Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 76

I want to move an article

Hello. I want to move Shinichi Morisita to Shinichi Morishita. But I cannot move it because it matches the following blacklist entry: .*shit.* . Can you move it? --Nameless User (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 07:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nameless User (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I want to move Yuki Matsusita to Yuki Matsushita, Daisuke Matsusita to Daisuke Matsushita and Yositaka Ohashi to Yoshitaka Ohashi. But I cannot move it because it matches the following blacklist entry: .*shit.* . Can you move it?--Nameless User (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nameless User (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I want to move Yosito Terakawa to Yoshito Terakawa. But I cannot move it because it matches the following blacklist entry: .*shit.* . Can you move it? --Nameless User (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Djsasso (talk · contribs). ···Katerenka (討論) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nameless User (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I want to move Hitoshi Morisita to Hitoshi Morishita. But I cannot move it because it matches the following blacklist entry: .*shit.* . Can you move it? --Nameless User (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nameless User (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Focus again?

Hello all,

I recently extended impressionism, with a section I translated from the French Wikipedia. In doing so, I linked a few "painters", which are well-known. Not surprisingly, these turned out to be red links. While I do not have the background in the arts in general, I think getting a few basic articles on different "classical" subjects might be Worthwhile. I therefore think we should focus on the following:

• Generally known painting schools, say 18th-20th century; along with their representatives (just the common ones)
• Well-known composers, writers and philosophers from that time.
• Famous scientists from that time.

In general, such articles might be worth more in terms of "publicity" than articles on small cities in the middle of nowhere. One approach might be to look at the people who received a Nobel prize for their work, in the last 100 years, and make sure we have at least a stub on all of them. These are of course just ideas, as always --Eptalon (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A thought might be to focus on articles that newspapers might report on in an article about us. — μ 20:12, Sunday December 20 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree with Eptalon's proposal (and an earlier one by Barras), I also agree with the statement that Razorflame made earlier about people only writing about things that interest them. The point he raises is quite valid, so how about some sort of userspace WikiProject for this? That way you get editors working on articles that they are interested in. Just my two cents. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, people will only write articles about things they are interested in. You can't say you want more editors and at the same time restrict what they can write. You will lose more than you will gain. -DJSasso (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Scope

If we want to really get this wiki going the right way we need to define the project scope, sooner rather than later, before it's too late. Once we know what it is, everything becomes easier. Suggestions are welcome. Yottie ^=talk= 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In our scope should be articles that would people help to learn the language. Suggestions:

• WP:BLP
• Important parts of the history (Nazi Germany, Napoleonic wars, WWI and II etc.)
• Biographies of important personalities like Beethoven, Van Gogh, Mendel, Darwin, etc. Important people of art, music, history, politics and so on.
• Recent events around the world (e.g. the current meeting in Kopenhagen)
• In general articles about science, physics, maths, biology, and so on.
• Countries and countrysides (Mt. Everest, USA, Canada, GB, Germany, France, Atlantic ocean...)

I would say that out of this scope (at least until we have the above things "done") are:

• Mass creation of (unimportant) footballers.
• Rivers, Asteroids
• Towns and small (unimportant) cities about somewhere in the nothing.

Just a few thoughts. --Barras (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I tend to agree. Yottie ^=talk= 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Barras has it right here. Kate (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be easier to focus on en.wikipedia.org's most-popular content. This will ensure simple.wiki is relevant with English-speaker search habits.Wolfraem (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I think we should have the same kinds of articles en has. Our scope as far as what articles are concerned is the same across every language wiki. The only real scope question should be children or esl learners. -DJSasso (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think when determining scope as you call it, there are several things to keep in mind:

• We do currently not know who is reading SEWP. We say the main readership (our target audience) are people learning English as an additional language, and children. We might be wrong in that assessment.
• No matter what decision we take at the end (even if we do not take any); some of the people who do not like how we decided, will leave the project, ie. stop editing here.
• Our main problem at the moment is "getting" new editors.

