Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 2

From Wikiquote

Disbanding Wikiquote

I don't know whether anyone here had noticed this on meta. I haven't read the last few days additions to the argument yet so don't know which way it's leaning. - tholly --Talk-- 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also (unrelated), in my preferences it tells me I'm autoconfirmed, but I only have 3 (now 4) edits. This page stipulates 4 days and ten edits, not 4 days or ten edits. Is it wrong for this wiki? - tholly --Talk-- 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume so, yes. I believe that rule works only for the English Wikipedia? I could be wrong. And thanks for letting us know about that ongoing discussion. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is currently not leaning towards any side. Best to put the page on your watchlists. Chenzw  Talk  13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and someone probably wants to put it on MediaWiki:Sitenotice? Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Will do. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this. How sad! SwirlBoy39 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry! I don't think they'll close the Wikiquotes. The discussion is not in the right place. It doesn't say which Wikiquote it means. There are many Wikiquotes in many languages. In the discussion, they're talking about changing some guidelines: maybe moving unsourced quotes to the talk pages. That will fix problems. Then there will be no reason to close Wikiquote.
In the earlier discussion to close Simple English Wikiquote, someone said that they can't close an active project that's growing and has people working on it. At least that discussion was in the right place and said which Wikiquote it was talking about; but even then, it was closed as "no consensus" even though there were more votes to close than not to close. I watched that discussion for a year and a half. Simple English Wikiquote was not closed. Now I'm not worried. Coppertwig 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we don't need the site notice saying that there is a discussion about shutting down Wikiquote. I think that discussion is mostly about English Wikiquote. English Wikiquote doesn't have a site notice. Coppertwig 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting pages?

I think we don't need to protect any pages in this project. Not the main page. The only pages we need to protect are pages that are only used for vandalism (to stop people from creating them). This is a small project. We have very little vandalism these days (or no vandalism at all?) I think it's better not to protect the quote of the day pages, the main page, the templates, or other pages. Coppertwig 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? I don't see you reasoning. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason most pages on English Wikipedia are not protected: to be welcoming to users, and to allow users to edit them. Only if there are significant problems with vandalism, then pages are protected. I'm concerned that now this project is not as welcoming to new users, because some pages can't be edited. For example, the Main Page. You said in an edit summary at the Main Page, "Changed protection level for "Main Page": Honesty, we can't have anons stopping by and giving us a friendly "wut's up"". I say, yes we can! For a long time, the Main Page was not protected, and occasionally anons stopped by and edited it. If it was vandalism, then it was reverted after not very long. But if they were friendly edits, then the edits could stay for a long time, and those people could feel welcome here. Good edits make a lot more difference than bad edits; bad edits are reverted soon. Because this is a very small project, none of our pages are very busy like the pages on English Wikipedia that need protection.
We have had very little vandalism, I think. When was the last time there was vandalism anywhere on the project? When was the last time the Main Page was vandalised? I say, let's unprotect it, and if there's vandalism a few times in a short time, then maybe we will protect it. Not just if there's vandalism once in a long time. That's what they do on English Wikipedia.
We want to make things easy to edit. If people have to ask to be able to edit, they will find other things to do that are more fun. Coppertwig 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy

Hias all, I wanted to ask the community for before doing anything. You are probably all aware of the image copyright problem on English Wikiquote. So in light of this, I propose we create Wikiquote:Image use policy as a policy against all images (unless necessary, like these) to be prohibited. Commons has enough images for use. Simple English Wikipedia, along with English Wikiquote, has a no-image policy, so should I create the policy now? Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. Thank you for the note. – RyanCross (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've created it. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! Thanks! Coppertwig 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Main Page design!

I'm sorry all, but I had to redo the Main Page. I see that page like 100 times a day, and it was really getting old for me. If you still like the old one, you may see it here - I saved it. Happy editing! -- American Eagle (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Though, I know I've seen that design before around the English Wikipedia. Anyway, looks great! Notice there's a red link on it though – Main Page/Selected2 I think. – RyanCross (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a rip-off design of this design, but as you can see it's very different. I actually think ours is better than that one. And I fixed the link. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good! Coppertwig 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting Special:Upload to admins only

I think that since we aren't going to use it, we should add some user right so that only admins have access to the page. Any thoughts? Ilikepie2221 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is kinda like protecting pages because vandalism is not allowed. I don't really even know how exactly how to do this, but I don't think it's needed now. Thanks anyway. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an idea. When we have a bit more vands, we can ask at Meta.Ilikepie2221 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me! God bless, American Eagle (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New bot

I've noticed ChtitBot (talk changes) making some bot edits. I asked Coppertwig to flag it (as it's confirmed on almost all projects and only done good here), but he said we should ask the community first. Would that be alright? Thanks. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COPPERTWIG: Could I please have the bot flag for a few moments? I have a big project to do, with hundreds of small changes to make (like Creol often does). If there is any problem, that's fine, but New Changes will be destroyed. Thanks. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply in a few minutes. Coppertwig 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I gave American Eagle the bot flag. This will be for a short time. Please tell me when you're finished. Coppertwig 23:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Coppertwig. Look at this, I've done a lot. But I still have much to do. You could remove the flag for tonight, but then I'd have to ask again tomorrow, so I'll keep it for now, but I don't plan to edit more until tomorrow. When I'll hopefully be able to finish. Good night, all, and thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Coppertwig, you may un-flag me. I think I'm done. Thank you again. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took away your bot flag again. Coppertwig 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChtitBot already has a bot flag! I thought the name sounded like something I had heard before. ChtitBot got a bot flag here and later the name was changed from DragonBot to ChtitBot. Thank you, Chtit draco, for fixing interwikis for us. Coppertwig 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. ;) God bless, American Eagle (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was just wondering how easy it is to be an admin here? I browsed recent changes and I saw about two incidences of vandalism in the past three days. I assume this means not many pages have been deleted either. So is the admin criteria different here? I cant imagine you look at vandalism reversion or deleted edits much so is it all about edits and new pages etc. Feel free to correct me if I'm totally wrong, I was just wondering. The Flying Spaghetti Monster 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not "join, make a few edits and become an admin because we need them." Becoming an admin here is the same as most every other projects; you must be trusted. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be an admin here, well not really. I just wondered because I couldn't find the criteria anywhere. The Flying Spaghetti Monster 21:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, we started a Criteria for administratorship, but it isn't finished. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New idea

So, I was just making some edits, when all of the sudden I has this idea! See, we have a good Quote of the Day system here, but I've noticed a problem; we are often using the same quote for two different days! I created {{QOTD}} to put right after featured (Quote of the Day) quotes. (It puts a little featured star, .) This should go (1) one space after the quote, or (1) one space after the reference (if there's a reference). I have now added to all the existing pages that have been featured, so to those who will be creating new QOTDs, please add this to the pages when you do so (see an example here). God bless, American Eagle (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, AE! Perfect! Now we won't be confused while setting up new QOTD. – RyanCross (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I suggest writing {{QotD|November 8, 2008}} or {{QotD|date=November 8, 2008}}, giving the date that it's the quote for. I think this won't do anything, but if we look at the wikitext it will tell us what day it was the quote. If someone is very good with templates, maybe they can make it say "This quote was quote of the day on November 8, 2008" when someone moves their mouse over the start. I might try to do that. Coppertwig 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to put the date in. If you put your mouse over the star on the Aristotle page I think it should show the date. But I don't see it. I think it's because it needs to be "purged": that is, the computer doesn't show the new version of the template. I forget how to do that. I put a period after "Quote of the Day Featured Quote" just to see if I would see the period. I didn't see it. Maybe if we wait it will show it. Coppertwig 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had tried that, and even tried to link to the right date, but I couldn't seem to get it in. I just purged Aristotle (you do this by adding ?action=purge to the end of any page) and it does show up in the link preview. I'm not really in the mood to go through all the pages and add the dates right now, though. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is awesome. StaticRic -(talk to da falcon)- 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, StaticRic! It's mostly American Eagle's idea! Coppertwig 01:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag?

I was wondering what others thought about Simple English Wikiquote implementing the Flood flag? It is similar to the "bot flag," but for administrators and not for bots. As Coppertwig gave me the bot flag a while back, and my continuous flooding of New changes, I think it would be good to have this flag for trusted administrators who would be making a lot of small changes in a short time. You may read the entire policy at Meta:Flood flag. What does the whole community think? -- American Eagle (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to say about this, to be honest. – RyanCross (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea. StaticRic -(talk to da falcon)- 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait a while before we decide. How many times did people want to use a flag like that? Coppertwig 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might need it one day because I edit a lot. StaticRic Review ME! My mess.My colorful Main Pages 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not an admin, I think you need to do it using a bot flag. The flood flag is like a bot flag, but an admin can change it themselves. I don't know whether an admin can give another user a flood flag: I think not. Coppertwig 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really sufficient demand for it? RC is quite light-traffic, so clogging it up is no problem on a small wiki. Microchip08 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, then you haven't been watching for the last few weeks when I had the bot flag. ;) I had hundreds of changes (+++) in minutes (or something like that). But if others don't think we need it, that's fine. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was anyone else using q: whilst you were editing? Microchip08 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to check, but RyanCross, Coppertwig and SB39 were all active. It was so cluttered it would take a long time to scroll through them all (about 500+, then 200+, then another 100+, all in a row). -- American Eagle (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the more functionality the better. Microchip08 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I have created an editor review page. What do you think. StaticRic -(talk to da falcon)- 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of doing that, but you beat me to it! ;) I think it's good and thank you for doing it. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is it OK if I put in Popups as a gadget? Coppertwig 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's opt-in anyway. Microchip08 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I didn't think someone would answer that fast! Coppertwig 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm monitoring the Simple English recent changes feeds. Microchip08 11:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed that before, wasn't it broken? But if it's not, go ahead. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do

List of to dos:

  1. Simplify/minor rewrite/Wikiquote>WP to MediaWiki:Blockedtext.
  2. Create remaining block templates/warnings found on sidebar when editing a user talk page.

Thanks, SwirlBoy39 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have that sidebar. What does it look like? Coppertwig(talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check VandalWarner under gadgets under prefs. Microchip08 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, after a bit of discussion with RyanCross, I am proposing the de-adminship of TBC (talk changes) on Simple English Wikiquote. Since becoming an Administrator, he has made one edit, and no administrative actions. Adminship should not be a goal and I don't think you should ever become one then leave the project, though I'm sure that was not his intentions at all. Still, I warned him of this and he has not responded. This isn't just a vote, but what do the rest of us think? Thank you. -- American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all intentional. It just so happens that TBC said he would be on a long wikibreak soon after he gained adminship here (school stuff if I recall). I support a de-adminship for now. When he comes back, he can always request it back. – RyanCross (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per RyanCross. SwirlBoy39 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportStatic Christian15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On English Wikipedia, inactive admins are not desysopped. See w:Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators. Before I knew that, I was thinking of having Archer7 desysopped. Archer7 has been inactive much longer than TBC. But, since inactive admins on English Wikipedia are not desysopped, I think we should not desysop people here just because they are inactive. Also, if TBC said TBC was going to be inactive for a while, then there is even more reason not to desysop, I think. I think TBC might not like it. As someone said in the discussion on English Wikipedia, it's more welcoming if the person is still an admin when they come back. Coppertwig(talk) 00:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, not trying to influence your opinion at all, because it is a valid one, the English Wikipedia is one of few projects who don't desysop active admins. Meta and Commons do, and Simple Wikipedia has just introduced it. Many other projects across WMF do as well. As I say, this is just an observation, not an attempt to influence the discussion. Best, PeterSymonds 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information. In that case, I may take a different position on desysopping inactive admins in general; however, because someone said that TBC said that TBC would be away for a period of time, I still oppose desysopping TBC. Coppertwig(talk) 01:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason that those projects desysop inactive admins? What's the advantage? Coppertwig(talk) 01:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PeterSymonds, I agree. But my main reason is that as soon as he became one he left. God bless, American Eagle (talkb'cratship) 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why that would be a reason to desysop. It sounds like a punishment for something that is not anywhere near bad enough to desysop someone for. We're volunteers; we're free to go away and come back. Coppertwig(talk) 01:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't desysop someone every time they do something that we think they should not have done, or that we don't like, or that we feel angry about. (Not that I feel that way about this.) Coppertwig(talk) 01:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(@American Eagle) Well, yes, that is odd. Having developed my wiki-career on enwiki, where the community doesn't desysop inactive admins at all (that's about 300 active to 1300-or-so inactive), my own personal (and I mean personal) standard for desysopping would be at least eight months of inactivity, preferably a year. This is for any circumstance (which is not shortened by a necessary desysopping in light of controversial circumstances). At this time, I do not consider this administrator "inactive" enough to be desysopped, and if he was the only bureaucrat here, a steward would decline local intervention because of his most recent edit. Therefore I would firmly suggest leaving it for now; he is likely to return after all. PeterSymonds 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Templates

