Jump to content

User talk:SwirlBoy39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikiquote
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pmlinediter in topic Simple Wikiquote News: Issue 7


This user is no longer active on the Simple English Wikiquote.
Notice Unfortunately, it is my time to say good bye. Due to recent drama (whether it may be onwiki, or irc etc I am parting from IRC, wiki and everywhere else. I want to thank the community for a fun filled year or so. I enjoyed my time here as both an editor and an admin. I am now resigning at Meta. Thank you, and cheers. ѕwirlвoy  02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Simple English Wikiquote!

We hope you are happy editing here. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikiquote:Community Portal and Help:Contents.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "Village Pump" at Wikiquote:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) after them.

Happy editing! --American Eagle (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Simple English Wikiquote! Coppertwig 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

We're both here at the same time! It's good to see another user. It was very quiet here. Now you and American Eagle are here so more things are happening. Coppertwig 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

What are the urgent things?

You said, "I have noticed some things that need administration/clean up. Please please sysop me so I can help clean up." [1]. Please tell me the urgent things that you found. Coppertwig 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


You said, "Mine hasn't been voted on yet. I can say that because there is no canvass rule yet." Maybe you just wanted to say something funny. It's good to say funny things and laugh. But here, we follow the policies of other projects. We haven't finished writing the policies here, so we follow the policies of English Wikiquote, Simple English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. When we have a policy here that's different for a good reason, we follow the policy here. When the policy is different because it wasn't written yet or because people forgot to put something in or another bad reason, then we follow the policy of other projects. We always do what's best. Usually we can be bold because things can be reverted, but some things can't be reverted. Canvassing can't be completely reverted to make people forget things they know. Making someone sad can't be reverted. If you're not sure which policy to follow, you can talk about it at Simple talk. Coppertwig 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I said that. But it was a joke. I figured we followed the other Simple policies etc. I was just playing. Apologies. I can't believe I'm already in trouble here. SwirlBoy39 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jokes are good! Coppertwig 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edits?

Why did you revert my edits with the edit summary "rvv" as if I were vandalising your talkpage? — Jonas 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jonas, please don't put private information here. Please don't put any information that is not part of working to make Simple English Wikiquote. Coppertwig 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jonas, I asked for you to *email* the logs to me. Thanks though :) SwirlBoy39 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


Hi SwirlBoy. :-) I'm very happy to see that you're here writing some pages, SwirlBoy39, and you're doing a great job of it and I hate to say anything that might make you sad, but I need to say something about copyright. About the page Paula Abdul, see en:Wikiquote:Copyrights, which says "make sure that there are not too many quotes from any single copyrighted work." A long time ago, Sir James Paul put in many pages with many quotes from brainyquote.com, but brainyquote.com is a copyrighted website. I had to delete some pages and delete most of the quotes from some pages so that we could say that they're "fair use". I think we can take a small number of quotes from one website. I'm sorry, but I think we need to make the number of quotes on that page much smaller if they all come from brainyquote.com. Which quotes on that page do you like the best? Maybe you can choose about four quotes. I hope this won't take away too much of your fun writing pages here. It's just a small bump on the road. You are doing a great job here, adding categories and everything.:P Well anyway, I'm sorry it has to be this way, but keep up the good work you have been doing. Cheers! :D Coppertwig and RyanCross (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! maybe I deleted too many quotes at Paula Abdul. Well, they're in the page history. Which ones are from which website? Maybe we could take about four quotes from each website. Coppertwig 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have deleted quotes after all. I put them back. See here. Coppertwig 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
So there is no copyright? SwirlBoy39 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh. Actually, I don't know. Maybe Paula Abdul has copyrighted them? It's just that I had thought that these websites that collect quotes had a copyright on the collections of quotes, but according to InvisibleSun we don't really have to worry about that unless we copy the format too, if I understand correctly. If you're contributing material, you should make sure that it isn't copyrighted. Coppertwig 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

