Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 3

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.

Percentage

For the numbers so that we are clear... Can someone who is a bot guru (I'm not a guru) :) make for us something that will display the current percentage on the RFA talk page so that this is easy for me when I close? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a thing already exists Jon. It is located at the top of [1]; unless you meant something else. fr33k man 04:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) You could check User:Chris G Bot/Rfx or divide the total number of support !votes by the overall !votes to come up with a percentage. With those options in mind, I don't really think it is necessary to have a percentage on the RfX itself. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the bot compilation now... I've been doing it by hand for how long now? Jon@talk:~$ 04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to make sure you earn your paycheck.

Lauryn Ashby (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To which problem is this a solution? Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadminship to De-adminship

Please change it from "Deadminship" to "De-adminship" confused me at first. Or can a template be added? Template:Wrongtitle PolymathSJ^Talk 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say it's not a big deal, but this is probably a good idea, especially given as how it emphasizes the prefix and looks less like "dead man ship". It's simpler. Kansan (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Can the template be added until it is fixed? PolymathSJ^Talk 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait to see if a consensus exists. Kansan (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might look simplier, but proper english would be to not use a hyphen. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a hyphen? When I first saw "deadminship", I searched until I figured it out. Other people may have the same problem. What about "DeAdminship? PolymathSJ^Talk 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still would not be a proper english word. We say deconstruct not de-construct or DeConstruct. We shouldn't confuse people learning english by using bad english. I do understand its easier to read with the hypen don't get me wrong. It's just that its not proper syntax. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Can a template be made or a note be placed to show what "Deadminship" is on the page? PolymathSJ^Talk 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated words are quite proper in English, as are non-hyphenated words. 'Adminship' is a strange torso of a word in any event. The issue here is simply a practical one: without the hyphen the first four letters read 'Dead', and are open to misreading. Stick a hyphen in and forget about it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some instances. Not in this one. Either way it happens so rarely just go with it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for something other than Deadminship too. Considering its called requests for permissions and not requests for adminship I think we should keep it comparible and call it something similar to "Requests for Removal or Permissions" or similar. Hoots (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Request for Remover of Administrative Rights" PolymathSJ^Talk 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in a section basically called that Current requests for removal of rights -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it still caller "Deadminship"? PolymathSJ^Talk 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we try to make it easy to understand. If you want adminship we called it Request for Adminship. The opposite of that is Request for Deadminship. Makes it much easier to understand if the names are the similar. Not all removal of rights are deadminships. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes it easier to me. Hazard-SJ^Talk 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Curious

Is it even possible for an ip address to be given any of these rights? 74.109.217.103 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Hazard-SJ^Talk 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"Bureaucrat (also called a "crat") is an user who can grant the admin and bot permissions" - should be; .....is a user who can.... 80.193.248.34 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. -- Menti fisto 10:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move

My full reason got truncated. Here it is:

There has been an awful lot of discussion about the name of this page in the last few years, many of which simply stagnate and they do not get resolved, simply forgotten about. Therefore, I am going to be bold and move this page to one of the frequently proposed. It can still, and probably will be, referred to, de facto, as RfA, but the title at the top of the page misses out 75% of the possible flags discussed on this page. This name is also used to great effect on other wikis; why can it not be used here? Finally, it is simpler -- "adminship" is not a word to be found in any dictionary; "permissions", however, was first recorded in 1410, appearing in a Latin text 599 years ago.

— μ 19:59, Saturday December 19 2009 (UTC)

Subpages for RfIs

I just wonder if we could get back to use subpages for requests for importrights. Otherwise, it is hard to always notice when someone asks for this flag. -Barras 11:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, didn't catch that the last one even happened because it wasn't formatted properly. Only just happened to catch the second one because I was on close to when it was created. Personally I think we should just remove the section from the page to discourage non-regular editors from asking for it since its a tool that really shouldn't be given out to anyone who isn't very knowledgeable in the local wiki policies etc. Not sure when it got added onto the page by someone. -DJSasso (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you push to remove this came from all of a sudden. There is a page on this Wikipedia:Importers Jon@talk:~$ 00:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't all of a sudden, I've always said we shouldn't give it out. When we gave it out the first time it was considered an exception to the norm but then someone listed it on the page of request for permissions. Not sure when that happened. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost and need help from an administrator I suspect

I'm a new editor at regular Wikipedia. I've convinced a local high school in France to use students to learn English by writing Simple English articles. I volunteering to do this.The program begins next Monday at 2:00 Paris time and I just read that an Administrator needs to drop the limit of six in order to allow for the nine students enrolled. How do I do this and where do they register? regular Wikipedia?Mlane78212 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I've answered your question over at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Help from administrator enrolling 9 students. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

Was going to be bold and do it, but its blacklisted. I think we should have this. Was there any reason why its not on yet? It can only help. Normandie 13:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to import EN's system (which we should because no one probably knows how else to do it), {{editnotice load}} will need to be imported and changes made to the system messages. With these kind of changes, I would rather this be discussed on ST first. By the way, the blacklist entry was introduced when stuff was copied from EN's blacklist. Chenzw Talk 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]