that Simple is a small and perhaps would be helped by people who understand Simple English. But if they understand Simple English, surely all the discussion should be in Simple English, too? Soup Dish (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Most discussion, I find, in my opinion, should be either simple or complex, depending upon whether or not the person who initiated the discussion wanted it to be in either simple or complex English. Razorflame 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is discussion on the German Wikipedia in English, then? Soup Dish (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree, I don't know how easy it will be to get people to use simple in discussions though. (Ironically I did just have a conversation in english on German wiki.) -Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I also realize I misunderstood, I thought you just meant the RFA page itself not the actual discussions. You should write something up along those lines. I would agree with it. -Djsasso (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some discussions on the German Wikipedia are in English, as well as on the Japanese Wikipedia, and several other Wikipedias. Cheers, Razorflame 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can get with the simplification of all pages, but, I can not promise anyone that I will be able to discuss things in simple english. That may not happen. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that everything in this project should be in Simple English, because this is Simple English Wikipedia. TurboGolf 08:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. The mainspace is the project here, everything else is to assist that. Making editors force discussions in simple English would be a bit much. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think all pages apart from discussion pages (such as this one) should be in Simple English. Editors should try to use Simple English here too, but shouldn't be expected to I don't think. Of course, our policies, guidelines, interface, templates, articles etc should all be in Simple English. Majorly talk 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion pages sound like a little much, I agree with Majorly, in this case.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Majorly; there needs to be consistency, but discussion is a bit too much. EVula // talk // 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Change in policy for renaming pages?

I've been a member since mid-December, and I have a page in my user space that I'd like to take live. I can't seem to find the move button I keep reading about. Has the policy changed? Do I need to have been a member for more than 4 days now?

Rainbowgoblin (talk)

You also need to have at least 10 edits to be able to move pages. Cheers, - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)