Here on SWQ, we have the vandal warner (when you edit a talk page you see the vandal warner toolbax on the left) but none of these templates have been created. Can anyone help me create them? I say we should have these, and especially the templates test, testarticle, test2, test2a, test3, test4, test4im, spam, and username to be able to use with and without the vandal warner, and the others from SEWP too. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able just to port them across; try AWBing. Microchip08 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace editing

This may not be a big deal, but I want to bring up StaticChristian's userspace pages, along with the QDs that were tagged and the discussion thereafter. Personally, I have no problem with it, especially like secret pages, I think it's fine. The pages have been restored for now. Any thoughts? God bless, American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with secret pages per se. I think there should be a limit on numbers; maybe one secret page and one "fake" secret page. Having a bit of fun in one's userspace is fine, but there's no need to go overboard with the number of pages, especially as this is a small wiki. PeterSymonds 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we add a "limit?" I say, just encourage to edit articles and other non-userspace pages. But I don't think it does any harm in userspaces editing, even if it's a lot. God bless, American Eagle (talkbureaucratship) 00:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No comment about these userspace pages; but please don't quick-delete a page in someone else's userspace, unless it's a copyright violation or other very bad policy violation. (It needs a discussion on Simple talk like this to delete, not quick deletion.) and to avoid editwarring: please don't delete QD tags from pages you create yourself; and if someone does delete a QD tag when you think they shouldn't, think about maybe instead of putting it back, putting a comment on the page Wikiquote:Administrators, near the bottom. Coppertwig(talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I sound like I'm telling everybody what to do, there. Sorry about that. Coppertwig(talk) 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're a good dictator. ;) God bless, American Eagle (talkb'cratship) 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UBER PWNAGE! ✞StaticChristian19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD and MFD creation

Can we create AFD and MFD? I think they may be a good idea. Anybody wanna start them/any opinions? SwirlBoy39 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it but to make it easier why not just RfD? ✞StaticChristian17:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but places like ENWP have AFD, MFD, CFD etc. but good idea. SwirlBoy39 17:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't big enough for enwiki-type deletion discussions. Perhaps have one page, maybe something like Wikiquote:Deletion requests, and have all those on one page. There won't be that many to fill. When the wiki expands, it can be split as and when necessary, but at the moment, all those pages would be overkill and sorely underused. PeterSymonds 17:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea. ✞StaticChristian17:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying in my last post. SwirlBoy39 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. ✞StaticChristian17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a page. Wikiquote:Requests for deletion. ✞StaticChristian17:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template that formats the requests or says when it will end like at RfA? SwirlBoy39 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like RfA. ✞StaticChristian17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that kind of template? SwirlBoy39 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
simple wikipedia. ✞StaticChristian17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Well I'd developed one and it was deleted as housekeeping. :/ Any reason? PeterSymonds 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I failed in my idea. Now I have to freakin fix my screw up. SwirlBoy39 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hoped what I did helped, I transwikid stuff, but I think I messed up and.. oh never mind. SwirlBoy39 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? ✞StaticChristian17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to use Wikiquote:Deletion requests or Wikiquote:Requests for deletion? SwirlBoy39 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Requests. ✞StaticChristian17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you people are great! Thanks for setting up all of that! Well, I tried to help: I was going to archive the Administrator's noticeboard stuff. But when I went to do it, American Eagle was just in the middle of doing it.
PeterSymonds, I'm sorry about that. If you tell us the name of the template, we can bring it back.Coppertwig(talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hehe, no it's fine. SwirlBoy restored it. :) Best, PeterSymonds 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Attacks

I got a IRC log from Jonas Rand about people attacking me, including the newest admin Swirlboy39. I will post it if needed. ✞StaticChristian21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He sent you the email? That is illegal. Don't post it, okay? -- God bless, American Eagle (talkb'cratship) 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public logging is not permitted on any Wikimedia IRC channel unless explicitly stated by the people involved. Do not post logs, or you are at risk of violating policy. Microchip08 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I was going to show it. ✞StaticChristian21:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen that you posted the logs. Don't lie. MC8 just oversighted them because I pointed it out. Seriously, don't public log. You're breaking several policies. Just let it drop. Bluegoblin7 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SC, now you're lying. This is not good wikian behavior. SwirlBoy39 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He meant here, get off his back. God bless, American Eagle (talkb'cratship) 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swirlboy should be blocked for a week for off-wiki attacks. ✞StaticChristian21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swirlboy should be blocked for a week? Jesus. American Eagle: He said "I never said I was going to show it" - that implies showing it anywhere, not just here. He's still lied. Bluegoblin7 21:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now the Ten Commandments are our only policy, eh? lol -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 21:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Static, I suggest you step away from the screen so you don't get into trouble. SwirlBoy39 21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK! ✞StaticChristian21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and when you return, try to be civil. Cheers :) SwirlBoy39 21:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resetAmerican Eagle: One, I'm not religious in the slightest, so i'd Strongly oppose such a policy, and secondly, i didn't mention blocking or anything like that - it simply shows the user is dishonest. Bluegoblin7 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, cool down. Those wanting to know where all the logs were posted, they were here. I haven't oversighted them there (I'm a steward at yourwiki), due to weird quirks of the software, but they are deleted (and only avaliable to sysops). Microchip08 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected until this cools down a bit. God bless, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry and Swirlboy is my friend now. ✞StaticChristian22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in voting

Hello community, I want to bring up a topic that I don't think has been given any attention here, yet. Now that Coppertwig closed my RfB, saying it had "no consensus." I emailed him saying I don't think that was right, with it being a 8 Support, 3 Oppose vote, and he said he didn't want to talk about it off-wiki, so I'm doing it on Simple talk.

On Simple English Wikiquote, what is consensus? Was my RfB successful? I don't think that it is right to decide this without the discussion of all active users here. This has been somewhat frustrating to me, seeing as not a single active user here opposed me, they were all "drive-by" opposes. I will stop here, but I really want comment. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "drive-by" opposers. Gwib has been a contributor since May, 2008. Microchip08 joined in May, 2008 and has been contributing since July, 2008. Djsasso has only 15 edits, but has been contributing since August, 2008. Two of the supporters, on the other hand, Samekh and Shapiros10, had no edits before October 23 (after the RfB started).
I admit I'm not a very experienced bureaucrat. I don't know about how RfBs are closed on Simple English Wikipedia or on English Wikiquote. I know a little about how RfBs are closed on English Wikipedia. I don't know any reason not to follow the way RfBs are closed on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfBs need a higher percentage of supports than RfAs need, to show a strong consensus that there is a high level of trust in the community for the person as a bureaucrat. See w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion. Coppertwig(talk) 14:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Gwib had not made a change in over two months prior to voting, Djsasso also over two months, Microchip08 had scattered minor edits, but was inactive for several months. But this is not my overriding point, my main point is that you are from the English Wikipedia (as stated above) and you treat RfBs as they are there. Were my 8-3 RfB on Simple English Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or any other small wiki, it would be an easy pass. Recently on Simple English Wikipedia, FSM passed his RfA at a vote of 11-8, not because there was overriding "consensus" for it, but because it was a small Wikipedia and he had enough trust for the promoting b'crat to decide. 8-3 on this small Wikiquote is enough consensus, Coppertwig, this isn't English Wikipedia. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say that I consider myself inactive; I sometimes monitor RC feeds, and so edit things that catch my eye. Personally, I'd say that there is consensus, and FSM's RfA was a one-off; it shouldn't be a guideline for any Rf*. AE, I'd suggest simply reapplying in a couple of months, there's no rush for the flag, is there? or is there? Microchip08 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inactive, I come here often, but don't edit. Besides, most of the reasons given in the 'Oppose' section had to do with your various actions on Simple Wikipedia - where we are all active - thus are legitimate votes. Don't underestimate Twiggy's experience with RfB. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Microchip08 : I don't need it, I just feel I can help out Simple English Wikiquote better with the tools. I have learned a lot lately about b'cratship, and have been a b'crat on two other MediaWiki wikis. I have experience and trust in the matter. What is the point of re-applying in a month? What good does it do to wait a month?

@ Gwib : IMO, activity is not awaiting a reason to make a comment in a discussion or vote in a Rf*, it is building the project. Also, you said "most of the reasons given in the 'Oppose' section had to do with your various actions on Simple Wikipedia," okay then, let me go over them. Microchip08 said it was an unrequired flag, Djsasso said I should get more experience as an admin before having crat responsibilities, you Gwib are the only one who even hinted that in an oppose, and you even confirmed through IRC that you were only opposing because you didn't think I should become one so soon after my RfA. So that was incorrect.

Look peoples, I must be honest. Simple English Wikiquote would be dead without me. Yes, Coppertwig would only be on the English Wikipedia, RyanCross and SwirlBoy39 (both new admins) would never have joined, as I invited them through IRC, Coppertwig never have even been a b'crat, and none of the rest of you would have come because there would be nothing to discuss. There would be about 100 horrible pages, half of the total edits, no QOTD, the same copy-paste from English Wikiquote Main Page as there was when I came, and in essence, a dead Wikimedia project that would probably soon be deleted.

