Jump to content

Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikiquote

Closing templates

Perhaps this is a very simple and easy to answer question (I hope so), but I cannot figure out a way to hide things via a template or wikitext. I tried the templates {{HAT}}, {{hidden begin}} and {{navbox}} and none of them will close. Is this a MediaWiki issue? Or am I doing something wrong? Thank you. TheAE talk 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might look at this in a few days; I might or might not be able to help. I wonder whether it's using other templates such as Template:toggle which might not exist here. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thanks to wikipedia:User:Splarka, who helped me (via IRC) to figure out how it's done. All navboxes should now be able to close! TheAE talk 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQ: namespace

Hello all, when going through Special:AllPages, I noticed that we currently don't have the WQ: namespace enabled. Does someone know how to add this? Thank you. TheAE talk 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. — RyanCross (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to make a bug report at the metawiki bugzilla. But I don't really know anything about that. -Djsasso 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a bug for this at bugzilla:17526. Maximillion Pegasus 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Maximillion Pegasus! TheAE talk 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of adminship

I'm resigning my flag here. Not because I'm leaving, simply because I'm less active than I was. With other more active admins, and duties on other wikis taking up more of my time, I don't think I need it. As I said, no need to reply to this, as I'm not leaving; I just want to get back to what I originally did when I joined. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise choice, PeterSymonds. Thank you for the extra help you did as an administrator. I'm sure you'll do just as well without the tools for Simple English Wikiquote. — RyanCross (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I would have to agree here. You definitely have other Wikipedias that will be taking up more of your time: (namely, the English and Simple English Wikipedias), so this move is one that I was actually expecting from you here. Cheers, Razorflame 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I became an admin primarily to revamp the MediaWiki namespace, and change it to Simple English. I've not needed to use my tools much, as there definitely wasn't much vandalism that didn't come from one particular person and his IPs. Since he's de facto banned, there's no longer an issue. I still want to help this project, but with articles, not admin tools. My edits to the mainspace were pretty good before I became an admin, but deteriorated. Hence my decision. I'm a firm believer that all admins on small projects should be accessible, sometimes at very short notice, and while I'm frequently on-hand, I don't think I'll be as on-hand as I was. You'll find me in the mainspace and sometimes at noticeboards, though. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear. :-) — RyanCross (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to think this over before any action is taken, but it seems that I am on the same path as Peter. EN wikipedia, and simple are taking my time and I don't think I can stay a sysop anymore. I have not made my final decision yet, but I will soon. Best, ѕwirlвoy ₪ 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing question

Okay, so I was wondering how you can tell a page's size. I was about to fulfill Wikiquote:Simple_talk#Archival_system, but couldn't find where it says how long a page is. I thought I saw something like that before, but I guess not. Anybody have a clue? — RyanCross (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. English Wikipedia has it. It's probably a MediaWiki situation. Anybody know what to do? — RyanCross (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MediaWiki tells you when a page is above a certain size, and tells you to consider splitting it. Is that what you mean? That's in MediaWiki somewhere, but I'm not sure if it's possible to change the min. page size. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's basically what I mean. — RyanCross (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, don't change the archives by page size. Then you have to check every page, make sure that the sizes are the same, and it just complicates everything. Is it is much simpler, and easier, to just archive by header (like 50 per archive). TheAE talk 06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have to agree with AE here; it would be much easier to archive by header. 50 headers per archive sounds reasonable. What other ideas do you guys have? Cheers, Razorflame 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always liked doing 50 headers per archive (that's what I do at en.wikipedia). I have no objections. — RyanCross (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you do is look at the history. The number next to the edit is how big the page is. ie 20:27, 13 February 2009 Djsasso (Talk | contribs) (69,629 bytes) <--- would be the page size. Anyways headers works, only reason I suggest page size is that depending on the length of each topic you could blow past browser breaking length. For an article, you shouldn't go above 70k. For an archive you can go bigger cause you are going to get less hits, but going above 150k and you start having issues with browsers and people on dialup etc. Expecially if they want to see a diff and then the size of the page doubles. -Djsasso 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since everyone agrees on header, I'll go ahead and organize our acrhives by... say... 50 headers. — RyanCross (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — RyanCross (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Static Ban

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments to another page, but not here.

As many of you may know, User:FastReverter (also know as StaticFalcon/StaticChristian) is indefinitely blocked here. Today, he used his IP to vandalize American Eagle's userpage to insult AE and Coppertwig. He has exhausted all of our patience, so I'm proposing a de facto community ban. Shapiros10 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Done Banned indefinitely. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.