RyanCross' RfA thanks

SwirlBoy39, I would like to thank you for your support in my requests for adminship. It was successful having Coppertwig closing my RfA with 8 Supports, and 0 Opposes as the total outcome, and I am now a Wikiquote administrator. I must say, I am very happy and satisfied to help the Wikiquote community in a brand new way, and that I know the community trusts me with the administrative tools. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. Knowing the the overall community trusts me is very heartfelt, and knowing that the community believes I will do well, is very, very good feeling. When I first arrived at Simple English Wikiquote, I saw that the wiki was still growing, so I decided to start contributing to a nice wiki like Simple English Wikiquote. I worked on a lot of wikifying, copyediting, article creation, simplifying quotes, and much more things that I believe have helped improve the quality of the Simple English Wikiquote for all of the readers who come to learn. Every edit we make makes a difference, and making that difference has improved the knowledge of numerous people in our world, which makes editing all the fun. I did my best to work on articles and some general maintenance around here, and I soon realized that more administrators were needed in the most part, so I decided to try to become an administrator here when American Eagle, kindly offered to nominate me for adminship. I was thoroughly surprised how my RfA went, and I am very thankful that I can partake the duties as an administrator, and I will do my very best to help the Simple English Wikiquote community. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as swiftly as I possibly can. If you need help from an administrator like me, be my guest! You know where to ask (*wink, wink*). ;) I'm sure I could be of assistance. I would love to help you! :)

Many thanks,
RyanCross (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


I created WQ:ER. Talk about it on WQ:ST. StaticRic -(talk to da falcon)- 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! You are an administrator

A found this for you! Cherish it forever. -- American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 06:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Congratulations!

I'm laughing. I just put a message on your talk page on English Wikipedia by mistake. I wrote: "Congratulations! You are an administrator... I am just closing your RfA as "successful" and making you an administrator. Congratulations!" But then I deleted it, saying "Oops: that was supposed to be on Simple English Wikiquote." At least, I didn't give you the bureaucrat flag by mistake! Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Reply

Oh, Coppertwig, there have been worse incidents! ;) PeterSymonds 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
(laughing)! Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Haha, that is very funny! ;) Congrats, SB39! -- American Eagle (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
That was funny. Thanks! I'm so happy! SwirlBoy39 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations! (I don't know if WQ:DDTMP is a redlink, but I'll add it here and hope you get the meaning...) Juliancolton 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Haha, I get the message. It only takes a second. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations. If you ever need help, just ask! :) – RyanCross (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Was that WQ:DDTMP comment for SwirlBoy39, or for me? Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
You don't get it? In case you don't, it says, Wikiquote:Don't Delete The Main Page. ;) -- American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I got that! I was just wondering who wasn't supposed to delete the main page? Coppertwig (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh. Both. ;) PeterSymonds 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't click here! Microchip08 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Only us two? What about everybody else? Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's just a longtime joke new admins shouldn't delete the Main Page. :) -- American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
They're not? Don't listen to him, SwirlBoy39, AE is trying to turn you! Delete it! DELETE IT!!! Microchip08 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
But I am the only one who can save SwirlGirl! You mustn't do it! -- American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 17:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Compromise time? How about....half delete? :D PeterSymonds 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, no! I have an even better idea! Step one: [Click here! Step two: email stewardsATwikimedia.org requesting oversight! Microchip08 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure if anyone did delete the Main Page, it would be only an oversight. Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
mw:Oversight is better than wikt:Oversight... Microchip08 17:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The link wikt:Oversight with a big "O" didn't work, but I'm sure that was just an oversight. Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
must... resist... temptation.... to... call... Coppertwig... an.... idiot... Microchip08 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
(laughing)! But, I don't understand why that's funny ... Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have a strange sense of humour. Microchip08 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
CONGRATS!Static Christian15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I spoiled your joke, Microchip08. I suppose the oversight was supposed to be there: a sort of self-reference or maybe even a strange loop. Well, not quite a loop and not quite strange, but the same sort of idea. Must ... resist ... temptation ... to ... put ... looping ... redirects ... on ... Simple English Wikipedia. Coppertwig(talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for creating MediaWiki:Blockedtext!! I didn't even know that we needed that, and didn't have it! I might make the English simpler. Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Reply

Transwiki import

If you can, please import it with full histories. Microchip08 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In fact, you transwiki them and I'll follow up by changing WP > WQ. Microchip08 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Here's a list... :P


That enough for you? Microchip08 14:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Do you think I should be banned because of what I've done on other wikis? ✞Static Christian15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok but why? ✞Static Christian16:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok then. ✞Static Christian16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Like, why did you protect simple talk after I left a nice message? ✞StaticChristian22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just so no drama occurs. :) SwirlBoy39 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
oh.... Then lets hang out for a bit. ✞StaticChristian22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm really sorry man, we're going out to eat soon :) SwirlBoy39 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
When will you be back? ✞StaticChristian22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Sorry, but I don't like yourwiki/test wiki much. You'll come to find that those people aren't the nicest. SwirlBoy39 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? YourWiki and Test Wiki aren't even associated. Cmelbye 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Hey, whatever you did to Template:Inuse, you need to undo it. I think you transwikied or something, and it gives the credit of changes to some accounts (for example, Benniguy) who has never even created an account. I don't really understand it all, but please undo whatever you did if possible. Thanks. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


whats up? [static]

Lazy admin

Congratulations: You have been given the Lazy Admin Barnstar!