I don't mean to be puffed up or look mad because someone closed my RfB as "no consensus," but it is all true. I am becoming really frustrated by all this, and that is not at all common for me. Come on guys, I succeeded in my RfB, no active (in editing) users opposed me, and I had 8 supports. The only reason it failed was because the closing b'crat is from English Wikipedia and has never closed a small-wiki RfB. Coppertwig, I'm sorry for being mean to you, but I think your decision was wrong. For Simple English Wikiquote, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state that "you Gwib are the only one who even hinted that [actions on SEWP] in an oppose". I'll quote from the RfB: "has shown poor judgement in his defence of long term problematic editor StaticFalcon" (albeit the vote was struck, but not because the reasons were invalid). "Oppose per Majorly" (self-explanitory) and then there is my own vote. That comes to a count of 3 votes (one struck) out of 4 which had to do with your actions on SEWP. Don't try to feign your way through becoming a 'crat when it is clear that people don't think you're experienced or even trust you after the StaticFalcon debate you got yourself into. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant those who felt that the incident was strong enough to cause them to oppose, it was obviously not for most. Oh boy, wow. Now Gwib (or anyone else who'd like to comment), please tell me one thing I did in the SF/SH debate that was wrong, and how it was wrong. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American Eagle, When you say FSM, I think you're talking about an RfA, not an RfB. I see nothing to show me that on small wikis bureaucrats make less of a difference between closing RfAs and closing RfBs than they do on English Wikipedia. I just looked at the archived requests at Simple English Wikipedia, linked from this page. I looked at all the RfBs I could find; that is, all the ones that said "(bureaucrat)" or "(bureaucratship)" after the person's name. I think the others may be RfAs, so I didn't look at them. I also looked at the status request archives at Simple English Wiktionary. (I didn't look at Wikibooks because I've never edited Wikibooks.) On both projects I looked at, all the RfBs that I found that succeeded had all supports and no opposes. So there is nothing there to show me that on Simple English Wikipedia or Simple English Wiktionary they make people into bureaucrats with less support than English Wikipedia does. This doesn't mean that successful RfBs always need to have all supports and no opposes. But, it also doesn't show me any reason to close RfBs in a different way on Simple English Wikiquote than on English Wikipedia.
Even if there are some RfBs on some small wikis that are closed as successful with a lower level of support than on English Wikipedia, that only means that those bureaucrats decided to close those RfBs in that way; it might or might not mean that bureaucrats on this project should do it like that too. I would want to know the reasons why they did that.
If you would like someone to review the way I closed the RfB, I suggest that you put a request at meta:Steward requests/Permissions and ask that a steward review the RfB. If you do this, please put somewhere in your request a link to the RfB, and a link to this discussion, and tell them that some of the page history of the RfB is at Wikiquote:Administrators. Also please put a message on my talk page to tell me about it if you do a request like that. I'm willing to have the way I closed the RfB be reviewed by a steward, if any, who sees the request on that page and decides to answer it. With this message, I'm asking the stewards to please answer a request like that and review the RfB closing if you ask them to.
American Eagle, you said, "I don't think that it is right to decide this without the discussion of all active users here." The discussion for whether to make you a bureaucrat was on the RfB. I don't think a discussion on Simple talk can decide that. A discussion on Simple talk may be able to give me instructions about how to close all RfBs; but for some of those things it may need a very strong consensus, like the strong consensus needed for an RfB to succeed; and I think it would probably not change RfBs that have already been closed. Usually, an RfA or an RfB is closed by a bureaucrat, so I don't understand why you say that you don't think it is right.
A bureaucrat is not just a bot that counts votes. I read the discussion and thought about the reasons people talked about.
Microchip08, you said, "Personally, I'd say that there is consensus." Do you mean you'd say there is consensus to make American Eagle a bureaucrat?
Gwib, about your message of 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC): Thank you. Coppertwig(talk) 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Coppertwig, I have decided to give this to a Steward. Just know I don't think you are a bad b'crat, I think you're good. But I want this to end. If the Steward says it passed, then good for us. If not, I will accept it with grace. Perhaps I'd run again in a month or so like someone said above, or maybe someone will nominate me, I pray that won't be necessary. Anyways, I asked here. God bless, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a steward, so I'm going to give my opinion here, seeing as Coopertwig asked us to comment. These three remaining oppose votes look legit to me (i.e. there are some contributions behind them and that is all fine). 8-3 would be a successful voting in my opinion, since that's more than 70%. Now, I don't know the rules (if there are any) regarding the percentages here, but situations like this might give you an incentive to reconsider your policy/ies (for number-of-votes threshold, percentages required for successful election, suffrage criteria et al). --Dungodung 01:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another steward, Rdsmith4, gave an opinion here: "This is a slightly irregular request, but so long as it's clear that we're only giving advice and not making decisions, I see no harm in it. It looks to me as though Coppertwig made the right decision. There's nothing "drive-by" about the opposition -- both Microchip08 and Djsasso participated in multi-turn conversations in response to American Eagle's comments, so it's not as though they voted and disappeared. I see no reason to disenfranchise them. I'd have done just what Coppertwig did. — Dan | talk 05:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

And another steward, Spacebirdy, had earlier left this message on my talk page at meta: "Hello Coppertwig, I somehow doubt You would get a much different answer, but feel free to add that You also wanted to hear another opinion. What I am wondering, why from someone who is not involved in the local community, maybe a crat from might have more knowledge about what went wrong in that election. If You ask me, I am not sure what to review, the users contributions? The ones of the opposers as well as of the supporters are similar few or many, no one seems to have gotten there just to vote. But whatever I might say now, everyone could say, I am seeing that wrong because I am not involved in the community. So, yes please free to add that You need it to be reviewed, but don't expect too much, because usually we don't decide if there are locals that were voted by the local community already. I hope I have helped You, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I'll think about what the stewards said, and write a decision here later. Coppertwig(talk) 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Coppertwig, what you decide will be the end of this. God bless, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision about American Eagle RfB

In this special situation, I decided to ask stewards to give opinions, partly because of the short time that I've been a bureaucrat. Two stewards have given opinions, plus Spacebirdy's comment, which I think is mostly saying that Spacebirdy doesn't want to give an answer, but which also gives part of an answer in the same comment. I've read the RfB again, read this discussion again, looked at RfA numbers on Simple English Wikipedia, read the reviews by stewards and thought about it, and here is my decision.


I think there are four main questions here:

  • 1. Were the opposers part of the community, people with a right to participate in the discussion?
  • 2. How much freedom does a bureaucrat closing a discussion have to use judgement, or how much must the person follow rules about numbers?
  • 3. Were the reasons for opposing real (valid) reasons?
  • 4. How strong a consensus do people need to become a bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote?

Number of contributions of opposers

1. Were the opposers part of the community, people with a right to participate in the discussion?

I see a consensus among myself and the three stewards who commented that the opposers are people with a right to contribute to this discussion.

Numbers or judgement

2. How much freedom does a bureaucrat closing a discussion have to use judgement, or how much must the person follow rules about numbers?

I think that a person closing a discussion doesn't just follow rules about numbers, but makes decisions. The stewards didn't say anything that is exactly a comment about this, but Rdsmith4 said, "but so long as it's clear that we're only giving advice and not making decisions," and Spacebirdy said, "usually we don't decide if there are locals that were voted by the local community already," and I think these support the idea that there are no exact rules for a situation like this, but that the bureaucrat closing the discussion can use judgement and decide. See for example w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man questions 6b and 22. I think that for some RfBs, it would be very clear how to close it, and if the bureaucrat did something different, the community would say it was wrong; and if there is a very strong consensus in the community for something like that, then the community can change it. But for other RfBs, the answer is not so clear, and I think then that a bureaucrat can decide, and that is the decision even if some people would have decided it a different way, and even if some people think that the answer is clear. Still, the bureaucrat needs to be able to explain the decision: "They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." (WP:Bureaucrats on English Wikipedia).

I've also gotten some ideas about how to close discussions from this user talk page discussion: On closing admin responsibility.

Strength of oppose reasons

3. Were the reasons for opposing real (valid) reasons?

I think there were 5 opposes, of which 2 were taken away, so there were 3 people opposing at the end. The stewards didn't comment on the reasons given with the opposes.

My role in this was to close it impartially. When I say that a reason seems like a real (complex English: valid) reason to me, it doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with it; it means I'm counting it as a reason with a good amount of weight.

Number of bureaucrats

Microchip08 opposed because of the number of bureaucrats. Different people may have different opinions about what is a good number of bureaucrats. I think it's fine for a member of the community to give an opinion, one way or the other, about how many bureaucrats the community needs. I think this is probably a real reason, because making someone a bureaucrat changes the number of bureaucrats. I counted it as a real reason. The candidate and(13:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)) another editor questioned whether this is a real reason. I'll talk more about that later in this comment.

Other reasons people opposed

Gwib opposed for a number of reasons. Gwib talked about "the above comments", which seems to mean the oppose votes of SwirlBoy39 and Majorly, which were taken away later. Those were about civility, and about what happened about StaticFalcon (ShockingHawk) on Simple English Wikipedia (SEWP). Gwib also talked about what happened on SEWP, and about the length of time that American Eagle has been an administrator. All of these sound like real reasons to me.

Djsasso also seems to be talking about what happened on SEWP, and about the length of time American Eagle had been an administrator, a reason that Gwib had also talked about. Length of time can help people grow their abilities and can help the community grow trust, so I think that's a real reason. Djsasso said something about it being a self-nomination. That doesn't seem to me to be a very good reason, but Djsasso said it was not the main reason for the oppose.

What happened on SEWP

American Eagle said on the RfB, "I undid 1 block, and it was by our newest administrator who was flagged less than two weeks prior." I think American Eagle was generous to write it like that. If you look at the block log on SEWP, American Eagle unblocked ShockingHawk once, but American Eagle also blocked ShockingHawk for one week in the same minute. So, we could say that these two actions together were not really an unblock, but a change of the length of a block. At that time, the discussion looked like this. I see 7 editors supporting a ban or indef block, and 3 supporting a one-week block. At that time, American Eagle changed the block from an indef block to a one-week block. American Eagle argues that it was wrong for someone to put an indef block before consensus was found. I won't comment about whether that's true. I'm only looking at American Eagle's behaviour. Thinking as if Kennedy's indef block of ShockingHawk was wrong, what should American Eagle have done? I didn't find a policy on Simple English Wikipedia about wheelwarring. On English Wikipedia, policy w:en:Wikipedia:Wheel war says "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion." This is in bold letters, and it talks about desysopping even sometimes the first time an administrator does it.(Words not needed here. 00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)) This policy talks about other things to do instead. They are all about being calm and discussing it. I don't see any comments from American Eagle on Kennedy's talk page at about that time. On Simple talk, there is discussion about whether to have a one-week block or an indef block, but I don't see discussion from American Eagle about needing to change the block again while the discussion is still continuing. So it seems to me that what American Eagle did could be called wheelwarring. One could also argue that it wasn't wheelwarring. The first block was for a week; Kennedy changed it to indef; American Eagle changed it back to a week. One could argue that this was the first time it was changed from indef to a week, and argue that that wasn't wheelwarring. But I think that's a weak argument, and that anyway it still breaks the rule "Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion."(00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)) American Eagle was not only changing an admin action during a discussion and knowing that at least one administrator (Kennedy) opposed it. American Eagle was also changing an admin action at a time when the discussion on Simple talk(00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)) was showing more support for the indef block than for the one-week block. One could argue that there was no consensus yet, but American Eagle was making a change that went against the bigger weight of opinion in the discussion on Simple talk at that time. Even if the bigger weight of opinion had supported it, it could have been called wheelwarring.(00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

What American Eagle did there was not as bad as it sounded on the RfB. It wasn't unblocking more than once; it was only unblocking once. It could even be called not unblocking even once, but changing the length of a block. If American Eagle had written in the block log "changing length of block" when unblocking, and without using big letters, it would have looked better. but could still be called wheelwarring.(00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

As Djsasso said, "Things crats can do are alot harder to fix if there is a mess up," so this is a real reason.

What if one or two oppose votes were left out?

I thought about what would happen if one or two of the oppose votes were left out. The candidate and(13:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)) another editor argued that Microchip08's oppose vote was not a good reason because it wasn't about this candidate. Or, maybe one oppose vote could be left out because the things that happened on SEWP were a little different from the way they sounded on the RfB. Two oppose voters talked about what happened on SEWP, but they also talked about other reasons, so I would only leave out at most one vote for that reason. What if one vote were left out? Then it would be 8/2, which is 80%. On English Wikipedia, this would probably still not be enough to be successful for an RfB. On Simple English Wikipedia, it would probably be enough with the "75%-80%" or "75% + 1" levels that were talked about. But it would still be close, so that the closing bureaucrat could decide one way or the other.

What if two oppose votes were left out? Then it would be 89%. This would probably be successful, especially on Simple English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, I think it would be probably but not certainly successful. Sets of numbers like "80-85% or 80-90%" were talked about for RfBs on English Wikipedia. This means that if a number is near the top of that set of numbers, the closing bureaucrat would probably, but not certainly, close it as successful.