Comments

  • Wow, I cannot believe how things have changed. From entitled "wikifriend", to attacker. I was on vacation while this happened, but I Support a ban, I'm tired of it all. TheAE talk 05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is over :P. He's already gone. Shapiros10 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things

I would like to ask for help regarding Rocko's Modern Life (sandbox) and any future TV-related operations of mine. I already have a great deal of the basics down, but per WQ:COPY, I'm not supposed to have so much material from a single copyrighted source. So far, I've been using quotes from the Internet Movie Database, but I can't find any other sources. Any possible help would be appreciated here. --Dylan Be heard 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have very much knowledge on copyrights, but this is just common sense. In the case of Rocko's Modern Life, the Internet Movie Database doesn't have rights over what was said on it. In anyone has copyrights, it would be the makers of Rocko's Modern Life. Yes, we shouldn't use the script for the whole production, but I think it's fine to use quotes listed at IMDb. TheAE talk 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just have a small number of short quotes. I don't think that's a problem for copyright. (Just my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for Main Page decoration on holidays?

This subpage of now-banned user FastReverter gave me an idea – does anyone applaud the idea of decorating the Main Page every holiday, according to that holiday's specific usual colors? --Dylan Be heard 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we had this page for Christmas. It would be impossible to do different colors for every holiday, but if you want, you may work on and propose others. That would be fine. :) TheAE talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of doing at least one Jewish holiday and at least one Muslim holiday. Maybe also holidays for other cultures/religions. What would be good ones to do: Rosh hashanah? Chinese new year? I think it's good to represent a number of cultures, for NPOV. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About requests for deletion

I tried to fix Template:RfD to make the Mary Hirsch page show a link to the Wikiquote:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Mary Hirsch discussion. I couldn't get it to work.

I think the name "Wikiquote:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Mary Hirsch" is too long and complex. I would like it better if deletion discussions had shorter names like "Wikiquote:Requests for deletion/Mary Hirsch". Also, putting the year in the name of the discussion might not work well if a discussion starts in one year and keeps going after the next year starts.

Is the RfD template supposed to be subst-ed? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think we should do as English Wikipedia does, and have a AfD-like Deletion requests. I support the idea of WQ:RFD/Pagename. TheAE talk 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the templates' #ifexist didn't work because it was based upon the Wikipedia: namespace, and not Wikiquote:. Problem solved. TheAE talk 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Goals 2!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I really want to keep this wiki alive. But ever since the new year came, we have been down in activity. This is the sequel to this discussion.

  • We now have 316 articles, 3,422 pages, 16,637 changes, and 758 users!
  • The most viewed page is Main Page (with 121 hits per day), followed by Special:RecentChanges (with 79). [1]
  • We are the 388 most viewed Wikimedia wiki, out of 679. [2]

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

  • We get 350 articles (34 to go).
  • We make the top 350 Wikimedia wikis.
  • We create some sort of game, WikiCup, special activity or otherwise to make editing more fun and easy.
Have a great day! TheAE talk 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems do-able. Thanks for the list! I don' know about the game though. We'll see. — RyanCross (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But I like to dream and imagine things. :) Maybe once we have at least 10 active contributors. TheAE talk 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sitenotice

Please remove it. That's exactly the sort of thing a sitenotice shouldn't be used for. I'm very concerned that it was added without consensus. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Fine, I'm fine with it being removed. Sorry about not asking first, but we rarely discuss new site notices. In fact, I don't remember ever discussing it. Nevermind, move on. TheAE talk 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag

Please give SBot39 the bot flag and remove MaximillionBot's as my bot is now going to take over the job of Max's. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have it make at least one edit with it, to see what it does and if it works first. Thanks. TheAE talk 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the process of making edit(s). ѕwirlвoy ₪ 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is late but: Done. Can it have the flag please? ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bot flag granted. Read also, User talk:American Eagle#My Bot. TheAE talk 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments to another page, but not here.

Abuse Filter has been recommended to be enabled for all small wikis. It is basically, a vandal reverter that can warn and block. It's recommended because it can watch over the wiki when no admin is around. I've seen it used before and I support it 100%. First we need consensus, then I will make a request to have it enabled. This will end on February 21st 2009. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Support[reply]

  1. See above. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. This will create a lot of new functions no one understands, and we have like 1 vandal a month. Complex and unneeded. TheAE talk 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is by no means complex AE. You are not even giving it a chance. It's reccomended for small wikis. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But how is it needed? We don't get much vandalism, and we have several active administrators. TheAE talk 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I oppose automatic blocks. I don't think we need automatic vandalism reversion or automatic warning, either. If we used it, we would have to agree on which words or phrases it would filter. Please give a link to the recommendation. A link to an example warning posted by this bot would be interesting to see, too. I think there should usually be at least 5 to 7 days of discussion before putting in a bot like this or other big changes. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Simply not needed. — RyanCross (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.