Per IRC ^_^ סּ Talk 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Static's Warnings

Okay, I want to comment on your warnings to Static. He said hey to you, and you warned him twice for it. He removed the warning, of which, IMO, should not have been given, and you gave him a final warning. I personally don't agree with any of these warnings, all he did was say "hey." Do you have another reason or something for them? Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with American Eagle. Please don't block StaticChristian using those warnings without community discussion. Maybe there's some information I didn't see, but it would have to be explained. Users can delete warnings from their talk page: see en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." Some friendly communication is fine between Wikiquotians who also contribute to the project. There is no exact rule about how much friendly communication is OK, so I think there would have to be a discussion before blocking StaticChristian for that reason. I think users can be blocked for too much friendly communication and not enough contributing to the project, but I think that can happen only after community discussion, with enough time to give many members of the community a chance to contribute to the discussion. Also, at least one of your warnings didn't give diffs. And I don't understand your warning about "your IP talk page", because I don't see any messages on User talk: Only one warning can be given for each thing a person does. Coppertwig(talk) 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
One more thing: if you don't like some kinds of messages on your talk page, you can ask a user to stop; but if there's going to be any block for continuing those messages after you ask them to stop, then I think a different administrator would have to do the block. You're not supposed to do blocks for attacks against yourself, and anyway it wasn't an attack, and anyway StaticChristian didn't put any more social messages on your talk page after you asked for it to stop. I think there would still have to be another final warning, at least, before any block. Coppertwig(talk) 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
And just a reminder: blocks for a first offense are usually for a short time, usually 24 hours or less. Coppertwig(talk) 16:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think Static knows that the object of a wiki is not to socialize, considering he has been warned for this on other wikis. Shapiros10 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know this would be brought up. So here it goes. 1). I know Static just said hey, but if I say hey back it generates into chit-chat which is frowned upon per the NOT#Myspace etc. 2) On WP, removing warnings on your talk page is 100% frowned upon, and is always reverted. He's been warned for these things on SWP etc. He even trolled MC8 and removed it. Sorry I don't have diffs ATM because I am doing HW. But I did give him warnings, and if I see all this continue, I will have to block. Simple WQ is about creating an encyclopedia. SwirlBoy39 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since when is an admin not allowed to block disruptive users without previous discussion? Maxim(talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is my view on this whole principle. If someone approaches you on your talk page and you don't want them there, you ask them to stop. If they don't stop, you start warning. If they still don't stop, it's a block. It's a harassment issue, because the user is continuing to engage the user in the same way despite being warned. Is this harsh? Not for me to judge. Admins do this sort of thing all the time; is there ever a discussion about it? No, not generally. Wipe the slate clean if we must, but Static must learn that this type of thing is not okay and he must learn that he can't always get away with it. PeterSymonds 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
SB39, there is nothing wrong with "chit-chat" and being friendly. He didn't ask who your favorite sports teams were and how your weekend went (which I honestly think is good for Simple English Wikiquote, family-like community), he said "hey." And also, it was an improper warning, I would have, if I were him, removed it also. One's talk page is there own, he didn't vandalize, anyway. Maxim, he hasn't been disruptive here. PeterSymonds, that's the point, he hasn't harrassed anyone, I say hey all the time. Static, I advise you to stay away from SB39 for now, you may be blocked for looking at his userpage. My goodness. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
PeterSymonds, I agree with you: except that if harassment happens it shouldn't be the admin who was being harassed that does the block, but another admin, just as someone who is not an admin and is being harassed needs to ask an admin to handle the situation. In this case no harassment happened, as far as I know. No community discussion is needed for blocking for harassment or disruptive behaviour, I agree, though there should be warnings and it should be behaviour that violates policies or guidelines or directly creates real disruption, not just something that somebody doesn't like or finds annoying. However, in this case warnings were given and people disagreed with some of the warnings. That shows that the warnings didn't represent consensus. In a case like that, there would have to be more of a discussion before blocking, I think. If there's to be a block for having the wrong ratio of social to mainspace edits, that is not an emergency and needs a community discussion, I think. That's different from a block for disruptive editing. I think people shouldn't block somebody without a discussion if they know that other admins disagree with the block in that situation. If a new situation comes up, that's different. Coppertwig(talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to Maxim: There was no disruptive user in this situation, as far as I know. Admins can block disruptive