Four of the support voters had talked about problems. Two of them had opposed at some time during the RfB. Two others (PeterSymonds and Shapiros10) also talked about problems. If an "oppose" vote should be marked as not "oppose" because the reason with it wasn't a real reason, maybe there were some other comments that were not marked "oppose" that could have been marked "oppose". With the amount of discussion of problems in the whole RfB, I don't think it's a good idea to leave out one oppose vote, and I don't think it would be fair to leave out two oppose votes.

Level of support needed for an RfB

4. How strong a consensus do people need to become a bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote?

For question 4, there is some disagreement. Dungodung uses 70% as the level of support for deciding, but also says that he doesn't know the rules about percentages here. Rdsmith4 says "It looks to me as though Coppertwig made the right decision," which to me means that he agrees with the way I weighed the percentages. Spacebirdy doesn't comment about percentages. I asked for comments from two stewards so that the two stewards plus myself would be three, and an agreement by two of the three could decide things. I count three, myself and two stewards, who commented about this, and I count that two of the three (Rdsmith4 and I) support the way I closed the RfB the first time. So this seems to me to support the level of support I used when deciding how to close the RfB.

More about level of support, for future RfAs and RfBs

More about question 4: for future RfAs and RfBs: From the discussion in this part, I think that the level of support needed for RfA or RfB may be smaller on a small wiki than on English Wikipedia, but I don't have very strong reasons to think that and I don't know the reasons why the level of support needed would be different. I may try to find more information about this for future decisions, and it will be helpful if other people give me information. So an RfB on Simple English Wikiquote may succeed with less support than an RfB on English Wikipedia; but still, I think that an RfB on Simple English Wikiquote needs a higher level of support than an RfA on Simple English Wikiquote. I don't see any reason to think that this is not true. On both English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia (see below), RfBs need a higher level of support than RfAs. The reason is that a higher level of trust is needed. If a discussion here on Simple talk, (better if it's at a time when no RfB is happening,) gives a clear message that the community wants to change this, then it can change. It might have to be a strong consensus. If I don't get a message from the community to change, then I think that the levels of support needed are like the ones on English Wikipedia or a smallish amount smaller. For the levels of support needed on English Wikipedia, see w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfB which says, "the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus." See also the poll Proposal to make passing rate of RfB < 90% discussion about the poll at RfB bar.

Level of support needed at Simple English Wikipedia

Requests with interesting numbers from Simple English Wikipedia. Note: I didn't take time to carefully read these discussions, but mostly just counted the votes; I may have neglected to count neutral votes in some cases, though in many cases there were no neutral votes:

Checkuser: can't decide anything

Majorly's request for checkuser in April 2008 is under "not promoted", and I count 19 support and 6 oppose, for 76%. But Vector's checkuser request (September, 2007) is under "not promoted" and says "Result: 13 support/0 oppose - 25 votes were required for the permission to be given." so maybe we can't say anything about percentages from Majorly's.

Not promoted
  • Snake311 (2nd nomination), September 2007. I count 5 support and 3 oppose for 62.5 percent.
  • Huji (One of two Huji discussions on that page; scroll down a bit) "Ended on August 11, 2007 - 62% support".
  • Tdxiang (bureaucrat): Archer7 says, " OK, this is a difficult one, but I've given it a few days, and many people are now agreeing on the talk page that the percentage for RfBs should be 75%. I'm now closing this as unsuccessful." But the talk page discussion seems to me to suggest a level a little higher than 75%: "75-80%, of all votes" (including neutral votes?), and "75% +1 vote" and "a minimum of 10 supportig votes to be required as well," (this last would probably not apply on this project at this time).
  • Nishkid64 June, 2007 "8 support/5 oppose/1 neutral", which I find is about 61.5%.
  • Psy guy, June 2006, not promoted with 4 support, 2 oppose (67%).
  • Eptalon, March 2006, not promoted with (by my count) 5 support, 1 oppose (83%).
About levels at Simple English Wikipedia

Someone said that FSM's RfA was a "one-off". Maybe Eptalon's, not promoted with 83%, was also a "one-off". I didn't find any discussion saying why these were closed the way they were. If we don't look at these two, then we have: All other RfAs with 67% or less are under "not promoted". All other RfAs with 80% or more are under "promoted". There were no RfAs with between 67% and 80%, so we can't see what would have happened with them.

This count doesn't clearly show me that Simple English Wikipedia does or does not have a lower level of support needed for RfAs than English Wikipedia. It shows me that it's not higher. The FSM and Eptalon RfAs seem to me to show that RfAs are not always closed because of a rule with numbers. This supports the idea that the person closing the discussion can use judgement. If we leave out Eptalon's because it was a long time ago and count FSM's, it may suggest a lower level of support needed on Simple English Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia.

I think that on English Wikipedia, RfAs need about 70% to 80% to succeed (or a little less, maybe about 68% to 78%), and that RfBs need about 80% to 90% to succeed (maybe about 78% to 88%). I think that on Simple English Wikipedia, the level of support usually needed for RfAs is somewhere between 67% and 80%, and for RfBs is somewhere between 75% and 100%. For the Simple English Wikipedia numbers, I don't really know the top and bottom numbers for RfAs or the top number for RfBs, but there is a discussion giving a bottom number (75% + 1 or 75-80%) for RfBs. For English Wikipedia, I think that when the numbers are in that set, then the closing bureaucrat looks carefully at the reasons in the discussion and decides; and even when the numbers are outside that set, the closing bureaucrat can still decide in a different way because of the reasons in the discussion. Inside or outside the set of numbers, the bureaucrat should be able to explain the decision.

Other reasons

I could have closed the RfA at the time it was scheduled to close the first time. Then it would have been 5 supports, 3 opposes.

One of the supports was a "weak support". None of the opposes were "weak oppose". If "weak support" is counted the same as "support", it's 8/3 or 73%; if "weak support" is counted as a half, it's 7.5/3 or 71%.

If it's not clear what the result should be, then it's better to be careful. Not making someone a bureaucrat when they should be one is a mistake that can be fixed with another RfB, maybe a few months later. Making someone a bureaucrat is something that can't easily be changed.


For the reasons I talk about above, I'm leaving the RfB closed as "no consensus".

If anyone wants to question this more, they can talk to me about it on my talk page. The main way to question the decision about American Eagle is to have another RfB; Microchip08 suggested above "in a couple of months". To question decisions about the usual levels of support needed in RfAs or in RfBs, if someone thinks a change is needed, they can start a discussion here on Simple talk and try to get consensus; or they can talk to me about it on my talk page and give me information and reasons to do things differently.

Thanks to Dungodung, Rdsmith4 and Spacebirdy for giving opinions. Thanks also to Kylu and to all who participated in this discussion and in the RfB.

American Eagle has worked hard on this project, and has set up many processes and templates. American Eagle has translated quotes and added sources, has creatively thought of ways to set things up, and has cleverly made them happen. I think that it's because American Eagle is here that people find this project more interesting, and more people have come here. I've spent more time here than I probably would have. I would like to thank American Eagle again for nominating me to be a bureaucrat, and I would like to repeat what PeterSymonds said, "As an editor, what I've seen is superb though." I wish American Eagle good luck next time. Coppertwig(talk) 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wish to argue almost everything you said, Coppertwig, especially the Wikipedia stuff - it has some incorrect things in it. But I will not, it really doesn't help Simple English Wikiquote at all, and that what my long term goal is for us. Thank you, Coppertwig, for writing this all out and giving your time to this, I'm sure you put a lot into it. I do hope I can quickly gain any trust fellow Wikiquotians do not have for me, and I hope to become a B'crat sometime in the future of Simple English Wikiquote.
I have decided to take a short Wikibreak to clear my head of all this, it is too stressing, but I hope to be back soon and help us expand. Thank you to those who supported me in the RfB, I'm glad that you trust me enough in doing so. To all others, I hope to work at gaining trust in anything you don't believe I can do at the moment. I welcome comments (and criticism) that you have for me, I really want to help Simple English Wikiquote be the best we can be. May God bless you all, and thank you. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some corrections and some changes above. I apologize for getting some things wrong and for saying some things that were not necessary.
I don't think I've seen anybody say any reason to close RfAs or RfBs in a different way on a small wiki than on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia there have been more RfAs and RfBs and more discussion about how to do them, so there's more complete information and information that comes from discussion from a larger number of users, so I think that's a good reason to do things the way they do it on English Wikipedia. Maybe that's what I'll do in future. If someone tells me a reason to do things differently on a small wiki, I might change my mind if I think it's a good reason; or if there's a community discussion with a consensus to do things in a different way here. Coppertwig(talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made by User:StaticChristian

I don't know if action should be taken, but something's been disturbing me. [1] is a completely inappropriate comment in my opinion. I'm new here, so I'm not sure what it's like here, just throwing this out. Shapiros10 01:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you meaning "Not to muah?" or "I can't help it."? Thanks, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 01:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can erase it? ✞StaticChristian01:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, leave it there for now. I don't see the big deal, honestly. Which was it, again? Thank you, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many policies have not been written yet here. I think that if a policy has not been written yet, then we follow the policy of English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia or English Wikiquote. I think by English Wikipedia policies, I would say: almost always, don't just delete a comment by someone. Go to the person's talk page and talk to them about it. You can ask the person who wrote it to delete it or strike it out. They might or might not. See w:en:Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments; w:en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; and w:en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. See also DefendEachOther on Meatballwiki. For this comment: I'm sorry, but I also don't understand why you think it's inappropriate. "muah" looks to me like a French word spelled a funny way. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only saying I don't understand. Maybe if you explain why you think it's inappropriate then I might understand. I think that if you feel that it's inappropriate, then your feelings are important. We want this project to be welcoming for you. Coppertwig(talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
StaticChristian is saying that he needs to edit his userspace a lot because "the mainspace isn't fun enough" for him. Shapiros10 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. In my opinion, it's fine for someone to express an opinion like that; but, they should have a good number of mainspace edits too (or other edits that are useful to the project). I think it's OK for people to have some fun as long as they're also contributing enough. His comment could mean that editing mainspace and also userspace is more fun than just editing mainspace. I think that's OK. This is my opinion. That's StaticChristian's opinion. We don't all have to have the same opinion on these things. It's what we do that counts (whether we edit mainspace or not, for example); we're allowed to have opinions about how much fun it is. Coppertwig(talk) 00:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand in complete agreement, Coppertwig. ;) -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and talk pages

I've noticed (testing on myself) that blocked users can't edit their talk page. They should be able to. Can we fix this? SwirlBoy39 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is a way. But I'm not sure how. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing this!! Did you test it for a user with a talk page that had already been created? Coppertwig(talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir. SwirlBoy39
Isn't it the same as on Wikipedia? Because if it is, when setting the block there is a tickbox that says 'allow user to edit own talk page' The Flying Spaghetti Monster 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no box like that. It says,
  • "Prevent account creation
  • Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from
  • Prevent user from sending e-mail
  • Watch this user's user and talk pages"
Coppertwig(talk) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can this problem be fixed? SwirlBoy39 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know! Maybe we can ask at Meta somewhere. I wonder what version of the software we're using. Coppertwig(talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it can be fixed in a MediaWiki page? Not sure. – RyanCross (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked on #mediawiki, and he said we have to ask on Bugzilla and he said we have to enable $wgBlockAllowsUTEdit to our LocalSettings file. I know what this is, but we have to ask for it to be done on Bugzilla. God bless, American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 01:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Bugzilla is probably the best place to fix that. Thank you, AE. – RyanCross (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:16254 filed. Kylu 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kylu. – RyanCross (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was filing as Kylu posted! :) Please vote! SwirlBoy39 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we need a vote here. Those in favor of enabling the bug vote support, those not in favor, oppose.