Simple English Wikiquote
Closing March 8, 2009 (unless SNOWed or clear consensus).

I am proposing the implementation of a new official logo of the Simple English Wikiquote, File:Simple English Wikiquote logo.png (shown to the right). It was discussed above, but the discussion is getting old. Remember, if for some reason we don't like the image, or something goes wrong with it, we can always revert back to the original. But, the default "Wikiquote" is not fit for Simple English Wikiquote, and we need to replace it. Please vote Support, Oppose, or Undecided, but please vote Support! ^_^ TheAE talk 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part, not here. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was to Implement the new logo, with possible tweaking in the future.
  • Strong Support – transparent, right file name, high quality and looks awesome. TheAE talk 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UT,C)
  • Support. Big enough lettering. I would prefer colour; but having it looking different from English Wikiquote is good, so that we know which project we're on. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, neither English nor Simple English Wikipedia have colors in their logos. English Wikiquote just does it. I don't prefer it one way or another, but I think this one looks good. :) TheAE talk 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about shades of grey? I like it better if the outer circles are fainter, to show that the sound is moving out and getting thinner or quieter as it goes out in all directions. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no clue how to do that. But that is more of tweak. Logos can be tweaked all the time for minor fixes. I think it is important that we get the logo implemented, then we can discuss those types of minor changes. (Although, if someone knows how to do that now, they are free to try!) TheAE talk 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.

Result

Per the closing consensus above, I have filed bugzilla:17853, to implement the new logo. Thanks. TheAE talk 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for making the logo! — RyanCross (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Deep Shrug* JeLuF has rejected the bug (after several weeks of waiting), because it didn't "meet the visual identity guidelines." So... all my work was wasted, and we are back to nothing. *Shrug* TheAE talk 01:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for importer flag

Hi there all. Could we possibly decide on a few users who should get the importer flag here? I am willing to use the importer flag to help expand the amount of articles here (formatted for here, of course). Any other comments? Cheers, Razorflame 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one. The importer flag is entirely pointless unless you are moving a wiki from one host to another and you don't have access to the database. Why can't you simply copy and paste the page and include a link in the edit summary as to where you got the quotes, so you satisfy the requirements of the GDFL? Aiuw 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Day Main Page

As you may have noticed, I created Wikiquote:Saint Patrick's Day Main Page, 2009, a Main Page for Saint Patrick's Day. I was reading above, where it was shortly discussed doing more Main Page designs for holidays. I'm not sure exactly what parts of the world even celebrate it (Ireland for sure), but it is a major holiday. Any objections? If not, it will be our Main Page in like five days. Thanks. TheAE talk 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Though, the reading, "Have a Great Saint Patrick's Day from Simple English Wikiquote," make "Saint Patrick's Day" darker. — RyanCross (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from Jonas Rand

Dear members of Simple English Wikiquote,

Former user FastReverter has apparently posted a message regarding verbal abuse in his absence occuring on the #wikipedia-simple channel, citing the logs provided by me. While I have no problem with attribution of the logs to me, I would like to merely state for the record that I did not encourage him to post these logs, which would be a violation of the Freenode policy. I did not intend to get him banned, indeed I had no idea what he would do with the logs. I have logs of various discussions on that channel and other channels stored as text files on my computer. I posted these logs on Simple Wikipedia once, during the time after I was unbanned, and then it was deleted as a Freenode policy violation. I did this with ignorance of the Freenode policy, and thus I do not feel that I did anything wrong.

At 11/02/08, 20:37 GMT, I posted a message on the Administrators' noticeboard about this abuse, linking to the deleted page with the logs on it. I find the behavior exhibited by the users on that channel to be cowardly and abusive, as they never told that to StaticFalcon/FastReverter previously. I'm not fond of him, but I feel that I have a duty to defend those that have been abused. The message can be found here.

At 20:47 GMT that same day, ten minutes later, I became the recipient of an e-mail message from him, through Wikipedia under the sockpuppet Giventends, confessing that he was "Ric" (FastReverter), and asking for the IRC logs [3] (note that I live in Nevada, and that image shows Nevada time, while WP runs on GMT, and that was during DST in Nevada, meaning 8 hours from GMT). I replied later with the full text of the logs, but I did not encourage him to post them. I heard nothing back from him for some time, and never heard anything about the IRC logs again.