We can of course take a decision to go in this direction or that one, but such a decision should more be about focus. Let's focus to get all capitals for all Indian states, for example (Bhopal is a nice once-sentence article at the time of this writing).Keep in mind that people will always write about what interests them. --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we must find a solution to get more new editors. Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 06:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a good solution to get more editors to edit here is to allow them to make articles that are verifiable and reliable, like those on the English Wikipedia, and let them make them. That way, they get to do what they love, and the Wikipedia gets to grow. Razorflame 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to what you say is "out of the scope of the project", I think such things are always going to happen. This is how it was when En:Wikipedia started out, people made articles about things that interested them and/or were easy to scrape from public sources. There's very little that can be done about this; remember that En:Wikipedia only really got most of their "core" articles fleshed out in the last year or two. (by the way, how's my Simple English?) Riffraffselbow (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

uh - sorry but is there no way to check what users are searching for???? just a thought - ad if you want Google results to direct to here then, 'unimportant' footballers may well be more searched for on the net than "how many items have been left on Everest since 1950"....--84.110.153.38 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

However, Mount Everest has been covered for longer, and more coverage than any footballer I can think of. Go to Google Images, trim down all the blogs & duplicates. See what happens. — μ 19:37, Saturday December 19 2009 (UTC)

This is a great discussion. I just found this page while browsing through various other Wiki projects; I'm excited to begin adding content.

I suggest treating this version of Wikipedia like any non-English version. Some people will write "native" articles, but many people can be helpful by "translating" articles from en.wikipedia.org. I suggest first translating the most-popular pages on the main English site. Wolfraem (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for permissions

With the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, does it makes sense to merge Wikipedia:Requests for rollback to it? Also, how about adding a Request for flood flag section, since it is now available to all users (for temporary flooding)? EhJJ^TALK 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was the idea behind it, if i remember correctly... Goblin 18:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

 (change conflict)  I think it was intended to be this way. At least it would make more sense. But leave the rollback page as redirect. --Barras ^talk 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally since there are so many more rollback requests I would prefer that on a separate page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we talked about it originally like this, I can DJ's reasoning but it would be nice to keep them all together in my opinion. James (T|C) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be beneficial and essential to merge the two pages together. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with James. It would also be helpful if we had the Requests for flooding section. Megan McCarty|^talk_changes 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I also can see Djsasso's reasoning, in my opinion it makes more sense to have rollback on the "Requests for permissions" page. A "request for flood" section might be something to look into, also, but it's probably easier for whomever is about to flood RC to find an active admin and ask on their talk page as opposed to making a request and hoping that an admin happens to notice the RfP page pop up. Just some thoughts. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox template help

Can someone who understands these things have a look at the Template:Infobox Military Person? It is used on the Aung San page, I tried to add a photo but can not get it to display. When I went back the template for help, it's not very helpful at all. Peterdownunder (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed ···Katerenka (討論) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to everyone! Whether you believe or not (thats both Christianity and/or Santa) I hope everyone has a good time. Love, Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ditto! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! James (T|C) 04:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 04:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Marry Christmas everybody. :) --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 04:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays everyone. ···Katerenka (討論) 05:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for another interesting year on WP. Merry Christmas, hope everyone has some eggnog :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't do eggnog due to allergies, JC. But, anyway, Merry Christmas too all!--  † CR₉₀  20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope everyone has a happy and safe holiday season. Megan McCarty|^talk_changes 20:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

An allergy to eggnog! AHH That's terrible! Happy Holidays, and a happy new year to all! I look forward to a great 2010 here on the wiki!--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to a good 2010 here too. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually an allergy to Milk which is used to make eggnog...oh well.--  † CR₉₀  06:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes thanks Mythdon, forgot to wish everyone a happy new year! Don't forget to sing Auld Lang Syne! :) Kennedy (talk • changes). 09:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolutions for 2010

Please list below the behaviour you could try to improve and be proud of at the end of 2010.