I think it's pretty obvious that we all want the bug to be enabled. Consensus seems decided already. Is there really any need to !vote? – RyanCross (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vote here, not at bugzilla. SwirlBoy39 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that is consensus then. If you are opposed, say so now. SwirlBoy39 02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu says a vote may help. SwirlBoy39 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No reason why not really. If users are blocked, they should have the option to request an unblock on their talk page. If they use this process abusively, then you can protect their talk page or reblock but instead disabling the ability for the user to edit his or her talk page. – RyanCross (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Djsasso. It is a right of every blocked user (or should be), and only after abuse of a talk page should it be protected. No great urgency being a small project, but as it grows it will become a necessity. PeterSymonds 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Should static be able to vote on a deletion request of his subpages? I don't think he should be able to, and I'm not just saying that because I nom'd them. That'd be like me marking keep on one of my pages. I don't think users that have a/some subpage(s) listed for deletion should be able to vote in that particular discussion. Thoughts? SwirlBoy39 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shapiros10 02:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it should be different, but his opinion should be useful in a comment in discussion, but probably not a vote, per se. -- American Eagle (talkmy RfB) 03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a link to a policy or guideline or something like that somewhere showing that people usually can't vote about their own userpages. If not, then I think StaticChristian should be able to vote. I see no reason not to. Coppertwig(talk) 15:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is allowed to !vote. No reason not to really. He could provide reasons to why it should be kept. He's no different than anyone else when it comes to who should !vote and when. – RyanCross (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't really thought it that way. I was thinking about WP:COI, but this is a userpage, and not an article. I suppose you may be correct on this. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A form of ClueBot

Would anyone oppose me making a form of ClueBot for SEWQ? I realize we're small, but what if a vandal arrives, and no one's around, did they really vandali -- er, I mean, there would probably be chaos. SwirlBoy39 04:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then vandalism reversion can wait. We aren't such high-traffic that it is imperative that vandalism is reverted ASAP. Microchip08 11:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Something like ClueBot needs a lot of testing. At first, you need to run it and have it not really revert edits, just list them in a log. It may take a long time before there's enough vandalism here to test it enough. I think it's OK if you want to do that, but you have to do it carefully. Actually, maybe it's a good idea because we're not here a lot. Why not get a copy of ClueBot? Or ask Cobi to run ClueBot here? Coppertwig(talk) 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be a good idea. But from what I've seen, we don't get any vandalism at all, so I don't think the bot would do much to any work. – RyanCross (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody wanna have fun fixing MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown? If you are a user, request the changes on the talk. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 03:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should we try to fix? Do you want it simplified? Do you want the red links created? I might be able to help. – RyanCross (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed before a few months back, but we really need a new logo. Simply "Wikiquote" is not enough. We should have our own custom logo. If I recall, the community agreed to change the new logo, but I don't know if anybody has started working on it yet. Nobody has done anything to change our logo. So does anybody here know how to make a new logo? I'm thinking the logo should be the exact same thing as it is now, instead it should say "Simple Wikiquote", or maybe we should use this image. Could anybody do something like that? If there are any other ideas on how we should design our logo, say so here. – RyanCross (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be the same logo, but with the words "Simple English" at the bottom. The words don't have to be part of the logo. They can be like a caption. "Wikiquote" is correct; it doesn't have to be "Simple Wikiquote". "Simple Wikiquote" sounds maybe incorrect to me. "Wikiquote" or "Simple English Wikiquote" is correct. But I would like to be able to look quickly at the logo and see a difference between English Wikiquote and Simple English Wikiquote. I put a link from English Wikipedia to show that I'm a bureaucrat here, but people might think it means I'm a bureaucrat on English Wikiquote. Sometimes when I'm looking at English Wikiquote too I don't know which project I'm on. I have to look to see that it says "Simple talk" or not. Near the words "getting around" we could have the words "Simple English". I was thinking of just changing "getting around" to say "Simple English" instead, but I guess that's not what those words are for. Coppertwig(talk) 12:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it for us. ✞StaticChristian17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, that is the sidebar caption. And it is always lowercase (and can't be made uppercase), so "English" would be english, and that is incorrect. I think that it would be a very good idea to have our own, I also sometimes confuse Simple English from English Wikiquote. Static, that would be good, but it is very hard to make and has to be very good quality and transparent. But all proposals would be good to look at, go ahead and make one if you wish. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try. ✞StaticChristian19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the logo here. ✞StaticChristian19:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, StaticChristian! I think it would be good to make the words "Simple Wikiquote" much larger. Also, maybe it should say "Simple English Wikiquote", not just "Simple Wikiquote". If other people like "Simple Wikiquote" that's OK with me, though. Coppertwig(talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it will. I think it needs more work, though. Good start, Static. Thank you. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please enact the close I made in that RfD? Thanks,--Maxim(talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is wrong. This goes against policy, against the purpose of subpages, against having fun while editing. I think that the wrong decision was made, and I now have my own fun page. I will not be deleting it. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin may delete the pages, general consensus is for that. But I don't believe that it is right, but I am not the decider. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares that you have a secret page--you edit the articles; if SC did the same, no one would care either. Maxim(talk) 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Goals

These are some statistics from our site:

These are some goals I'd like for us by the end of the year:

  • We get 300 articles (59 to go).
  • We make the top 300 Wikimedia wikis.
  • We create a special Main Page for Christmas Day.

These are just things I'd like us to be able to reach. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm plodding on, creating 2 or 3 articles every few days. I can go a bit faster if people want... I'm not that busy on Simple right now. I reckon we can get 300 pretty soon. Whats the quote of the day on Christmas Day AE? The Flying Spaghetti Monster 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I already chose a good Quote of the Day, "Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas." – Calvin Coolidge, I like that one and think it's good. And thank you for your article writing, FSM, you've created many. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can do that. Just one question: By "special Main Page", do you mean a new Main Page design? If so, do you mean just for that day? More information needed please. – RyanCross (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps not a whole new design (or maybe one, I don't know), but a Christmasy look, some colors (even though green and red are hard to add to a Main Page, as they are deep colors), perhaps a "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" banner or something. And also the Christmas QOTD, etc. I think that we should do similar things for Thanksgiving, April Fools, etc. (as English Wikipedia does). So yeah, I'd think it would be cool to have a special Christmas Main Page. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some red and green holly around the edges of the top box of the Main Page. I think it would be a good idea to put something special for the most important holidays of a few different big religions, like Jewish and Muslim, to make it more NPOV. We could use the same decorations for the holiday every year (unless somebody feels like changing them). Some holidays move around on the calendar. Coppertwig(talk) 03:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can do that. I'll probably work on Christmas first. I won't do a whole new design (not now at least), but I'll do something simple. – RyanCross (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig: Yeah, I thought about that. But that's why I added "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" to include all Holidays around Christmas. Does anyone really know Islamic holidays...? Or major Jewish ones? Christmas and Thanksgiving are national holidays in the U.S. and some other countries. I don't think any Islamic holidays are national outside the Middle East (which we have very few, in any, users/readers. But I'd be fine with something, even if just a QOTD related to them or something. RyanCross: Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Anyway, I've started the design at User:RyanCross/Sandbox/Christmas Main Page. Everyone is free to edit the page, but major changes should be discussed first on the talk page. Tell me what you think so far. I'm still deciding the right color for the banner. – RyanCross (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unidenting) Yay my pages are the most viewed! ✞StaticChristian14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I don't think they're the most viewed for good reasons. Tombomp 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my idea about holly was just a suggestion. I'm sure there are many ways to do it that would look nice. To me, just having "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" on Christmas and no special pages on other days would not be NPOV enough and may not seem welcoming to someone from a religion or culture that doesn't celebrate Christmas.
The English Wikipedia article w:en:Jewish Holidays says "Yom Kippur is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year," so maybe that would be a good one to make a special page for, although it's more solemn than festive. One idea is to put this image Image:Kol Nidrei.jpg somewhere on the Main Page. (I can't read it.)
The English Wikipedia page Muslim holidays says "Eid ul-Adha (عيد الأضحى), also called the big holiday..." Maybe that means that's an important holiday. This web page says "Eid al-Adha or Feast of Sacrifice is the most important feast of the Muslim calendar. It concludes the Pilgrimmage to Mecca." One idea would be to use this image Image:OldmapofMecca.jpg somewhere on the page as a decoration.
I looked at w:en:List of Hindu festivals but didn't find which holiday might be more important.
Canadian Thanksgiving is the second Monday in October. American Thanksgiving is the fourth Thursday in November. I think most of the world doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving.
Can someone give links to show what English Wikipedia does on the Main Page on special days? (Change conflict) Coppertwig(talk) 15:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coding Help

Can some please fix the template {{USPresidents}} so that all pages it is on are automatically added to Category:American politicans and Category:United States Presidents. I was doing it manually but this would be much quicker, only I don't really know how to do it. Cheers, The Flying Spaghetti Monster 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be able to help. I'll take a look at the template shortly and I'll see what I can do. – RyanCross (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DoneStaticChristian00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I was looking over Wikiquote:Administrators, and I thought that it needed a change and update. I was bold and went right ahead in changing the page. So, I've made a big edit here. It took me a little while to get it right, but I've done all I could. I expanded the page, copyedited a bit, added colors to the "List of administrators" sections for more convenience, added more links, removed some things, and more. Tell me what you think. All comments would be appreciated. – RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it`s great. ✞StaticChristian14:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Thanks! I put in a few simpler words. Coppertwig(talk) 14:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) And no problem. – RyanCross (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could more editors participate in the above WQ:DR? It would be much easier to decide consensus with more discussion, but two !votes (one from the nom and the other with no explanation.. which doesn't give much weight) isn't enough. – RyanCross (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, there's been some disagreement on whether Static should continue to be allowed to edit here. Discuss. Maxim(talk) 12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's not discuss it. Please don't start a discussion like that unless someone starts the discussion here by suggesting not allowing him to edit here, and giving reasons. Coppertwig(talk) 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people don't want me here, then I think I should listen for once to the haters. Static(talk) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Want reasons? There are some here. He's been disruptive, trickily. ѕwirlвoy  15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig: That doesn't make one ounce of sense. Maxim appears to be acting as a neutral party in the situation. It looks like he's opened up this thread to either get us to communicate on one page, or to put this to bed. (either way doesn't matter) Regardless, its less than sound to tell someone they can't begin a discussion without picking a side. Synergy 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static has retired, so I suggest that we don't need to discuss this any more. Coppertwig(talk) 23:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe him. Again? w:User:Jonas D. Rand 01:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's what we should do. He's currently retired, which is his right, so we can drop it. If he comes back and is disruptive, we can discuss further. But currently there's nothing we need to do. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Unless someone would like to discuss further, The End of this long discussion, it ended okay IMO. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It ended good? You made one of the most active editors here go away. 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we never forced you out; you decided to retire, and though we're sorry, we can't do much about it now. If you return one day, you're welcome to, but if you wanted your retirement to evoke some sadness across the community, then you left for the wrong reasons. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By good, I mean with the littlest drama as possible. Not that it's good that you retired, that was your choice, Static. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might return in a couple of months or something. But I can't get in my account because I forgot the password and removed e-mail. 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific stub templates

I noticed on recent changes the creation of {{Tv-stub}}. I was going to request its deletion at RfD, but I think we need a decision on whether specific stub templates should be allowed, and what to do with them. Right now, with so few articles, I don't think they're necessary, and can be tagged with {{stub}} all the same. This is also done on Simple Wikipedia, so I was curious as to your thoughts on these. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the use of specific stub templates, for this reason; categorization. We categorize TV shows, Films (or Movies, another discussion), Books, etc. by genre. This makes it much easier, and there are enough pages to warrant it (i.e. here). God bless, American Eagle (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey doke, thanks for pointing that out. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote categories

I'm being bold and changing some categories. I can change them back if people don't like it. Feel free to discuss.