users without discussion; I never said they couldn't. But, I think, only if they believe their block is generally supported by community consensus, for example supported by policies and guidelines. If people have disagreed with blocking in that situation, then I think more discussion is needed before blocking. Otherwise it's like putting words into an article after somebody said on the talk page not to put those words in, and before it's been discussed properly. Coppertwig(talk) 01:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Static has shown a horrible history in the past. Here, he has trolled, spammed links to external sites, chatted it up, and more. Many users and I, mainly on IRC have decided it's time for Static to actually learn something from, shall I say immaturity? I am proposing a 24hr block per the things listed above. He needs to learn that he won't be given a little hand slap, and it'll be all better. He needs a temp block. No big deal. AE, you haven't been exactly neutral in this whole thing. But say he wasn't Static. Would you still support his actions? Honestly? I think I may impose a block if this continues. I'm sick of drama. SwirlBoy39 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. A block now would serve no purpose, and would be against the ordinary blocking policy. I strongly advise against it. PeterSymonds 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have no clue why you think saying "hey" is trolling, but the link ("spam"), and even Coppertwig agrees, is not at all wrong - it's just a wiki. And I have no problem with chatting, as long as he edits articles, templates, QOTD, etc. In your proposal, we should teach Static a lesson. That is against Wikimedia policies and not the purpose of a block. We aren't to be his mother and give him more than a "little hand slap." If he vandalizes, then a warning. If he, after 2 or 3 more correct warnings, continues to vandalize, then a 24hr block would be fine, to prevent vandalism. And to "I think I may impose a block if this continues," that is potential de-sysopping, I may warn, it's not in your power. He hasn't done anything wrong, leave him alone. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
SwirlBoy39, if you want to have a community discussion to block StaticChristian, you would need to have the discussion on Simple talk so that everyone can see that it's happening. Since it's not an emergency, the discussion should be for a reasonable number of days so that many people can comment; I will want to comment in the discussion, for example. A discussion on IRC doesn't count: see w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war#Consensus which says "Except where privacy or similar considerations are involved, the primary venue for consensus-building discussion about content and policy should be on-wiki discussion, rather than other venues such as IRC or mailing lists." Note that StaticChristian has removed the link to his wiki from his userpage, so there is no problem with spamming at the moment. I don't think he's done anything that could be called spamming for many days, so a block would make no sense. StaticChristian has been changing his behaviour because of messages from the community, so there is no need for a block. See w:en:Blocking policy#Purpose and goal which says in a prominent green box, "Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Coppertwig(talk) 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Just as a note of clarification) I was referring to the principle in general, not this specific incident. I just wanted to explain why SwirlBoy39 may be wanting to do this, and the precedents of the past. I feel it isn't really my place to comment on this specific incident, as I have a conflict of interest regarding my wholly negative interactions with Static (mainly off-wiki). I just wanted to clarify that. PeterSymonds 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Arbcom at enwiki is a group of fools (except NYB and a few others...). As a matter of principle, I don't really care for their "decisions" on en.wiki, but I follow them as to not get in too much trouble. But here, those decisions have absolutely no binding at all. Maxim(talk) 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing;..." (w:en:WP:CONSENSUS); "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." (w:en:WP:NPA). Coppertwig(talk) 02:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Um, your point? Maxim(talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Two points: that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't say anything about consensus on IRC having any binding on Wikipedia (or on Simple English Wikiquote); and that you could have made your comment about arbcom more civil. At least we seem to agree about NYB, though!! Coppertwig(talk) 00:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
SwirlBoy39, you said, "On WP, removing warnings on your talk page is 100% frowned upon, and is always reverted." I disagree: see for example warnings being removed [2] [3]; in fact, all warnings and other comments on that user talk page and this one, (which says "I do not archive discussions and delete them when they are no longer active or relevant") are deleted by the user without archiving. See also a comment from an admin about users being able to delete warnings [4]. It's better to archive, and not archiving may be usually frowned upon, but users should not be blocked for not doing it. Coppertwig(talk) 01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
But, removing warnings is not appreciated. SwirlBoy39 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
SB39, he said warnings - that was his point. You don't have to appreciate every user here and what they do, and I don't see how in any way it broke a policy. So I guess, for you, it's a forgive-and-forget situation. Nothing really can nor should be done, as nothing was harmed. Okay? God bless, American Eagle (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! You have been given a barnstar!