Mine is about using better my patrolling abilities such I did on

http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=82.224.88.52&dbname=frwiki_p

where my deleted edits count by hundreds. 82.224.88.52 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jenna/Survivor: Borneo

Would someone mind moving this to the article space? Thanks. --Jenna (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, Razorflame 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jenna/Survivor: The Australian Outback

Would someone mind moving this into the mainspace? Thanks --Jenna (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs). Let me know if you want the redirect deleted. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And would someone mind moving User:Jenna/Survivor: Thailand also? Thanks! --Jenna ^talk § 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done No problems. Autoconfirmed should kick in soon... Goblin 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

And User:Jenna/Survivor: The Amazon, please. (one more day until Autoconfirmed kicks in) Thanks! --Jenna ^talk § 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Goblin 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

And User:Jenna/Survivor: Pearl Islands too, please. Thanks! --Jenna ^talk § 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Barras ^talk 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And User:Jenna/Survivor: All-Stars too, please. Sorry about all the posts! Thanks. --Jenna ^talk § 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, it's at Survivor:_All-Stars now. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And User:Jenna/Survivor: Vanuatu too. --Jenna ^talk § 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 01:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New changes disabled for a minute while Wikipedia team worked on fixing the vandalism issues

1#. Just noticed, that the new changes page had been "disabled", for around a minute or so to fix issues with vandalism. Good job in fixing this so quickly, and I really liked how this "team" can work together to make this project, and many others like it a place of free editing without the "abuse" or "vandalism". That's all I really wanted to say. and thank you again for the support of the project and the team. --TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New changes was fine, it was just childish vandalism from a user who is now blocked. ···Katerenka (討論) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you beat me to fixin it. -DJSasso (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Great job in both of you spotting this and correcting it so quickly, "Bravo" (great job). --TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:American actors

Following the unsucessful RFD of Category:American movie actors (and the insinuated precedent for Category:American television actors), I have created Category:American stage actors and Category:American radio actors, so that everybody in American actors can be subcategorized 17:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't delete them since you already did it, however we don't generally create a cat or subcat unless there are 3 articles to go into it. In the case of an actor not fitting in a subcategory because its not created yet would usually just get put in the parent category. So for example you created a sub cat for radio actors. I would either try an create a couple more people to fill in that category or it will probably end up quick deleted in a few days. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's at least two more articles already created that I can find to go in that category. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All of them have at least three, and more on the way Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Autoconfirmed users.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How many days would it take to become a autoconfirmed user? Thanks. Filtete (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You will become Autoconfirmed after 5 days of editing and a number of edits that escapes me at the moment (I think it is 10.) Goblin 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Correction: 4 days and 10 edits, hope that helps! Griffinofwales (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. Filtete (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, 5 days 10 edits, unless a user recently didn't realise they had become A/C'd. I knew I was right first time :) Goblin 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots! P.S. Doesn't need a pile-on, only one person needs to answer such a simple question. Write an article instead. -_-

Sorry, mis-reading of your comment. To clarify: The account must be 5 days old (not 4 or 6). Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Main Page

Hi there! I've just cascaded the main page as per the recent vandalism here. Any kind of vandalism, especially on the main page shouldn't happen. Just a few days ago the RC page was attacked and now the main. If someone disagree with this feel free to undo. Keep in mind that our main page should be ok and not even vandalized for one minute. Even if the community feels that this page shouldn't be cascading, I'm not going to change it. If you find an admin who is willing to change it, I won't care. There are enough people with +sysop to help to update DYK and so on. Thanks --Barras ^talk 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This is completely uneeded and goes against previous consensus not to cascade the main page. There has been ONE incident and that template is now protected. It does not require cascading protection unless it's happening on a daily basis. Cascading can only be detrimental to the wiki, not helping it. If there are so many admins about to update things, then there are an equal number of admins to undo vandalism within the minute that it's created. I'm going to see if GB4 can have some code changes as well to become zero-tolerant on transcluded pages. I see nothing useful coming from this action, and it's completely pointless. A year ago our main page was semi'd. Now it's cascade full. Either vandalism has got worse (I fully doubt it) or we've just become more and more nanny-state. This is not needed unless we are getting it day after day. At the very least it should be removed until a consensus is reached for it, because consensus in the past (when I think it had more vandalism) was to keep un-cascaded. Goblin 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Cascading is a big nono. We do not protect pages to be preventative, we only protect in reaction to. One set of vandalism in well over a year does not warrant this sort of protection. This is really bad use of the protect tool. I was against protecting even the main page and would prefer we go back to the semi-protection we had previously. This is why I dislike that so many people here have the tools, people jump to an action way too fast. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"If there are so many admins about to update things, then there are an equal number of admins to undo vandalism within the minute that it's created." - It was there for about 20 minutes great work... really. Feel free to get an admin to remove the protection, I'm not going to care again about this. Barras ^talk 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