I'm putting some pages into these categories:

Coppertwig(talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. My only niggle would be to propose WQ:N as a guideline rather than a policy. Apart from that, I much prefer the work you've done! Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peter. You're right. I guess we need another category, "proposed guidelines". Coppertwig(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static Block

New template: See also section

I just created {{See also section}} to fix a problem I was finding on some articles. For an example, look at Abraham Lincoln; there are a lot of templates at the bottom ({{wikipedia}}, {{wikisource author}}, {{Simple quotes}}, etc). It could also use {{commons}}, though then it would be far too cluttered. For other articles, like Keiko Agena, there isn't a Simple English Wikipedia article (but there is one for the regular English Wikipedia), and the wikilink in the opening paragraph can be somewhat misleading.

If we use {{see also section}}, we can selectively choose which projects can be linked to in a way that wouldn't make the pages too busy. I've got a fully loaded example at User:EVula#See also; feel free to edit the section and make modifications; just use the Preview button to see what it would end up looking like. I think this will help us display relevant wikilinks for our sister projects, while still keeping our articles readable.

Thoughts? EVula // talk // 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent idea. I had a look and it's all in order, and very helpful. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the idea's fine, but I don't like the idea of have 10+ links to other projects in a row. Is there a way to make two columns out of it, like with {{col-2}}. Otherwise, excellent idea and good job, EVula. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at most, I'd imagine that we'd have three links: Commons, Wikipedia, and Wikisource. My initial thinking was that we would only link to the English projects if a Simple English one wasn't available (for example, we'd link to Simple English Wikipedia on Abraham Lincoln, but the English Wikipedia for Keiko Agena); I don't think linking to both is especially helpful.
I left the rest of the sites in there just to make sure we weren't restricted in how we can use this; links to Wikinews, Wikiversity, and all the rest might happen elsewhere (for instance, maybe on Category pages). EVula // talk // 22:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created live examples at both Abraham Lincoln#See also and Keiko Agena#See also. I'd say that definitely any article that doesn't have a Simple English Wikipedia article shouldn't have a wikilink in the lead paragraph (such as Keiko's); I've tried to make a clear distinction every time we're referring the user to a non-Simple English wikilink, as I think that's important to preserving the entire Simple English ideal. EVula // talk // 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it on Tim Walberg and I love it! Thank you! -- American Eagle (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked it. :) I've applied the template to a few more articles, just to work the kinks out; how do they look?
Once I'm done fixing all the issues with {{see also section}}, I'll write up instructions for it. EVula // talk // 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Okay, good. Hmm... why not just put it in the "other websites" section, as we currently don't use "see also" and it seems more appropriate. Your thoughts? -- American Eagle (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadn't actually thought of that; my original thinking was to distinguish sister site links from regular external links, but they are already pretty distinctive with the icons, and "Other websites" is still ample descriptive (especially since several articles don't have any links to begin with). I'm assuming that the template should come first in that list, correct? Is there anyone else that'd like to weigh in, or is this just a chat between me and AE? ;) EVula // talk // 05:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our wiki has a rather small community, so you won't get as many comments as you would over there. I think it's a fantastic idea. Good work. :-) – RyanCross (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I eventually realized that, but then got hung up on the fact that the template wasn't behaving the way I wanted it to. It's all fixed, now, so I think we can start applying it to articles more readily. :) EVula // talk // 17:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Main Page

Hello all, I have been a bit inactive lately, because I have become active on English Wikipedia. But I haven't left. ;) I want to bring up something we discussed earlier, the Christmas Main Page idea. We currently have two main proposals; this one (which I have been working on) (proposal #1), and this one (which was based off the old design) (proposal #2). What are your thoughts on these, and should be have some kind of vote, or something? Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we change the Main Page to be more festive, I say let's go with the first; it's more understated... though we should probably make sure the festive picture links aren't broken. :) EVula // talk // 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done links fixed. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First one is best, definitely. Nice images, nice and simple formatting, and overall good for Christmas Eve and Day. The borders on the second one is too distracting. – RyanCross (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first one is better (even though I worked on the second one). Coppertwig(talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange template issue

All fixed. Thanks Coppertwig! EVula // talk // 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into a very, very strange glitch with {{see also section}}. It is simple refusing some content. Compare the following sets:

Displays three lines: wikipedian-en, commonscat, and source, all set to "Theodore Roosevelt" [good thing]

Displays four lines: wikipedia and wikipedian-en set to "Lady Randolph Churchill", commonscat and source to Theodore Roosevelt [good thing]

Displays no lines [bad thing]

Displays only wikipedian-en, and not commonscat and source [bad thing]

I have no idea what's causing it to choke up on some of the input, but not others. At first I thought maybe it was a matter of all the fields needing to be the same, but now it looks like it just won't accept some fields. I'm at a loss for what the problem is. EVula // talk // 04:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I tweaked the last template to show the pagename exactly as Wikiquote writes it, and the commonscat came back. There must be something in the template itself that matches the template to the exact pagename, or else it won't show at all. But I wouldn't know where, or how to fix it. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be, since templates can't go out and figure out if a link is valid (for example, the second "good thing" example goes to w:Lady Randolph Churchill, which doesn't exist). It basically looks like the template is refusing some content, but not others. Baffling. EVula // talk // 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what's happening. The template is using "ifexist" to check whether a page exists. "Teddy Roosevelt" and "Randolph Churchill" don't exist here on Simple English Wikiquote, so it doesn't show anything. I think you can only check whether a page is here; I think you can't check whether there is a page on other projects. Anyway, for now this template is only checking whether there is a page here. I suggest taking out all the "ifexist" checks. I can do that if you want. The person putting the template on a page should check whether the pages exist. I think they have to click on the links to check. I think links to another project won't show as red links. Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, that makes sense. I thought ifexist was the equivalent to php's ifset, hence it didn't even occur to me that the problem might lie there. I just did some reading up on parser functions and will try to get the blasted thing to work now... EVula // talk // 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hot diggity damn, sure enough, just had to change #ifexist to #if. Serves me right for shamelessly copying the template from somewhere else. ;) EVula // talk // 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Good thinking to those above) I have a question: why do we call it "see also section," shouldn't it be moved to a more appropriate template page, like "sister projects" or something? American Eagle (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking about that earlier. Since originally I was thinking of putting it in a separate "See also" section (and the original version of it is w:en:Template:Seealsosection), the name made sense; however, since we're now using it in the "Other websites" section, a name change does seem in order. I've moved it to {{other wikis}}, which seems like a good Simple English name for it. EVula // talk // 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds fine. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Goals v.2

Well, since I made some goals above, we have met one of the goals; we have a Main Page for Christmas Eve and Day, here. There is a goal that cannot be met (#2), as we have moved further away from reaching the top 300 wikis. But, there is one goal that is yet to be decided: reaching 300 articles. We now have 283 articles, 17 off our goal. And, there are 17 days left in 2008. So, that means we need one new page per day. Anyone up for the challenge? I will be working towards it. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that great at actual article work; I'm much more of a behind the scenes kind of guy (and more likely to instantly link any new articles into the interwiki mix and Simple Wikipedia). I'll see what I can do, though. :) EVula // talk // 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could devote some time from myself to help accomplish this goal. I'll be happy to help. – RyanCross (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help us to have some specific goalposts to work with. I think we should kill all the redlinks on {{USPresidents}}; US presidents are pretty major figures, and best of all, the English Wikiquote has plenty of material for us to work with. Not only that, but as of right now, there are exactly 17 red links on that template; we currently have 287 articles, so finishing that template would put us just on the other side of 300. :)

I just created William McKinley to help us get that much closer to 300 (though, as I said before, article writing isn't my strong suit). EVula // talk // 21:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking that earlier. My last two creations were of U.S. Presidents, so yeah, I'll be doing that. We can do it! ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only 12 more articles to go. :-) We have about 14–15 days left. – RyanCross (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, we've reached our goal of creating 300 articles and making a Holiday Main Page! :-) Thank you to all. – RyanCross (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wahoo! Good work everyone. :) EVula // talk // 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style: proposed changes

Wikiquote:Manual of Style#Heading: Currently, the bold first instance of the article's name is supposed to be a wikilink to the Simple English Wikipedia. Personally, I find that to be very unattractive; we've got a lot of light blue links in lead sections already, and the black bold text stands out a lot. I've been cutting them out as I've been applying {{other wikis}}; the link is redundant due to the template. For a good comparison between the styles, see Barack Obama and John McCain.

What does everyone think? Can we change the Manual of Style to remove that line? EVula // talk // 07:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is fine. Yesterday, my brother told me that he doesn't understand why pages need to have so many links, it makes it hard to read and you forget it's an article and not just links. They are useful, but this one can go, in my opinion. Also, our manual of style is a changeable one, with discussion, and should be added to (but has the general stuff). American Eagle (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates changes

Hello all, I am proposing the changes of {{simple quotes}} and {{need translation}}, to what I have created at {{simple quotes/idea}} and {{need translation/Idea}}. Because us having simple quotes is the equivalent of the FA on English Wikipedia, I think the placing is good. The current templates are really big, and often have gotten in the way of other templates and images. What do you think about this? Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I'm a fan of any replacement for those templates; like you said, they get in the way of other templates and images. The upper-corner icon solution works fairly well here, especially since we don't have many different article quality levels; "simple" or "not-simple" are pretty much it. EVula // talk // 16:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whaterver you think is best, I trust you as much as on SEWP! Yotcmdr 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I decided to be bold and makes the changes. Here is what we have for the time being:

All three have the correct message when you mouse over them. I have two questions; are the colors right? And where in the article should the template(s) be placed, at the very top, or where else? Overall, I think it looks good. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... most people wouldn't think of hovering over the images. Most would want to read a note instead that there is a problem with the page. – RyanCross (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the style. On most projects, a cornered star indicates an article which meets a certain standard. I think a some sort of circle with an "s" within would suffice; stars may give the wrong impression. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll think about that tomorrow or so, I've been so busy. Eek, bed time, long, but great day. American Eagle (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal. :) I just mean that, realistically, most of our new editors will come from either Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, etc. They might be confused by the star. But it doesn't particularly matter either way; anything's better than that blue banner at the bottom! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a green version of File:Symbol unsupport star gold.svg? I could tweak the SVG file easily enough (I think; I've never actually tried it), and that would provide a more obvious distinction from the full green star. EVula // talk // 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice idea. :) Essentially it's not a big issue for me, but if it can be done, sure thing! My SVG knowledge is notoriously lackingnon-existent, so looks like you're the best person for the job! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voila, I present File:Symbol unsupport star green.svg. One of the benefits to having CS3 on my work computer... which is exactly two feet to the right of my personal computer. :) EVula // talk // 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) Great work! :D I like it. Hopefully the others agree. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and, because it was even easier than I initially thought it would be, I went ahead and created and . We don't have to use them, of course, but I figured that I might as well complete the set that Commons had. :) EVula // talk // 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know. This is a major decision, so we need some discussion on all of them, but I think yours are best. I think it would be better if we had two exact proposals, like vote a) or b) and say why, to avoid confusion. American Eagle (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template changes: Vote

#1: #2: #3: #4:

Those are the only four configurations I could come up with. Of them all, I prefer #2, though I'd be fine with #3 (I used red instead of gray for that one in case anyone was concerned that the gray didn't stand out enough). EVula // talk // 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what do you think of just making {{need sources}} an {{ambox}}. I think it might be better that way. Otherwise, I support #3. And good job with the vote table. American Eagle (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{Need sources/ambox}}?
I added the gray broken image because... well... there's not much text and it's a really wide template. It looked rather bare without it. :) The red clashed a bit with the yellow, though. EVula // talk // 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's okay, but how about {{Need sources/ambox2}}?
Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the first one, because it looks like a maintenance template. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one:
{{need sources/ambox3}} is a marriage of the first two. EVula // talk // 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any use of stars, because they look as if they mean featured articles. Coppertwig(talk) 15:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that raises the question of what sort of quality levels we want. The way I see it, we only have a few: articles that need assistance (sources or translation), fully sourced/translated stubs, and fully sourced/translated long articles. I think we could use for basically any article that is fully sourced and translated, and then for actually lengthy articles (such as Friedrich Kellner). EVula // talk // 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, I agree with you, EVula (but it would require more discussion and such). Coppertwig, Simple quotes generally is the same as Feature articles. We don't write articles here (per se), we translate quotes. A star is a symbol, in this case to show it meets some criterion. American Eagle (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple quotes just means we don't need to translate them. It doesn't mean it's a good-quality page. We might want to look at which quotes were chosen; whether we really agree that they're simple enough; formatting; whether the sources are good enough and complete (e.g. page numbers are given); whether the quotes are in a logical order; whether there's a good paragraph at the beginning. We could have featured articles, but we would look at more than just whether there are translations for all the quotes. We can look at how good the translations are.
If somebody doesn't know about Simple English Wikiquote but knows other projects, and looks at a page, they might think that the star means it's a featured article. But really the translations might have mistakes in them. See Talk:Douglas Hofstadter for example. Coppertwig(talk) 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone that is familiar with other wikis, I don't think anything other than File:Cscr-featured.svg () will make them think it's Featured-level quality. I'm seeing the green stamp as a declaration that everything is okay, rather than "this is one of the best pages on the site," which is what FA is supposed to mean. On enwiki, File:Symbol support vote.svg () is used for "Good Article"-class pages, and I think our green star is similar to that, though I suppose we could just use that instead (but I prefer the green star). Maybe we could use File:Symbol star FA GA.svg () for the "best of the best" so there's a more direct transition? Dunno. EVula // talk // 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I very much agree with AE, that any sourced/translated quote is basically a good article. I like the method of attaching the FA star onto the longer and better sourced articles, but the community is small, so a FA process (which I think is most suitable) could be premature. Some sort of recognition that "this article is a quality article" is a good idea. Maybe a suggestions page: any page meeting a certain quality can have an uninvolved editor attach a symbol? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I agree. FA is a future thing, we don't have enough articles/contributers to pull off a stunk like that. In my opinion, simple quotes is about the same as good articles. Here is what I think we should do:
God bless, American Eagle (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards , primarily because it suggests that, once fixed, the pieces are put together (similarly, it means that an untranslated is "broken," which it kinda is). There isn't a similarly understood "if I fix this, red becomes green" thought. As far as the {{need sources}} bit, I lean towards {{need sources/ambox3}}, simply because gray is traditionally a protection template, and if we adopt ambox for more templates in the future, it'll be easier to adjust now then after we've co-opted the color codes for other purposes. EVula // talk // 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have blocked FastReverter (talk changes) indefinitely for exhausting community patience. Earlier, you may remember he posted the IRC logs, and I warned him then that further disruption would result in an indefinite block. Today he vandalised an RfA by replacing the content with "bonehead" in big letters (the IP is one he uses at sewp). He then told me that I wanted him dead, which I reverted, and in reverting me again, used this edit summary. I think it's come to the point where he's exhausted community patience for long enough, and pending agreement here, I think the indefinite block should remain. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently told him that he was doing better, and that he didn't need a mentor on sewp. I just don't understand why he can't act the same on all wiki's and not just one. I support the block, obviously. He can't go around doing these things and not expect to get blocked. I fear he is turning back into the same Static again. Synergy 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the block; I wouldn't shed a tear if we considered him banned. He hasn't been anything but an obnoxious twit a positive contributor in far too long. The only good thing he's ever done, in my opinion, is provide me with a new item for my list of insults. :) EVula // talk // 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: calling another user an "obnoxious twit" is a PA, regardless of what you think of him. Otherwise, I am fine with the block, especially because of the edit summary. I endorse (yes, my "friend") the block as well. American Eagle (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I consider it fair game under WP:SPADE. :) Comment struck. EVula // talk // 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now that's mean. ;) Anways, situation over - let's move on to articles and the discussion above. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block endorsed. Too much childish and immature acts by FastReverter here on Simple English Wikiquote enough to justify an indefinite block. This and this breaks the line. Do we need any more disruptiveness such as this from Baseball16/ThePageChanger/StaticFalcon/StaticCross (yes, he used this one...)/StaticChristian/FastReverter? (That's probably only half of his accounts) No, we don't, se let's prevent this from happening again. — RyanCross (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Block Poster child for how not to act on wiki. Shapiros10 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Block This kind of nonsense is not tolerated at any level on any Wikipedia. I am very surprised at how long it took you guys to block him over here. At least over on SEWP, he acts a bit more maturely than here. Cheers, Razorflame 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Revert 2; the retaliation

In a last effort to piss you off, he's gone and proposed the project be closed. Regards. Synergy 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just blocked one of his IPs earlier today. Good times. EVula // talk // // 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal is now closed as vandalism. Have a nice day SEWQ. Synergy 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty happy about how that went. :) EVula // talk // // 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ja ja. Oh, and congrats EVula! o/ PeterSymonds (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh he reverted the closure of the debate, however I undid his reversion. I seriously don't get why it doesn't get through to him that he can't act like that. -Djsasso 03:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have setup MaximillionBot to add and maintain interwiki links and to fix any double redirects. Some details:

  • Operator : Maximillion Pegasus
  • Purpose : Adding interwiki links. Fix any double redirects.
  • Script used : pywikipedia
  • Other projects : Have also requested bot flag for the Simple Wikibooks and Wiktionary.

Maximillion Pegasus 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully tested it here on Simple Wikiquote. Maximillion Pegasus 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After going through a few changes, I Support granting the bot flag. Seems fine. American Eagle (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me, even if interwiki editing is what I enjoy doing. I don't want to be put out of a job. ;) EVula // talk // // 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a flag!! Our poor RC can't take too many automated edits easily. Already approved on SEWB and SEWP(?) so no issues as far as I'm concerned. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received a flag on Simple English Wiktionary today. It has been approved on Simple English Wikibooks, just waiting for a Steward to grant the flag (no bureaucrats there). Maximillion Pegasus 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Just received the flag on Simple Wikibooks too. Maximillion Pegasus 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gave the bot flag to MaximillionBot. Thanks for doing interwiki edits with your bot. Coppertwig(talk) 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposal

Regarding the templates {{simple quotes}}, {{need translation}} and {{needs sources}}, I have completed the first two. For {{needs sources}}, we need to decide on one of them. Of the three below, they all are similar to Template:Unreferenced. Here they are:



Change Change Change. ;) Well, it's just a "broken" image that needs fixing. Plus, it's different from all the English Wikipedia defaults. I don't know, I just liked it. American Eagle (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I won't be voting as I want to keep a neutral point of view on this until we decide which to use. I don't want to influence other user's votes. I'll close in several days. — RyanCross (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided to change my vote and go with community consensus. Ryan, you may close this, it appears most active users have voted. (Or, it can stay open a while longer.) Either way, it appears #3 is the clear choice. TheAE talk 19:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting - Straw poll

Bureaucrats and Checkusers

While I know that this community already has 1 bureaucrat, I would like to suggest we get another bureaucrat to help out with the load whenever the other one isn't on. Furthermore, I don't believe that this Wikiquote has any local checkusers. Am I right? If that is the case, I would like to suggest that we nominate Coppertwig for checkuser and RyanCross or PeterSymonds for 'crat. What do you guys think about this? Cheers, Razorflame 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's not really necessary. As long as I've been active here, there has only been one possible need for a checkuser, but the account was indefinitely blocked anyway. We don't get much vandalism or anything that would require a check (and on the rare occasion, should one come up, we can use m:SRCU)r. Furthermore the meta requirement for checkuser voting is 25, which is too great for this community at the moment. Maybe some time in the future, but I can't foresee a need for at least 6 months or longer. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As PeterSymonds said, a local CheckUser is not really necessary right now. As for bureaucrats, I think one bureaucrat is enough to handle all of the bureaucrat actions which need to be done here, but if any of the current admins decided to run, I would probably support. Maximillion Pegasus 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to see Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/American Eagle for reference. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I failed my RfB because people said we didn't need two B'crats. I do believe we should have more than one, which is why I had ran. About CUs, I doubt we really need one, as we don't get too much vandalism. But it would be alright with me if Coppertwig became one (as long as he meets the requirements, identification, 18+, etc.). American Eagle (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As PeterSymonds said, meta requires the participation of at least 25 users, which I think is too high for this wiki too meet. Also, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. Maximillion Pegasus 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No cheeckusers needed. As for bureaucrats, one seems like enough, but it couldn't hurt to add another or two. I was already nominated once, but declined, but if the community wants another bureaucrat, I may consider going for bureaucratship again if needed. But do we really need another? Will it hurt to add another? Has things changed since AE's request? What does the community think? — RyanCross (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think another bureaucrat would be a fine idea. RyanCross is one of the best users here, and has very good judgement. No doubt he would be a great crat. Shapiros10 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to concur with Shappy here. RyanCross, now is the time for your RfB :). If you might allow me to, I would be happy to nominate you :). Cheers, Razorflame 06:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a single person for any role is a fairly bad idea; it's easy for Real Life to happen and screw up everything that person is working on. Of course, we don't have RfAs and username change requests that often, but still. Ryan, I think you'd make an excellent second 'crat.
As for CheckUsers, I think it's a bit early to have local CUs. However, if my steward candidacy passes, I'll be on-hand to perform any CU requests; that'd be the next best thing to having our own CheckUsers. EVula // talk // // 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVula, you can expect a support from me on your steward request. Also, I believe that American Eagle would be a better choice for 'crat than RyanCross because of how much more active AE is than RC. Cheers, Razorflame 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, glad to hear it. :) As for AE or RC... it doesn't have to be one or the other. We could do something really crazy and have three bureaucrats. Insane! :D EVula // talk // // 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, this really isn't a big deal, but I cannot figure Category:Quick deletion requests out. It lists Help:Section and Help:Starting a new page for QD, but neither of them are tagged, and I checked the templates used on the page, and I can't figure anything out. I also purged the pages and category, and it still isn't working. Is it just the software? American Eagle (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply], no clue. Editing Help:Starting a new page says that Template:QD is used on the page (look at the list at the very bottom), but I couldn't find it anywhere; I copied and pasted the entire text into another program to look for it, and didn't find anything. I tried editing each individual section, and the QD template didn't turn up anywhere either, and I even looked at all the other templates. I'm baffled. EVula // talk // // 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I deleted the pages, then undeleted them both. Now fixed and not in category. Done TheAE talk 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way to use your head, American Eagle. ;-) Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way to use admin buttons! (Don't try that with bureaucrat buttons though!) Coppertwig(talk) 14:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates?