Later, after he had been unbanned and I had been banned, topped off with a rude message from Creol on New Years' Day '09, I performed a search for my name, upon whence I found this message from StaticFalcon/FastReverter 31 minutes after I sent the reply, which I had no objection to. However I also discovered that these logs were posted by Static later. I would like to emphasize that I had no participation in this whatsoever, and that I did not encourage him to do such a thing. While I have contemplated, on some occasions, the publication of those logs, I have yet to do so.

Yours,

Jonas Rand

68.96.213.118 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13 year old kids are funny. MARMOT (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwirlBoy39/SBot39/Running

Please delete User:SwirlBoy39/SBot39/Running. I protected it before I resigned and can't edit it. Fail. Epic. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And {{QD}} would have been fine too. :P TheAE talk 15:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I just realized why you couldn't QD it – my bad. :P TheAE talk 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria

Hello all. I'd just like to take some time to propose some clear-cut guidelines for notability of quotes in Wikiquote. I understand that there is no real guideline as to what kind of quotes really should be added. I personally feel that all quotes added should be from the person, movie or book itself and quotes that are not "official" in nature, as in quotes that were not publicly spoken need to be sourced and referenced to avoid misunderstanding or false information. I would like to propose that we work in this direction in terms of notability criteria. Thank you!-- Tdxiang 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts on notability. Note, I wasn't originally apart of English Wikiquote, and did not write their notability guidelines, so this is solely my opinion. As for people quotes, I think as long as the quote it sourced properly, I don't have a problem with it being included (for example, Tim Walberg's quotes don't seem astounding, but I don't have a problem with them being kept). For fiction and works (books, films, writings, games, etc.), I don't think everything said it them are notable; (a) copying large amounts of a published work is generally copyright infringement, (b) not everything said in works should meet the guideline. Generally, things popular in that "fan world" is notable (for example, "May the Force be with you" is popular in the Star Wars world, etc.), and things used as common phrases because of the work (for example, "Please, sir, I want some more" from Oliver Twist). These are just some thoughts I've had, I'd love to discuss this, in hopes to come up with a black-and-while guideline on the subject. :) TheAE talk 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created User:American Eagle/Notability of quotes. This is just some thoughts, everyone is welcome to change to page as needed (and expand). TheAE talk 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Goals 2! Results

I posted some statistics and goals for us to reach by the end of the month. Well, the month isn't quite over, but we have met them all! These were them:

  • We get 350 articles ( Done – we have now 351!)
  • We make the top 350 Wikimedia wikis ( Done – We are at #348!)
  • We create some sort of game, WikiCup, special activity or otherwise to make editing more fun and easy. ( Done – See the guestbook!)

This worked perfectly! Yes! God bless, TheAE talk 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :)...Conningcris 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! :-) — RyanCross (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. Shapiros10 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time you all must've put into these responses. :P TheAE talk 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see the ":)" (that's two hand motions for both of 'em) and the fully spelt out congratulations, unlike my lazy brethren; I took the time to do things properly. Conningcris 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, congratulations. Hopefully y'all reach 700 articles by the end of April. MARMOT (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 2

This was supposed to be closed well over a week ago. Just a heads-up. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed it as unsuccessful. Thank you for the alert, Julian. :) TheAE talk 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been busy at English Wikipedia and didn't check in here for a while. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