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For using your testwikiish abilities to find a problem for blocked editors, which showed us a reason why it was a good idea to make you an administrator, I am happy to give you this barnstar. Coppertwig(talk) 02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Testwikiish abilities to find a problem for blocked editors," what does this mean, exactly? Or is it an inside-comment the rest of us don't know about? /me tries to figure it out... -- American Eagle (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think he means that I knew how to use admin tools from a test wiki, and that is helping me. SwirlBoy39 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I guess I should have explained it better. "For using your testwikiish abilities" means using your abilities that you learned by spending time on test wikis. "to find a problem for blocked editors" means finding the problem that we talked about here. Coppertwig(talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


Hey there. I saw you protecting some pages part of the Main Page. We've decided to only protect pages if it is hit with vandalism since we are most likely not going to get vandalism by having a page just being highly visible. If you disagree, please tell me. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

i agree. ✞StaticChristian17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re: Last warning

A note to this: You don't give a final warning to a user when they haven't been warned in over two weeks. Even then, the warning has been questioned. Please be kind to users and encourage them to do good in the future, even when you disagree with them and their actions (which, I don't think was right, but doesn't warrant an only warning). Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

At this point, the warning stands -- do you realize how many times he's been warned? Everyone's agreed, no other admin has objected. I'm sorry. ѕwirlвoy  02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am in IRC if we must talk further. ѕwirlвoy  02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've objected to the warning. I'd like to know what the warning is about. Coppertwig(talk) 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply


SB39, you blocked (talk changes) for a day when they have never, ever been warned, and have never made an edit before. I'm guessing that you suspect he is Static, but even so, a CheckUser must be done first, but none was done. Still, s/he must be warned appropriately before such a block. Once again, a block of yours was inappropriate. American Eagle (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note, the IP is Static. Look at w:Special:Contributions/ RyanCross @ 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Regardless, it does not excuse a warning-less IP block. American Eagle (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you think an admin action is needed and you are closely involved in the situation, please ask an uninvolved admin to do it. Coppertwig(talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
He as static had been warned, also for other things. This is disruption. Also, AE I don't like your tone. ѕwirlвoy  17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I have to agree with SwirlBoy on this one; if an IP's only contribs are low-level stupidity, yes, warnings should come before blocks. But if the first edits show a clear indication that they (a) know what they're doing and (b) are up to no good, there's no need for warnings (a lesson I've learned in my 2+ years being a sysop on the English Wikipedia). If an IP were to suddenly start tossing my name around, I'd be reaching for the block stick first too (and I've got lots of experience with that happening). EVula // talk // 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Static's been warned for disruption a lot over his many accounts. I agree with EVula's first point. Shapiros10 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm striking out my comment. I don't have much experience with blocking/unblocking situations. Coppertwig(talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That was me, and I was just posting what SwirlBoy said on IRC about SEWQ. And it wasn't even on #wikipedia-simple, it was on ##sb39. That isn't illegal. FastReverter 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Er, yeah. Publishing IRC logs without permission is 1) bad form and 2) against freenode policy. I reverted your addition, but I was just yelled at in the simplewiki IRC channel, so I reverted myself. ^.^ I don't understand what the problem is here. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Correct, unauthorized posting logs is against Freenode policy (which, unless we have a policy specifically allowing such quotations, means we should enforce it). This is trolling, pure and simple, and does not warrant any warnings. Static/FastRevert/whoever knows what they're doing, and knows what the consequences are. EVula // talk // 22:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's also a copyright violation. Anything written anywhere is copyrighted; you can't copy it unless you have permission. Some places might not worry about this too much, but on the Wikimedia projects we try to be careful about copyrights. Also, posting that message was hurting the project and not helping the project. Coppertwig(talk) 23:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Issue 2 - January 22, 2009

700 users, 305 articles, 3,305 pages, 15,097 changes.