Several months ago, I was highly in favor of dating links (probably because I liked seeing blue). But, I've gotten used to English Wikipedia, which generally doesn't date links. Now, I want to establish what our MoS on this should – to link, or not to link? I am not for linking dates, as it isn't encyclopedic, there is no reason to it, except the preference of blue links on a page. Thankfully, almost all our links used {{date}}, so it will be pretty easy to unlink most all, should be need it. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove them; they don't actually serve much purpose to the reader, as they have nothing to do with the quotes themselves. EVula // talk // // 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with EVula on this one. Here, links aren't very important, however, on the English Wikipedia, I am all in favor of linking dates, but here, it really doesn't matter if they are linked. Cheers, Razorflame 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. From now on, we will not be linking dates as part of the MoS (unless required for another reason). TheAE talk 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — RyanCross (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted on this RfB and I'm not going to close it. Someone else will need to close it when it's time to close it(Changed 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)). It might be an impartial administrator or someone who is a bureaucrat on another project. Coppertwig(talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there's clear consensus here to promote. (I'm a bureaucrat on meta-wiki). You should be the one to close it though, CT. It's part of your job as a bcrat. Majorly 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ends in 4 days, though. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bureaucrat on several projects and would be happy to close it (despite not being a bureaucrat here), but if you feel you can't close it, a steward would possibly be able to (since there is [a] community consensus and [b] no local bureaucrat in this case, since the sole 'crat is recusing themselves). It would still be best if you closed it regardless of your feelings, however. EVula // talk // // 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I accepted the nomination to be a bureaucrat, I said that I would vote in some RfAs and that there would be some RfAs I wouldn't close. I don't close discussions that I've voted in. And yes, Shapiros10, :-) it isn't time to close it yet. I should have said that. Coppertwig(talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say... that's a really shitty attitude for a bureaucrat to have. Bureaucrats are supposed to put the community first, their own opinions second. I don't mind that you actively participate in RfAs, but refusing to close an RfB when you're the only 'crat around? No, bad form. EVula // talk // // 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if AE is willing to wait a day, we can reasonably assume that Ryan could close and promote, unless Coppertwig similarly recuses himself in that RfB as well. EVula // talk // // 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed an RfD before when every active admin voted on it and got another admin to delete the page(s) in question. I'm a bureaucrat on wikispecies and I'll be willing to close it as well if need be. Maxim | talk 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is still four days left in the RfB, Coppertwig's vote may swing others'. So it is possible I could have less than 50%, and we may not need an official closer (assuming it's clear users will not support we for 'crat). I will shortly be replying to his oppose, as it is a vote based on my own judgment, and I need to explain. TheAE talk 01:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with EVula in this case. This really is not a good attitude for a bureaucrat to have. They should have the community on their minds at all times and should be neutral in all instances, no matter what their personal feelings about the situation are. That is why there are bureaucrats. Razorflame 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it would be better if he didn't, I think he should be allowed to give his opinion, if he feels so strongly about it (assuming another user can close it for him). And I am the one he opposed. Now before every user here throws their hat in the ring, Stewards are there for a reason, and I think it would be best if a person who has been given that job close it. This wouldn't be a problem if we had more than one local 'crat, as I'm sure we all have learned. TheAE talk 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I double-checked and yes, the stewards can perform the promotion. Good thing we've got two RfBs going right now; with three bureaucrats, we won't likely have to do this again. EVula // talk // // 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cheers, Razorflame 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like everything is all planned out for Saturday. Thank you for checking, EVula. — RyanCross (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question regarding my RfB; Are inactive users allowed to vote? That is, they do have an account here, but they don't and/or haven't used for anything but discussion and !voting, or they have been fully inactive. In my opinion, Juliancolton (Support, admittedly inactive), Synergy (Oppose, 7 edits since November, 0 article edits), and Djsasso (Oppose, 11 edits since August) shouldn't be counted. Simple English Wikipedia has proposed making activity apart of vote counting. (And no, I am not only doing this because I want to succeed, I think it should always be the case). Thoughts? TheAE talk 19:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe you should have brought it up after your request was closed? A 'crat/steward should be able to weight each individual !vote. Have some faith in them. Remember its not all about the numbers, its about the arguements. If someone doesn't edit alot and has a very strong reason supported by policy or fact or whatever and someone who edits alot puts in a vote without a reson at all. Which do you think should count? In a way I think this is a good question for a potential 'crat as the answer is pretty obvious. -Djsasso 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) -Djsasso 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the point of "bringing it up after my request was closed"? If we count the votes, then this discussion is pointless. It needs to be discussed before closing. At, "A 'crat/steward should be able to weight each individual !vote" Yes, but the 'crat only decides based on the community consensus, and who the community thinks should !vote (then we should like anons and vandals vote as well). At, "Which do you think should count?", I think the second should count, as the user would be basing thier !vote upon the user, his edits, and their own participation in the community, not personal opinions. The first one is discussable, which is why I brought this up. TheAE talk 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To avoid it looking like it was just sour grapes is the reason. Yes and consensus isn't determined by pure numbers. Part of the job of a 'crat is to not just look at the numbers and to weigh the votes, and they are well within their rights to determine that a user with 5 edits or whatever has less value. That is why we promote people to 'crat, because we think they will be able to make those tough calls in close situations. -Djsasso 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is why I ended by saying, "And no, I am not only doing this because I want to succeed, I think it should always be the case." Djsasso, you supported requiring users to make at least 50 edits in that month to be given a !vote. Now, you say it doesn't matter if you are part of the community, as long as you have a good reason. In my opinion, the local community should decide if a candidate is ready for a tool, not drive-by opposing/supporting. That is all I want by this discussion. A side not, I think Kylu should close the request, as she knows a bit about us and has worked here before. God bless, TheAE talk 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My only point was this is the sort of thing that needs to be decided before an Rfx is started, not after its been running. I have no problem with the community setting minimum standards. I do have a problem with trying to create them while a request is running. But as you said my opinion is that of a person who mostly just watches this place daily and doesn't edit much so take it for what its worth. -Djsasso 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Has Come

As I look at my calendar, I see it is January 31, the end date for AE's RFB. Although I think that the result is not particularly challenging for a crat to close, it's time to take off our magician's hats and pull out a rabbit steward/crat on another project. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's still a got a couple of hours to go; it's currently 17:16, and the candidate accepted at 20:12. Yes, that's just a couple of hours, but welcome to the world of Wikimedia bureaucracy. ;) EVula // talk // // 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it needs to be closed. I think a steward should be contacted. Shapiros10 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already on it; see m:Steward requests/Permissions#American Eagle@simplewikiquote. EVula // talk // // 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done by Spacebirdy. Several others in IRC have objected, saying it's our responsibility. I don't really care if he voted and closed, as long as someone closes it. Shapiros10 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I hadn't already participated in it, I'd be more than happy to close it (and unlike Coppertwig, I don't have any responsibility to recuse myself). At this point, it'll just be easiest to let it stay on hold until Ryan's RfB closes (assuming that Coppertwig will promote him) and then let him sort it out. Congrats, Ryan. ;P
This is why it's so bloody important that we have more than a single bureaucrat. EVula // talk // // 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest one of two things: (1) the community choose someone as I suggested, maybe an impartial administrator or someone who is a bureaucrat on another project. Please don't go too fast: wait and make sure the community agrees on who it is, before closing it. or, (2) as EVula suggested, waiting and maybe RyanCross will close it. Coppertwig(talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with either proposal. TheAE talk 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I think that it would be better if RyanCross closed it in a few days. I am willing to let it stay open for a while, and it is better if he did it as he is part of the community. TheAE talk 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one really shouldn't be on the table; local non-bureaucrats should never be the ones to close an RfX. I'd be comfortable with a steward, and nobody has objected to one stepping in, but they won't. #2 is really the only option. EVula // talk // // 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your opinion, or is there a policy you can give a link to? Coppertwig(talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my opinion, based my responsibilities as a bureaucrat on several projects and my experiences editing on numerous wikis. No policy, just convention. EVula // talk // // 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the community wants me to close American Eagle's RfB after I (hopefully) become a bureaucrat, then I'll be happy to do so. Good way to start-off my new role. My previous and personal interactions with American Eagle will not affect the way I close the RfB. Though, I may be a bit late on schedule after my RfB closes, so don't expect my closure and review to be that swift. — RyanCross (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, fine. This whole situation is extremely silly, but it must be as it is. How about this. We close it now as "on hold", and wait until Ryan is elected. After all, we aren't in any rush, and it isn't an urgent request. He can then make the call. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea PeterSymonds. I would agree with you on this. Cheers, Razorflame 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RfB closed as successful. — RyanCross (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archival system

We need to improve our archival system. Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 1 has 25 posts, Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 2 has 28, but Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 3 has only 8... yet, we moved on to Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 4 which currently has 27 posts. As you can see, we need to come up with a number of posts that each archive should contain. I'm thinking either 25 or 50. Either that, or we can get a bot to do it... but I think manually archiving is fine for our small community (unless anyone disagrees). Also, we should probably archive posts on this page that do not have comments from the last 30 days or so. Posts that have not been commented on in the last 30 days probably won't be commented on again anytime soon. Besides, if someone does want to comment, but it's already archived, they could always start a new post here. Thoughts? — RyanCross (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think maually is fine. In my opinion, we should go 50 topics per archive. So now we would merge archives 1 & 2 into 1 (approx), merge 3 & 4 into 2, and delete the old pages of 3 & 4 for now. That way, in a year we won't have 100 topics in archive 21 and only 6 topics in archive 2. Understand? Anyways, I agree, Ryan. TheAE talk 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood. Thank you for your opinion, AE. I'll let several others give their opinions also before I do all the cleaning up in the archives. — RyanCross (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly common standard is to do by page size. Archive until the archive is 120k big. -Djsasso 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fine idea also. — RyanCross (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the fairly common standard, however, I think it should by 125k and not 120k ;). Razorflame 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like archiving by size is the best choice. I'll go right ahead and clean up our archives shortly. — RyanCross (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New logo?

In spite of all the recent drama, I think we should create/use a new logo. I personally don't know how to create one, but I think our English Wikiquote-double is boring. We could either (a) use something like this: , just for a change, (b) use the existing logo, but add "Simple English" below it (requests here), (c) do something fully else, or (d) keep it as it is. We've had this discussion before, but it didn't really go anywhere. I don't want this discussion to turn out the same – let's do something big. :) TheAE talk 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I actually like option A. It adds a nice little zing to our project and I believe that it will even make it less boring to edit here :). Razorflame 05:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be for option b. -Djsasso 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably proposal b. Agreed, we could use a new logo. I wouldn't want something like this to happen again. — RyanCross (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can already see this discussion fading away... We need someone to actually do this request if we want a new logo, not just discuss. ;-) Any volunteers? — RyanCross (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I played around and created this logo: , for fun. It isn't very good quality, though. I will be on my trip now. Goodbye! TheAE talk 07:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Golden! Coppertwig(talk) 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literally. ;-) I still like blue better. Also, "English" and "Wikiquote" are too close together. — RyanCross (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Don't think I was serious that should be our new logo, I was just testing Adobe Fireworks. :) I may work on a professional one sometime, I'm not sure. TheAE talk 05:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New logos

I've created some new logos for discussion:

Tell me what you think! TheAE talk 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they all look fantastic! Maybe #1 would be good. I feel one color symbolizes "Simple". Or is it too boring? More comments needed! — RyanCross (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I display them at about the size they'll be when they're being used as the logo, here; I don't know how many pixels logos usually are, so I put them at 130, which might not be exactly the right size.
I like #3 best of the three. #1 is not as colourful as I would like, and by having all the curves the same darkness, it doesn't look as much as if the sound is moving out. #2 has letters smaller than I would like.
But, any of them is fine. I think it's important to have a logo that's different from English Wikiquote. Nobody has opposed any of them in this discussion. So I say, go for it! Put one of them in! Coppertwig(talk) 23:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts please

There's been a little stir that I don't want to escalate. I want to know if the community thinks it's OK for a user to put someone else up for de-sysop/cratting without talking with them. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The discussion route addressing specific problems should be explored first. If that is unsatisfactory, then a request should be made. My opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a de-sysop/crat vote should be able to be put up until a discussion first with said admin/crat. And then having it brought up at a reasonable location to gauge if the community thinks it should be started. Then and only then should one be put up. This of course would only work because this is such a small community. I don't think just anyone should be able to run around creating them or else anytime an admin blocks someone or makes a call that another editor doesn't like they will get put up for de-oping.-Djsasso 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Djsasso. Putting someone up for de-adminship without first discussing any problem is not correct. Otherwise, go ahead, but remember it should be a good faith nomination. — RyanCross (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]