There's really not much to say, but I propose we enable the rollback feature. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that before. I'd be in full support. TheAE talk 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. :) Shapiros10 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a measure, although I personally don't think it's really needed (we rarely get more than one vandal a day, simply undoing edits should be easy enough). Still, it doesn't really hurt. Why not?  Tempodivalse  14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just isn't necessary in my opinion. I've opposed it before, and while I'm not totally against it, most of the active editors here are admins. I just don't see a need. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, it's more efficient to just get adminship in the first place. Maxim | talk 12:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that might be less efficient, because, if we follow most other wikis' rules, rollback can be granted by any sysop immediately, while an RfA has to last for seven days.  Tempodivalse  15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a good idea. It is unlikely that I would pass a Request for Adminship, but rollback would be useful when there is vandalism. GT5162 19:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat oppose it, since we rarely receive lately (though I've been a bit inactive, so I wouldn't know). But no harm done with enabling rollback for our wiki. — RyanCross (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was a rather bad rash of vandalism from the pelican vandal the other day, he defaced a couple of dozen pages. I was online at the time, and it took me a whiles to manually undo all those edits. Rollback would be useful in such cases.  Tempodivalse  21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<-Yes but what difference does that make? Everyone who is active here is an administrator. The chances of an inactive semi-regular with rollback coming across vandalism before an admin are slim at best. It just seems an unnecessary component. If we had a bigger editor/admin ratio, then it probably could be considered, but enabling rollback at this stage is premature, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But really, would it hurt to have it installed? Even if we only give it out to one or two users, and it doesn't get very much use, still, it doesn't harm the wiki and doesn't significantly complicate matters. (In any case, I don't really have strong feelings either way about it, but that's just my preference.)  Tempodivalse  15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Peter; we don't have a particularly large editor/admin ratio. That said, I also don't see the harm in it; perhaps give it to anyone that has sysops somewhere else and asks? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree. How about... maybe we should grant rollback to only active users? Say... users with 50–100 edits and have been around for more than a week? I'm just throwing in ideas here... feel free to disagree or come up with something else... — RyanCross (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess this discussion can be closed? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think anyone actually went to Bugzilla or wherever... :-/ Shapiros10 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone went to bugzilla because there's not really much consensus to turn it on... at most, there are those that would like it activated, and those that don't see a point in it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrainyQuote et al.

I propose we remove all the BrainQuote and similar sites refs and external links. They're not reliable, since they're tertiary references and not primary (from speaker of the quote directly (so a quote by Charles Dickens from a book by him), nor secondary (a quote from Alexander Ovechkin in a reliable site like TSN.ca). The problems with these sites like BrainQuote is that we don`t know who's writing the site and where they got the quotes from (it's similar to a wiki that way), and then there's a higher chance of misquotes or something similar to that as the quotes there are written either a. from memory b. from another publication. What happens in these cases is that the original quote and the quote at a site like that may not be at all same. Maxim | talk 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although there are quite a few references to such sites, and it would take a lot of effort to remove them/resource with more reliable references.  Tempodivalse  15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know, you can use Special:LinkSearch to find pages that link to certain websites. For example, these pages link to www.brainyquote.com. GT5162 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think that those sites should ever be added to articles, they could be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to prevent people from saving a page with links to those sites. GT5162 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources template

Is there a template that says, "More reliable sources are needed for some or all quotes on this page" instead of "Sources are needed for some or all quotes on this page"? That would be more suitable for pages that link to unreliable sources. GT5162 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't before, but I created one just now: see {{need reliable sources}}.  Tempodivalse  16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be quite useful. GT5162 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that to several pages and they are now listed at Category:Pages needing reliable sources. GT5162 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also made a shortcut template, {{NRS}}, so that one doesn't have to type in the entire phrase.  Tempodivalse  16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should create a page to explain what sources are considered to be reliable? For example, brainyquote, quotedb and quotationspage aren't very reliable. GT5162 16:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good thing to write. Perhaps just a section in Wikiquote:Reliable sources? TheAE talk 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the page at User:GT5162/Reliable_sources, but it isn't finished yet. I would like to find some examples of reliable and unreliable sources to add to the article. GT5162 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers and Category:Authors

Is there any difference between these categories? Should writers be added to both categories? GT5162 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the Writers categories as the Authors was substantially bigger. Maxim | talk 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, Maxim. I was always confused by that as well. TheAE talk 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pages

I have just created Wikiquote:Reliable sources and Wikiquote:Citing sources. Could some people have a look at them and suggest improvements? Thanks. GT5162 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good start, but the one about reliable sources needs more translating into "simple talk", especially, the introduction.  Tempodivalse  17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can we write here? MARMOT (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we take quotes from famous people and translate them into a simplified form of English that can be easily understood by children and people with a limited grasp of English. See Wikiquote:Welcome for more info.  Tempodivalse  18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I told him that, and then he made this edit. GT5162 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen

Some troll has impersonated Bishonen (I asked her over IRC whether it was her or not, and she said no), so I have blocked it; can a bureaucrat kindly renamed to something like ^FailureOfAnIdiot1 or something like that (you get my point :p) Maxim | talk 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done to User:^(bad username3). TheAE talk 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31st April?

I have just added a 'quote of the day' in the next available box - which is April 31st. Which does not exist. What has happened? Apples and Oranges (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I've fixed it now. Apples and Oranges (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploading

To enforce WQ:IUP, I've added a regex to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that disables all image uploaded to Simple Wikiquote. Just in case anyone tries to upload an image or move an existing image and gets an error. MBisanz talk 20:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean administrators may not upload images as well? TheAE talk 21:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admins can override the title blacklist, they might get a warning to confirm or something, but admins should be smart enough to know the IUP and know better. MBisanz talk 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, does that mean that this also prevents legitimate uploads, such as spoken articles, etc., that are specifically allowed at Special:Upload?  Tempodivalse  15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if I understand it correctly, the only types of images we would want are mid, ogg, ogv, I can alter the regex to accept those. MBisanz talk 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New bot: AEBot

I'm requesting the bot flag for AEBot (talk • changes). It is an interwiki bot which uses pywikipedia. I've made three test edits with it, see 1, 2 and 3. Thank you. TheAE talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test edits look good so far. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to do more? TheAE talk 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth edit. Is this good enough to be flagged? TheAE talk 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me –Juliancolton | Talk 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict I think those four edits is enough for an interwiki bot for us to determine that it will work well in most cases. All the edits provided look legit, so I'd say give it the flag.  Tempodivalse  22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done AEBot now has the bot flag. :) TheAE talk 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems fine here. — RyanCross (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla

bugzilla:16254 has now been RESOLVED and FIXED. Microchip08 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I'd forgotten about that. :D TheAE talk 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time... — RyanCross (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag?

I'd like to suggest we install a m:flood flag at this wiki. Basically, it allows admins to grant a flag to themselves or others for a temporary period of time when they want to make masses of edits in a short period of time (i.e., using AWB, changing many categories at once, etc.) but don't want to flood recent changes. The flood flag simply hides edits from a flagged user from the rc. (It could also be employed when blocking inappropriate usernames, to keep the profanity out of the rc.) I think this would be very useful, as it will keep recent changes cleaner, and make it easier to spot out bad edits. Thoughts?  Tempodivalse  15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely support that. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this feature in action over at simple.wikipedia, and I have to agree, this is a useful tool for not disturbing recent changes incase of vandalism and what not. — RyanCross (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I strongly support its implication, very useful. TheAE talk 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it can be pretty helpful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support this tool as well. MBisanz talk 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the regulars have commented already. Do we have enough consensus to close this and ask for the tool from the devs? Tempodivalse 00:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. We don't need a formal !vote: we have consensus. I would've filed the request, but I have very little Bugzilla experience. If you would like to do it, I fully endorse closure and requesting. American Eagle (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know my way around Bugzilla very well either, we'll have to let someone else do it. Tempodivalse 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:19152. Hopefully they'll enable it; I spammed the crap out of RC earlier, and really wished I could have turned the flag on. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I'm having a bit of trouble translating the first quote of Fall; any help is appreciated. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret it as something like this:
Simple: For people, Fall is a time to gather things together, and to harvest. But for nature, it is a time of planting, and to spread things out.
In essence, it means, to me, During Fall, people bring things in, but nature spreads things out. Good work on the article, by the way. TheAE talk 00:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, glad you liked it. =) TheAE talk 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Deactivate the QOTD for June

Hello all, I've decided to make this a formal proposal, and I'll go ahead with it unless someone strongly disagrees. The Quote of the Day has been on the brink of falling behind for several weeks now, so I'm proposing we close in down for one month, from June 1–June 30. I will be on a wikibreak for several of these days. This way, we can begin working on July's QOTDs and regain some slack. (For example, we can being doing July 1, 2, 3, and so on, and get ahead.) Is there any objection? I'll be happy to take care of it. TheAE talk 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could take over... I'll start today. Help would be appreciated. — RyanCross (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise to be always active, as Wikinews takes most of my time, but I will try to help out creating some QOTDs as well. I don't want to see QOTD be closed down, even if only temporarily.  Tempodivalse  00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd be able to help. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just with the total of number of possible quotes, would it make more sense to have a quote of the week? Maxim | talk 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... that's actually a good idea, Maxim... we wouldn't have to worry on having a quote for each and every day... I have no concerns. — RyanCross (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. It would keep the QOT[W]D alive, but take some of the stress of it out. Plus we could chose more astounding quotes and keep them up longer. I'd be happy to work on restructuring it, which I've worked with before. Something to consider: would QOTW become QOTD, or should be mark QOTD as historical and found a brand-new QOTW? It would take work trying to move pages, update where {{QOTD}} is used, etc... TheAE talk 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. The page can be seen at Wikiquote:Quote of the Week (WQ:QOTW), which has new instructions. The actual quote page is at {{Quote of the Week}} (this needs to be updated with the current QOTW every week, unless we come up with a nifty way for this to be done, but it's fine for now). The templates is substituted with {{QOTWeek}}, and we use {{QOTW}} to add to the quote's place in the article. {{QOTD}} should be kept, as historical. Do not remove it from articles nor delete the QOTDs, and don't re-use QOTWs which were once QOTDs. Everything should be in order now. :) God bless, American Eagle (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think transitioning to a quote of the week was a good idea, considering we don't have many editors around to update it. Plus, it allows us to focus more on content building. On a side note, I think we should semiprotect each QOTW for as long as it is on the main page, as any vandalism to them will likely go unnoticed for a long time. (I've already semi'd this week's one.)  Tempodivalse  20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I fully agree with semi-protecting the pages (as you did, only until the week is over), especially now that the quote stays on the Main Page for an entire week. I should note, if anyone feels anything with my changes needs to be corrected, please feel free to do so. I was being bold, and probably sloppy, too. :) American Eagle (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and Death dates

Hello Simple English Wikiquote! I noticed a small error of the pages not being consistent. On Richard Buckminster Fuller, that dates are stated as "(born July 12, 1895 – died July 1, 1983)." However on François Mitterrand, the dates are stated as "(26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996)." Should the born and died be included in those dates? Erwin Springer [talk] 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, if the person has died, then the dates do not include the words born and died (see w:Buckminster_Fuller); however, if the person is still living, the word born is used before the date (see w:Barack Obama). It should probably be the same on this wiki. SUL (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we only need to put "born" before a date when they are still alive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of pages that need to be changed then. A bot could do this easily. Erwin Springer [talk] 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the gauntlet was thrown, and I've picked it up. No bot was required. :)
All the entries have been fixed. I also converted any raw dates to use the {{date}} template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's already been discussed...

Sysop Archer7 (talk • changes • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has not edited in almost a year and a half. Although we've said that we don't desysop inactive admins, this is a really long time for an admin to be inactive on a small wiki. He's also stated his intent to leave all WMF projects (not even editing on Simple.wiki), and I find it very unlikely that he will come back. Should he be desysopped? Shapiros10 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I generally oppose the desysoping of inactive admins, if we're certain he isn't going to ever come back, then he's not going to be using the bits, so it makes sense to remove them. There's also a security consideration as well - the accounts of inactive users can sometimes be easier to crack. Before we remove the buttons, though, some effort should be made to contact him to confirm he is indeed not returning - maybe someone could send an email? Tempodivalse 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's already been de-sysopped on the SE Wikipedia.[4] I think we should do the same here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns... besides, if he does become active again and wishes to continue being an administrator, he can always request for his rights to be returned, and no harm would be done. It's that simple, so dysysoping would be a no problemo. — RyanCross (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent out an email. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've forwarded Archer7's reply to RyanCross and EVula (don't have anyone else in my contacts). He says "sure, I won't be back". Shapiros10 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Now from here I'm not sure what to do. All I know is that there should be a Wikimedia page somewhere to request the dysysoping if I'm correct. — RyanCross (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
m:SRP. SUL (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request made.[5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archer7 has been desysopped. SUL (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikibooks proposed closure

Check out m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikibooks (3) when you get a chance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all crats watching...

...NuclearWarfare's RFA is overdue. Shapiros10 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is mine. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QOTW

Template:Quote of the Week needs to be updated. I created Wikiquote:Quote of the Week/2009/July 6-July 12, but the Main Page is cascade-protected, so I can't edit the template. SUL (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I had no idea that you were not an administrator. I will unprotect it, but it might be better if you just ran for adminship. NW (Talk) 02:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the cascading protection. This week's QOTW should probably still be semi-protected to prevent vandalism. SUL (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To not be confusing

I was skeptical of a Simple Wikiquote at first but I decided to give it a shot. I now feel that this project is not useful, and I have decided to leave it. I'm still around on other wikis. User:Maxim 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback (again)

Sorry to restart the rollback discussion, but User:Bluegoblin7 offered to run his anti-vandal bot here. The bot, which already runs at Simple English Wikipedia, would be pretty useful for us. However, to work properly, it would need both the 'bot' and 'rollback' flags. A bureaucrat could set the former, but we need consensus to enable Rollback here. So, what do you guys think about enabling rollback on this wiki? NW (Talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that rollback should be enabled here, but we might have to wait several weeks before the developers make the changes. bugzilla:19152 was opened over 1 month ago and there still hasn't been a response. Perhaps we should just give the bot +sysop for now? SUL (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would be fine as an ad-hoc measure, though I really would prefer it if rollback could be given instead. Is any bureaucrat willing to flag temporarily until Rollback is enabled just based on this request? On such a small project like this, I don't think that even an adminbot could do much damage, and I am sure that BG7 would understand if we told him that under no circumstances would he be allowed to use any admin tool except for rollback. NW (Talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed to granting admin to the bot, rollback would be better. On a small project where we don't have a lot of coverage, an admin-bot malfunction has the potential to be catastrophic. Enabling local rollback isn't much harm. Shappy talk 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be perfectly happy with a rollbacking bot, but there is currently no consensus to enable rollback on this Wiki. So, I just wanted to know if people felt it was OK to enable rollback on this Wiki. We need a consensus before we approach the devs at bugzilla. NW (Talk) 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment on this, were the bot to have an admin flag it can physically not perform any admin functions except rolling back, and nor do I have any intention to program anything admin like into it. As the bot is freely available from SourceForge ("AntiVandalBot") people can also review the code if they wish, and also as the average user won't be an admin or need/want an admin bot there is little point putting that functionality in there. Furthermore, I can confirm that I would not use the admin tools on the bot (if it got it) for any reason, and nor would the bot. But anyway, if the bot is wanted I shall get to work on getting it setup, though it won't be able to run until it gets a rollback flag (via admin or otherwise) as backdating it to use Undo is, i'm afraid, not an option (as it would then break the bot for wikis with rollback). Any more questions, just ask, and when you're ready, just go file a "Task" at the bot's JIRA Bug Tracker at http://jira.yourwiki.net:8080/browse/AVB and i'll get it going. Though I watch this page too so if you don't file the task no biggy, just would be easier for me ;). Regards, Bluegoblin7 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, enable rollback. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, rollback should be better than an admin bot. Pmlinediter (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should a request be filed at BugZilla or something? Shappy talk 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done –Juliancolton | Talk 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enabling rollback is OK with me too. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post-activation endorsement by me. Tempodivalse 11:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

My RfB needs closing. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done!
Everyone, feel free to put a message on my talk page on English Wikipedia, or email me, when bureaucrat things need to be done. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for desysop of Cromwellt (talk • changes • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Cromwellt (talk • changes) has not edited in 17 months; per the recent desysopping of Archer7 (talk • changes) due to inactivity, I propose we send Cromwellt an email, and then remove his sysop bit due to inactivity. Thoughts? Shappy talk 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose/Neutral. No reason to desysop inactive admins. If he ever comes back, he will feel more welcome if he's still an admin. See wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, English Wikipedia is one of the few wikis that doesn't desysop inactive users. If we send him an email and he replies saying he has no intention of contributing or doesn't respond, we can desysop him. Inactive admins are not helping the project, and actually have a security risk. It looks quite unlikely that he'll be back. Shappy talk 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are reasons to desysop inactive admins, but Cromwellt is clearly still around. Ask him via e-mail to make a few edits once in a while, if for nothing else than to reaffirm his presence here, else he can voluntarily resign if he wants to. But I don't see a real reason to forcibly -sysop him. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, basically per the same reason why I opposed the mass -sysop at WP. Pmlineditor 12:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inactive admins do not harm the project, and there's really no reason in my mind to have them demoted. Besides, it is clear that Cromwellt is still around as shown by this, so it's possible that he could come back to this wiki and resume editing. Tempodivalse 12:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

The rollback feature is now enabled; any sysop/bureaucrat may assign the userright. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flood flag is also enabled. SUL (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please rollback up User:GoblinBot4 and i'll get it running in the next few days (if that is ok?). I'm not too familiar with the bot policy here ;). When it's done some trial edits, feel free to bot flag it. Regards, Bluegoblin7 (talk)
Are you sure you've created an account for your bot at this wiki? When i went into Special:Userrights/GoblinBot4 to give it the rollback flag it told me there was no such user. Tempodivalse 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, no such account exists. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try now? As is widely known, I regularly fail. I thought i'd SULd all the bots across the SimpWiks, apparently not. Bluegoblin7 (talk)
Done Tempodivalse 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, as I said, will work on it over the next few days. Bluegoblin7 (talk)

Twinkle

I copied the Twinkle code from EhJJ's version at Simple 'pedia. Please try to improve it and make it work. However, if it is useless, delete it. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Simple_talk/Archive_3&oldid=29047"