Special Announcements Other Information

  • Main Page On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, the Main Page was changed to this, which is now an archived copy. The design was decided upon here.
  • Tweaked MoS The Manual of Style was changed. According to this discussion, we will no longer be linking the bolded title of a page to Simple English Wikipedia, and will be using {{other wikis}}
  • Template final discussion The final discussion on what to do with {{needs translation}} is currently being decided. Please add your comments, and your vote here.
  • Proposed shut-down It was proposed that Simple English Wikiquote be closed down, but don't worry, we aren't going anywhere!

I realize that most of this is old news, but we might as well deliver it! If you'd like to write an article for The Wikiquote News, add a note about it on the talk page.

The Wikiquote News links


Hey SwirlBoy, I noticed you considered resigning your adminship here on Simple Wikiquote. I know why you're resigning, but could this be a result of me adding you to the semi-active list? (which thinking it over, I probably shouldn't have added) If so, I apologize if it made you think you were "inactive" or if I encouraged you to retire. But if you want to be on that list, than just say so here, or so no otherwise and I'll remove it. If you're going to resign for other reasons (as you stated), then I hope you can still contribute to our site if you do resign. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I respect PeterSymonds' decision, but I don't think admins need to resign just because they're less active. See w:en:Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators. And anyway SwirlBoy39 has been editing; I would call that "active". I'm happy to have SwirlBoy39 at this project and hope he continues. I think it can be useful to have admins who may not be very active but are active on other projects. If someone needs an admin quickly, they might be able to contact them by email or by a talk page message on another project. The more admins, the better the chance of being able to find one. Coppertwig(talk) 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Inactivity wasn't my soul reason. But yes, I'd agree with the above sentiments. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Violation of privacy policy

Sorry, but you violated the privacy policy when you said which IPs FR used. Therefore, I believe that you should ask an oversight or do something to get rid of that information, as it is a violation of privacy. Razorflame 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

He didn't, it's public knowledge since it was not obtained from checkuser and it was patently obvious who the IP was when they made the edit. Maxim | talk 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're supposed to delete the subpage and editor review of users that are banned. I somewhat agree with the userpage, but the ER wasn't even his page. Please explain. TheAE talk 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's general practice on Wikimedia wikis. EN WP does it, SWP etc. ѕwirlвoy  00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but that is for userpages, I really think you should undelete the ER, it is like deleting talk histories. TheAE talk 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good! I am fine with the userpage deletions. God bless, TheAE talk 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with user page and sub page deletions. — RyanCross (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Issue 3 - February 21, 2009

781 users, 320 articles, 3,438 pages, 17,000 changes.

Special Announcements Other Information

  • Linking dates We will no longer be linking dates.
  • New namespace The namespace "WP:" has been enabled, via bugzilla 17526, and discussed here.
  • New logo? There is currently a proposal for a new Simple English Wikiquote logo. Please view it here.
  • New goals Simple English Wikiquote has some goals to be completed by the end of March, above all is to reach 350 articles by that time.
  • Abuse Filter There is currently a discussion regarding Abuse Filter being enabled here.

In case you didn't notice, Simple English Wikiquote has a new Guestbook... (read it!)

The Wikiquote News links


Sorry to see you go! You're welcome back here if you want. :) TheAE talk 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Would you like to continue to be delivered The Wikiquote News? TheAE talk 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sure, thanks! ѕwirlвoy  04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikiquote News: Issue Four

Issue 3 - DATE

2,696 users, 588 articles, 5,942 pages, 34,198 changes.

Special Announcements Other Information

  • Navbox collapsing Simple English Wikiquote now has to ability to close navigational boxes. Some text just needed to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js.
  • Rollback Rollback has now been enabled for trusted users at Simple English Wikiquote. Currently, there are 5 rollbackers.
  • Quote of the Week Quote of the Week replaced the previous Quote of the Day at Simple English Wikiquote.
  • New logo A logo was proposed for Simple English Wikiquote, however, this proposal was rejected by the developers because it didn't meet the visual identity guidelines.

Simple English Wikiquote's revival... (read it!)

The Wikiquote News links

Pmlineditor  Talk 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Simple Wikiquote News: Issue 7

Issue 3 - DATE

2,696 users, 588 articles, 5,942 pages, 34,198 changes.

Special Announcements Other Information

Pmlinediter talks about the hard work needed to reach the goals he set in his fourth article... (read it!)

The Wikiquote News links

Pmlineditor  17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply