User talk:American Eagle/Archive 2

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not change what is on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or add comments to an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


About "it has some incorrect things in it": I know you said you didn't want to argue about it, and I respect that, but I would very much appreciate it if you can tell me exactly where you think I was incorrect. That would give me a chance, if I agree, to correct my mistakes or at least to behave differently in the future. If not, I would appreciate it if you would think about striking out where you said that, because I can't correct behaviours if I don't know what they are, or defend against them if I disagree. Striking out words doesn't necessarily mean you've changed your mind. You could simply say that you don't want to continue the discussion at this time. Coppertwig(talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I could go through it, but it may take a while. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What happened on SEWP: If you'll look back in this log, you will see that Gwib blocked him for a week. We had full consensus, and complete discussion on IRC, for a week-long block. But Kennedy decided to block him indefinitely, which there was not consensus, not enough discussion from the community, to do so. I undid it, reverting back to what Gwib had done. Kennedy went ahead and reverted me, which was wheel-warring. I resisted, and did not revert him again, even though he was doing wrong.
What if one or two oppose votes were left out? I actually didn't "argued that Microchip08's oppose vote was not a good reason because it wasn't about this candidate." I said, "That is the only reason you are giving, nothing about me?" I was asking what his reasons were for opposing me, and not debating weather or not the vote should be counted. He said nothing about the candidate, but only said the number of current and needed B'crats. I did not argue anything.
Level of support needed for an RfB: I really didn't like how you took the Steward's comments as votes. That because one of the Stewards supported what you had chosen, that it makes the vote 2-1 and you did right. Personally, I don't like how you did that.
Other reasons: When you said, "One of the supports was a weak support", I fully disagree that you'd think that a weak vote is a half vote. When you vote support, or oppose, you are voting that way. That is like saying that a Strong Support is 1 1/2 votes. That is not right at all.
Again, I am not trying to overturn your decision, it is done and I will not go against it. You may discuss/debate/explain any of these things now. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I've made some changes in what I wrote at Simple talk. I apologize for getting some things wrong and for saying some things that were not necessary.
I'm sorry you didn't like how I took the Steward's comments as votes. You said you didn't like the way I did that, but you didn't say how you would have done it if you were doing it. Anyway, that's not the only thing I did. I used a few different ways and got the same answer. So, if you like, you can look at it this way: because the stewards disagreed, and because you talked about the way it's done at Simple English Wikipedia, I looked at numbers for RfBs at Simple English Wikipedia and found comments that RfBs have to be at least 75% (or more), and yours was (if you count weak support as 1) 73%.
About how to count weak support or weak oppose: you said "That is not right at all," but I think it's not a fact that it's right or wrong, but that different people will have different ways to do it. Some people like to do it one way, and some like to do it another way. I agree with the way Cromwellt talked about it here at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship on Simple English Wikipedia; nobody commented there disagreeing with it. It may also make sense to count "strong support" as counting for more than just "support". But there are some reasons not to do that, while counting "weak support" as a smaller number is different and some of the reasons for one don't work for the other. Coppertwig(talk) 02:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you get your facts right, AE, I did not wheel war and there was consensus. In fact, the only person who really opposed full ban, is you! You seem to forget this, and make up facts to suit your argument. Did you know that 73% of statistics are made up on the spot? You seem to be bitter that everyone disagreed with you, so you resort to undermining administrators and spreading flimsy lies behind my back. As you can see, I am very disapointed and angry that you have been spreading this lies without my knowledge. I am also wishing that I did not support you for adminship, as you clearly do not know what you are doing. Regards, Kennedy 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that American Eagle was the only one who opposed a full ban. At the time American Eagle changed it to a one week block, the discussion looked like this. At that time, Gwib clearly opposed an indef block ("However, I think we should leave SH (main account, IMO) blocked for only a week."), and tholly also seemed to oppose an indef block ("I support a one week block with a constant final warning hanging over the account, and no more account creations.") Please assume good faith: if something someone says is incorrect, there's no need to call it a "lie"; and I don't think what American Eagle said was incorrect.(00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) The definition of wheel-warring is not exactly clear, so different people can have different opinions about whether an action is wheel-warring. At least, I hope it won't ever happen that two admins keep reverting admin actions with both people saying "I'm not wheelwarring! You're the one who's wheelwarring! I have consensus!" !! Coppertwig(talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith? The reply I give to that is: Kennedy went ahead and reverted me, which was wheel-warring. I resisted, and did not revert him again, even though he was doing wrong." - Quoting AE further up this page. I did not wheel war, I went with consensus and indef blocked when SF was in the middle of his vandalism. Also, thing is, it is a lie. He cannot plead ignorance as he was actually involved, which he obviously knows. (Or should know). And please don't belittle me with your last sentence, that is clearly not how I have reacted. Kennedy 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
SF was not vandalizing. He really hadn't in a long time. It all started when he said he had killed himself. But he didn't vandalize at the time. Kennedy, we did not have consensus for what you did, and hadn't been discussed enough, at most a few hours. But it wasn't my intention to offend you, I am sorry for doing so. Coppertwig, lol ;). God bless, American Eagle (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Kennedy. I would like to welcome you to Simple English Wikiquote. I hope that you'll start being active here and help write some quote pages. Of course, it's up to you whether you want to, but anyway I hope you feel welcome. I'm sorry that you had the surprise and disappointment of finding that some things like that were being said about you here.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you about American Eagle. w:en:Wikipedia:Wheel war says "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." When you indef-blocked ShockingHawk the second time, you were repeating an administrative action, and apparently American Eagle opposed it, so it seems that what you did can be called wheelwarring, that what American Eagle said was not incorrect, and that it was not a lie. Please don't confuse differences of opinion with lying. See w:en:User:Coppertwig/NPOV#Respecting others' opinions.
I'm sorry about that last sentence. I was trying to make a joke, to try to help people feel better. I didn't mean that anyone had done exactly that (although I was hoping that PeterSymonds would come here and say "Oh, Coppertwig, there have been worse incidents!" and give an interesting link. :-) As far as I know, you hadn't said that American Eagle had been wheelwarring, and I didn't mean to imply that you had said that, or anything else that you didn't say. I'm sorry that the joke didn't work for you. Coppertwig(talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Aye okay. I have had enough of arguing about this. I only came here to see the "Wikiquote News" I have heard about (and haven't found - hint ;) ), and instead see people accusing me of wheelwarring and lots of incorrect information about me. As far as I am concerned now, the matter is closed. StaticFalcon, ShockingHawk, or whatever he is called this week, is blocked on simple.wikipedia, and I have displayed my displeasure at infactual information being hurled behind my back. Sorry I have no interest in Wikiquote, I won't be participating here. I shall retire quietly back to where I know what I am doing[needs proving] - Kind regards, Kennedy 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Kennedy, that is alright. You are always welcome here, but it's your choice. About The Wikiquote News, it is under construction here, I will try to make up some news this afternoon. (lol, jk :) -- American Eagle (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi. You said, "you may be blocked for looking at his userpage. My goodness." [1] I'm sorry to bother you, but I'd just like to suggest thinking about how SwirlBoy39 will feel when you write something like this. Coppertwig(talk) 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I said nothing against SB39, per se. SB39 really needs to lay off Static, honestly, all he did was say "hey." SB39, I'm sorry if you were offended by it, I was not trying to be mean to you. God bless ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

Here's a barnstar per this. ;) Very well done! But next time, try not mentioning that you deserve a barnstar, let others do that for you. :) – RyanCross (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Yeah, well, it was kinda just a joke, ;) Anyways, thank you, Ryan. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. – RyanCross (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


can you get on mibbit? try this so we can chat.StaticChristian✞ 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I did. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I g2g bye. ✞StaticChristian✞ 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


I didn't know we had a barnstar template. I just copied other barnstars. For most of the time I was here, I didn't know there was a welcome template. It was written before I started here. I noticed it when someone else used it! Coppertwig(talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently some people don't like being interrupted. Coppertwig(talk) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


can you get on IRC right now? I'm on #wikipedia. Static(talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Eek. It's not working, right now. Would email be all right? -- American Eagle (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah fine. (By any chance do you have gmail? Please create one so we can chat.) Static(talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I sent you an email invitation. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
My gmail is Static(talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


I have sent you an email at the "design" one. BTW, can i have your gmail? Shapiros10 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Much better. :) Thank you, – RyanCross (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do like it better. The huge QOTD throws the page out of proportion, but tomorrow should look nice. I love working with wikitext, html, and other coding, I understand it a lot better now. You're welcome, Ryan. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

I see you deleted Isaac newton. I think it was a real quote. Is it OK with you if I bring the page back and add to it? See w:en:Hypotheses non fingo. Coppertwig(talk) 23:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. That is why I said "Little or no meaning" and not "vandalism." Go ahead bring it back, but I suggest starting from scratch and not just undeleting it.. And also, the "N" in "Newton" is capitalized. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


get on gmail. 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiquote News Issue 1

The Wikiquote News.jpg
Issue 1 - November, 23, 2008

599 users, 272 articles, 2,965 pages, 12,922 changes.

Special Announcements Other Information

  • Statistics and Goals Simple English Wikiquote has set a goal to reach 300 articles at the end of the year.
  • Christmas and other Holidays A Main Page for Christmas is being created here and here. General discussion is here.
  • New gadgets Simple English Wikiquote has new gadgets for use. Please check them out in your settings.

From a selected user...

An article about Simple English Wikiquote's future, by American Eagle (read it!)

  • 250 articles Simple English Wikiquote now has 250 articles with the creation of Thomas Jefferson.
  • New Main Page design The Main Page has been redesigned. It is basically the same, but with squared corners and fixed spacing.
  • Reported bug Coppertwig couldn't view pages, so he reported a bug (16387) at 23:25 November 18, 2008, but it is now all in order.

The Wikiquote News links

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. I guess I've been editing en.wikiquote too much that I've forgotten this was simple.wikiquote. :) – RyanCross (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. Your name souldn't be RyanCross. It should be Ryann00b! Static(talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"quick deletion"??

[2]RyanCross (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

718smiley.svg PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just another of my well-though out attempts to receive the New messages bar. ;) As you can see, it worked out exactly as planned. And I did do it with that purpose. ;) American Eagle (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, looks like I fell for another one of your schemes. ;-) – RyanCross (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for patching up Xenophon for me.[3] I'm far better at wikignome edits than I am at creating new articles, but I still thought I'd try to do my part in getting us to 300. ;) EVula // talk // 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So close...

Bah, so close to not needing any post-creation corrections. :)

However, I was torn about whether to include quotes on the "dead as a door-nail" bit. It's narration from the story, versus actual quotes like the others; does that still warrant quotation marks around the quote? EVula // talk // 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the fact that it was narrated, of which I didn't know before. In my opinion, using quotes around actual quotes is one of the most important parts of Simple English Wikiquote. We use many other versions ({{simple}}, {{meaning}}, {{about}}, etc.), so it is very important to establish exactly what the person said, as opposed to our interpretation. In this case, I think it should to noted that it was said by the narrator, but the quotes should be kept. Great job on the article, by the way, it was very good. American Eagle (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that totally solves my concern about it. The quotes are perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't look like it's coming from a character.
Thanks for the kind words about the article. I'm pretty happy with it; I'm not much of a content writer, so it was a bit of a stretch. Plus, it put us a bit closer to 300, and just in time for Christmas. :) EVula // talk // 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I enjoyed seeing the special Main Page up. All the best to you on this holiday. Coppertwig(talk) 14:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Merry Christmas from me too. :-) RyanCross @ 23:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) American Eagle (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When unblocking

Hi, American Eagle.

I would like to encourage you, whenever you disagree with an edit or action, to start by discussing it with the user on their talk page. (See w:en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community.") If someone has blocked a user, and you want to unblock, it's normal to discuss it with the blocking admin. The blocking admin might have reasons you don't know about, or may be able to explain the whole situation, or help you decide. It's better to discuss and have consensus. See for example here: "... did not even as for any other block, discuss with the blocking administrator". Coppertwig(talk) 23:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disputes, it clearly says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." This was correct. What SwirlBoy39 did was, at the time, clearly against policy, as it was a dispute among each other, and was used as a punishment for the IP for posting such a thing. I have a scenario for this:
"A random IP address replaces a good article with swear words and other profanity, tests, etc. Another user comes along and sees the change, and knows it is vandalism, against policy, and should be reverted. Should that user, the second one, revert the breaking-policy vandalism, or should he go to the vandal and discuss the edit with him? Clearly, it should be undone, as it was against policy."
That, Coppertwig, is exactly what I have done. Another user made a block that broke policy, and I undid it. I see now the IP has repeated his vandalism after warning, so I am alright with the 1 day block. American Eagle (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am an admin and what did I do wrong? ѕwirlвoy  00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect, SwirlBoy, your admin tools mean nothing in terms of who you are as an editor. What you do with them is quite different; however, it does not place you in any higher authority than anyone else. User = admin, except in the technical sense, which we're not really talking about. Having said that, I don't disagree that the one day block was in order, as it was clearly Static and he was warned about this many times before. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If an editor is goading another editor (which is exactly what I would call the IP's initial edit), it's harassment, not a content dispute. (though I will admit that the whole Static "thing" happened before I started editing here, so I might not have all the details) Generally speaking, the admin who is being harassed is well within their right to block (I've done it many times). Since we're quoting a bunch of enwiki policies (do we not have local pages we can reference? this might be a good time to start drawing some up), I'd like to point out w:en:Wikipedia:Wheel war and w:en:Wikipedia:Harassment. EVula // talk // 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The IP (whom is probably Static, as least in this case) was not harassing, per se. He wanted to propose the de-sysopping of SB39, based on what he told him on IRC. Now, Static can use that when doing a personal judgment of SB39, but IRC logs cannot be published publicly, via Freenode policy. It is also against Wikimedia policy, so the post-warning actions warrant a short block, as he did it several times, and didn't heed to the warning he was given. It wasn't harassing, but we all agree it was not inline with policy. SB39's initial block was against policy - that was my point above. American Eagle (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe SwirlBoy should have asked an uninvolved administrator to do the block. (I'm not sure about that.) But when you see a block that you think is wrong, then this is the policy: "In general, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." w:Wikipedia:Blocking policy SwirlBoy acted in good faith; that wasn't vandalism, even if it was wrong, so please don't talk about vandalism in that way. Also, think about whether you're able to act impartially in situations involving FastReverter. Coppertwig(talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where the IP made it clear that he was trying to get SwirlBoy desysopped.[4][5] It looks like harassment to me... but I also think we're just spinning our wheels at this point. I think we can all agree that the unauthorized IRC quoting was bad, the block that's currently in place is justified, and that further stupidity from Static (regardless of the username or IP) should warrant additional measures. We've got better things to do right now than over-discuss this whole matter; chiefly, I've got a New Year's Even party to go to. :D
Let's just put it behind us and get back to creating a kick-ass Wikiquote. Er, after we get done with the the parties, of course... EVula // talk // 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was his intent (see here). But I fully agree, I don't see what good will come from more discussion – let's move on (without any hard feelings). Have fun at your party, EVula, and Happy New Year Everyone! American Eagle (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


You seem to have forgotten me when you delivered the new Simple Wikiquote news...cheers, Razorflame 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi there....could you get onto IRC plesae? I wanna talk to you about some stuff. Cheers, Razorflame 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying. It didn't work on Chrome or Firefox, I'm trying IE. We'll see if I make it. :) TheAE talk 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


You said, "though it is obvious that he should have not !voted and closed the request," [6] That is not obvious to me. I'm doing what I said I would do when I was nominated to be a bureaucrat. I have always been willing to do some things and not other things, as I said then. If it was going to cause a problem, I was ready to resign. I feel that I'm free to choose to do the work of a bureaucrat or to resign; I don't get paid for it so I don't think people can expect me to do work I don't want to do. I don't think it's fair to say that I must not vote on a discussion; and just not voting might not magically make me able to be very impartial. I see no reason why a discussion can't be closed by an administrator at a time like this. Can you explain why you think it's obvious that I should have closed the request? Thanks. Coppertwig(talk) 02:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a big problem (like to de'crat) that you did it. But, consensus went against it, with all the users on Simple talk and the Steward on Meta saying you shouldn't have done it. I meant through consensus that you shouldn't have done it, not really my personal opinion. (Though, Coppertwig, I do think it is your job, as a 'crat, not to do that.) TheAE talk 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't have done what? Coppertwig(talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that you should, firstly, vote in a RfX where you are the only bureaucrat on the project, and secondly, refuse to close it as well. I don't believe you should be de'cratted for it, but I wish you hadn't have done it, both for my own good (obviously, as I only want to benefit the community with the tools), and for the drama is has created. I hate drama, and wish we could all just edit articles and build a collection of quotes – Wikiquote. But, drama always comes along. TheAE talk 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if any steward on meta said I shouldn't have done something. (Can you give a quote?) I think birdy meant that the community should have made rules about how RfBs are usually closed, after your first RfB and before your second RfB, so that there would be no problems.
About voting if I'm the only bureaucrat: I don't agree. I think that usually on small projects, when there is only one bureaucrat or a very small number of bureaucrats, usually the bureaucrats vote in the discussions if they want to, and sometimes they close a discussion even if they voted in it. When I accepted your nomination I didn't agree that I wouldn't vote in discussions that I wanted to vote in. Also see my answer to PeterSymonds.
Oh, I see: you think that because consensus said that I should close the discussion, then I should close it. I don't agree. The community can make rules about how things are done. I can follow the rules. But the community can't make rules that say that I have to do some work when I don't want to do the work. The community can make rules about how the work is done, but not about making me do it. Or, the community can make those rules, but I don't have to follow those rules, because I decide how I want to spend my time. If there's a big problem because of that, I can resign. I don't think there's a big problem.
But that's OK: we don't need to agree. Coppertwig(talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not change what is on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or add comments to an old one, please do so on the current talk page.