20 minutes won't break the wiki. Undo your own actions so that a discussion can take place. If you force other admins to do it there probably will be repercussions. Saying you don't care what the community thinks and that you won't undo your action is a gross missuse of your tools. The wiki is build on what the community says, an admin who wont do what the community thinks should not have the tools. Especially when there has been a previous discussion that the community was against cascading protection. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion can be found here. Goblin 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• Sorry Barras, but I don't think that was a good idea.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 20:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Cascading semi-protection sounds like it would make the most sense. We get hardly any vandalism by autoconfirmed users, and there's no point disallowing users who have been thus far constructive from editing. Main page is very visible but also fairly stale. I'll admit that I hardly ever look at it, so I can see why it took 20 minutes for anyone to notice and revert the vandalism. Also, perhaps get SWBot3 on irc:#cvn-simplewikis to watch all of the pages and templates that are transcluded (or a different bot) and alert us of any changes? Aside from DYK, there are very few changes. I could certainly help someone get a meta:User:EhJJ/RCBot to watch those pages and report changes by untrusted users. EhJJ^TALK 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While that would be a good idea, the [cascading] option only works with full protection. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to set up a bot in #cvn-simplewikis tomorrow reporting edits to pages Main Page transcluded, see if it helps. And @Kate, semi-cascaded does work, it just means the loss of full protection on the main page (which it should lose, imo) and any cascaded pages with higher protection will have that override the semi-. Ta, Goblin 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Ah, so you're right. The page that I tested it on has full move protection, which is probably why the box for cascade was greyed out. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

Hi, could someone please move this article to its correct page Alfa Romeo? Thanks NotGiven 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, forgot I could do it :P NotGiven 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User has been forcibly retired. — μ 23:05, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

PGA requirments proposal

I have started a discussion here for something I think needs attention.--  † CR₉₀  23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's extremely pointless imo, it was clearly decided a couple of months back that length is not an issue. Goblin 23:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Please discuss there, not here, this piece was just to point out the discussion.--  † CR₉₀  23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and i'm pointing out my views on the discussion, not actually discussing. This is also for the benefit of people who do not know that it was previously discussed. Goblin 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Do you agree with IPs

When it comes to them being able to create articles without the use of an account on Simple Wikipedia when they can't on the main Wikipedia?  Kaltxì Na'vi!  17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism isn't that bad that it can't be handled. There is at least one admin at almost all times (more than one at most times). --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem; IP editors are valid contributors; the benefits of having them far outweigh their disadvantages. --Eptalon (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alt accounts

I created Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts. People with alternate accounts probably should join it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

you may want to add it to the alt account template, I can't remember it off the top of my head but it's on User:Jamesofur Public. James (T|C) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick clarify--Wikipedians with alternate accounts applies to the PRIMARY ACCOUNT (I.E. Purplebackpack89, Jamesofur)...the category for alternate accounts (I.E. Jamesofur Public, Purplebackpackonthetrail) is "Alternate Wikipedia accounts". A better box to tie "Wikipedians with Alternate Accounts" to would be "This user has an alternate account".

Requesting articles?

where i have 3 right now. --Icek863 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely (sockpuppetry) — μ 00:42, Thursday January 7 2010 (UTC)

Icek863

Normally I do not try to start pontential controversies-in-making but Icek863 is making it hard for me to assume good faith in helping him. Could someone watch over him?  Kaltxì Na'vi!  22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

<-- WP:AN — μ 22:20, Wednesday January 6 2010 (UTC)

PeterSymonds indef blocked as a sock per WP:DUCK. Cheers dears. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators

There are a few former admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators because they still have {{Administrator}} on their userpage. Is it reasonable to go through some and remove the template, or is this a completely useless category considering there is both a Special: page and a Wikipedia: page that already list all admins? EhJJ^TALK 02:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove them. Perhaps just <!-- comment them out -->? If this doesn't work (means the cat still appears), so remove them.-Barras ^talk 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Census

It is often hard to estimate how many active users we have at Simple English Wikipedia. In May, I conducted a 'census' to see how many users edited: around 40. Now, six months on, it would be nice to see how the wiki has grown (or shrunk). So, if you will, please sign your name in the new section of User:Microchip08/Census, and we'll see what comes out of it. — μ 21:25, Friday January 8 2010 (UTC)

Good idea.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia has some problems..

Hello all, it has been a long time since I started a thread here. Most of the things I say here are ramblings anyway, so please scroll over and disregard.

• No matter what we do, our "editor base" stays constant; Between 30 and 35 editors. Of these about 25 are "around a lot", and most of them are the ones listed on the page listing the admins. The count that is advertised above will probably show that.
• GA and VGA processes are running very slowly. This may be related to the item cited above.
• DYK should be one installment of 4-5 hooks a week; at the moment there are 3 proposed hooks. One of them is for a very specific event.
• Cities in America: Do we have the top ten population centers, and the 50 state capitals, each with a decent article? - This of course also applies to other countries, administrative capitals, and big population centers are notable.
• We need more science-related material that is at least GA quality. When will we reach 100 total better quality articles?
• What can we do to attract more editors?

Thats about all for now. Sorry for rambling. --Eptalon (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some admins are willing to give their rights up (even temporarily) to focus on GA/DYK/Article building. And we always talk about going to enwp to get new editors, but never do it. Can we finally get round to doing that? Yottie ^=talk= 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem frankly is the needless discussion which detracts from many article writing points, and also the fact that we are frowned on by en as a "mickey-mouse" wiki - the fact that we allow banned en users/sockpuppets to edit freeely, that the adminship criterion are a complete joke, and the fact that there are so many petty drama causing discussions. If everyone stopped worrying about "Simple is broken" and just "got on with it", you'd find a lot of it would fix itself. Instead of trying to get more editors, put a ban (and I mean, total ban) on sub-stubs, have a DRAMAOUT for as long as possible, raise the bar for adminship and be less worried about hurting people's feelings when blocking/banning them and people will see that we are trying to change the wiki - they will (hopefully) then change their perception of us and start editing. Giving up admin rights won't solve anything either, it'll just make drama. We need to raise the bar and wait for the natural decrease, but that's in the thread above. All this has been mentioned this time last year, we had a surge over the summer, and a quiet winter again this year - what's so bad about that? Goblin 19:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

My personal problem with this wiki is that complexity screwed up how you make articles, this applies to the more experienced users on the main English Wikipedia that usually try to come here and contribute. Only problem is that deletionists like to tag {{complex}} as a big "fuck you without the censor" to an article that could have improved in simplicity over time.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  19:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  with EhJJ & Na'vi What people often suggest here is that drastic action is needed, and, as such, we stagnate. Nothing ever gets done. Someone, preferably with someone with a lot of weight. We create a quick deletion criteria of "one line stub", and perhaps a "useful, not notable" philosophy -- deleting articles about incects people have never heard of, rivers, communes. Anything that does not matter whether it is at enwiki or simplewiki should be deleted on sight. We create a template, {{timeout}}, that is placed on new microstubs; an automatic en:Template:Prod, that after five days of insufficent signs of expansion, are consigned to the recycle bin. We need to be ruthless: not commenting on this thread is not an option. We cannot allow this discussion to stagnate yet again. — μ 20:07, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

I think this wiki is doing fine; all we need is to get more editors (preferably experienced en.wiki editors who would be willing to "translate" en articles to simple.) We should decide on ways of doing that and not trying to find gimmicky ways of "fixing" this wiki. EhJJ^TALK 20:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets stop the endless discussions and be pragmatic. Actions not words people. Start improving the articles we do have! FSM ^Noodly? 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

<-MC8, fix the articles instead of complaining about them. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There's too many to fix. (and since when was it my fault?) — μ 20:41, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Discuss. — μ 20:42, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Since you started complaining about them. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sixth to reply to this; why me? :| — μ 10:13, Sunday January 10 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times and each time the proposal has ended as no consensus (or failed). That's why I reverted. Hope you understand. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, fuck going through deleting the million two line stubs we already have here, just delete new ones as they come up and make it clear we don't want them. Deleting them all would take to to much time and effort that could be put into improving articles. FSM ^Noodly? 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I was planning to add: that the new criteron would only be applicable to articles created after January 10 2010, 00:00UTC. — μ 20:49, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR - We are encouraged to delete new articles instantly with no given chance of improvement if complex.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have created {{timeout}} -- please discuss. — μ 22:55, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Not even slightly a fan. I am in the camp that a one line stub is better than no article at all. -DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Might want to make it center like the others do, other than that I would use that as a redesign for the deletion templates.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about having it at the bottom of the article, so {{stub}} would be on the left and {{timed out}} on the right. — μ 23:07, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have it placed at the top of the article though. But that is just my opinion.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly think that going around and deleting articles because they are to short would only scare new editors away. I think it is a foolish idea. If you build it, the people we come. We are in the building phase right now, and demolishing articles isn't part of building. The wiki is fine. We just need man/female power.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to find a way to get than man/female power.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gordon says it best. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Leave the American cities to me [[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:70303C; font-family:Occidental">Purplebackpack89</span>]]^{[[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style=color:"336600; font-family:Occidental">Notes taken</span>]]} (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've been refraining from speaking about this for some time now, but enough is enough; so here goes.... Every few weeks or so someone starts a thread here that goes along the line that "the wiki is broken". Firstly, this has been a constant complaint since this project started in 2004 (read back through the ST archives for proof). Secondly, this issue has a simple fix. We need to do one thing, define WHAT an encyclopedia IS. Frankly, (and let's be honest here) it's an educational resource. It deals with academic subjects. These are things that will still be of value to readers in about 200 years from today. Such topics include, science (string theory, relativity, physiology, biology, physics, chemistry); history (East, West, North and South); Languages (All of them, including French, English, Spanish, Russian, Manderin, lolcat, l33t and the like); Geography (All of it); Sociology (includes classical theory, modern Internet memes, trends etc.), Psychology, Medicine, Mathematics, etc., etc., etc., .. What it does NOT include is who won last years X-Factor, who took part in the 2001 Champion's League, people who won a single (non-notable) award (even if it was reported in 12 newspapers). People need to understand what then word "encyclopedia" means. It's not a place for all sorts of crap information to be dumped. It's a place where people who need to learn useful information should be able to turn to. SimpleWP is furthermore a place where people without an advanced education can turn to to learn new things. Please, can't we get real here? Please can't we build a project that is able to help people rather than merely expand the ego of our editorship? WE chose to join this project to help other people out; not to expand our own lives upon this strange creature entitled "the Internet". Please can't we for once and for all, define WP:SCOPE? :) fr33kman ^talk 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What sort of articles should we have? I work with young teenagers everyday, and the range of topics they research for school is amazing. I would be very worried about trying to limit what we write about because I never know what is going to be needed next. I agree that the "important" topics need to be well covered, and I do a lot of editing in this area. But it is also reasonable to argue that a topic like Ancient Egypt which every child learns about at school is well covered with text books in simple English already, and it maybe something else that is needed. Literacy is a huge problem in Australia (and probably other countries too) and part of the secret of encouraging kids to read is providing material that they are interested in. This may well include who won last years X factor or the 2001 Champions League. The biggest problem I come across working with young people on the SEWP is just not enough articles, on every imaginable topic. So, back to writing. Peterdownunder (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's take the idea further, and perhaps illustrate it, on the basis of Ancient Egypt. First of all, there is a science, called Egyptology, that deals with that civilisation, nevertheless, let's just point out some things that probably need more input. At some point in time, this input needs to come from a specialist (which I am not). Just to illustrate:

• I know of at least two Egyptian writing systems, one being the Hieroglyphs, and the other being the so called Demiotic script. There may have been more than the two, and these probably changed over the long history of "Ancient Egypt". Hieroglyphs exist in two versions, one for engraving, the other one for "cursive", that is "everyday writing". Hieroglyphic script did not note vowels, and today, there is no unique way of transliterating them. Nofretete and Nefertiti refer to the same emperor (14th century BC). Her name is written Nfr nfrw Jtn Nfr.t jy.tj (this also says that she was the main wife of Echnaton).
• The Rosetta stone with the same inscription in demiotic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ancient Greek gave the first step towards understanding Ancient Egyptian languages
• Luwian language, Urartian language, Cretan, and Maya also have hieroglyphs, Hieroglyph simply means sacred writing (in Ancient Greek)
• Social values were different in the time of Ancient Egypt (No, I don't refer to the Graeco-Roman one), they probably also changed over time.
• Burial rites changed over time (2-3 different kinds of pyramids; "passage tombs" in the Valley of Kings/Queens)
• What were the technological achievements of Ancientr Egypt?

Our article on Ancient Egypt does of course not cover this, so there you go. Note: I am not an egyptologist, so these are just a "layman's" view. TO my knowledge, no egyptologist contributes here.

(And of course, probably the same thing could be done with Assyrian culture, Hittite culture, Minoan culture...)

It all depends on what we say our audience is. --Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets not forget that simple isn't just for kids, it's for anybody who wants to learn using English, but isn't able to fully understand EN. For that reason, we need to find a happy medium of sorts, have topics that will interest the younger audience, and also have a good assortment of articles that the adults will enjoy reading through.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fr33kman. We have too many barely encyclopedia-worthy articles that are just straight copies of enwiki. Majorly talk 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who mostly reads nowadays rather than edits, it could also be for people who read English as their native language but nonetheless want a simpler-phrased overview of a topic, such as the Guardian article suggests. There are many science articles, and tangled long-winded prose on other articles, on the English version where I come away from the article boggled, frustrated or bored. 97.103.130.129 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with whoever said we need more portals for students. I tried to create one for 2nd and 3rd graders researching projects on Famous Americans to jump off from. We could have similar ones for Canadian and British bios, as well as for other topics, like science. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Raising the bar

All,

I propose to you that we raise the required percentage for an RfA to pass from 65% to 75% for a number of reasons; primiarly the fact that now RfB is "automatic" users should have more trust in the first instance of adminship - 75% being the old cratship-pass limit.

This was brought up on IRC a few times during my RfA, and it was generally agreed that once it was closed a thread would be started to try and implement such a change; so here is that thread.

Many users appear to be recieving adminship without (imo) having a full understanding of how adminship works, and people are also getting into the "vote" and "per user x" frame of mind again, so as part of this proposal I also suggest that we add a number of optional questions to each RfA as standard - possibly extending to crat duties as it's easier to get - and invite further questions from the community.

To summarise then:

• Raise the pass-limit from 65% to 75%.
• Keep the "requirements" the same
• Initiate 2-3 optional questions as standard.

Regards,

Goblin 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

RfB is not automatic. Read the archived thread again. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus my usage of inverted commas, i'm using automatic in this sense to mean "the by-passing of a Requests for Bureaucratship if two Simple Wiki Bureaucrats endorse such promotion, and therefore making it automatic in nature". Goblin 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

And if they were horrible admins, the 'crats wouldn't support. I'm not seeing the issue. If you don't like an admin, get them de-sysopped. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I support BG's idea. Now that 'crat essentially comes bundled with adminship once time has passed. I see no reason for us not to have the same level of requirement that 'crats used to have. Which would also bring us in line to the same level en generally uses. 65% has very often been considered too low since its only barely above half the people. The other thing griffen, is its better to weed out the possibly bad admins ahead of time instead of having to remove them later which is only a recipe for drama. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely? That's 2/3. Instead of making the "no big deal" right more difficult to get, change the 'crat rule. If they are bad users, why would 2/3 of people support? In the real world, that would be a landslide. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The no big deal quote is outdated. With how few editors we have here the difference between less than 50% and 65% can be as low as 2 editors. We drastically need to reduce the percentage of admins to editors on this wiki. We have far to many wheel war type issues and the like.. This is the best way to do it without having to remove people from positions or hold reconfirmations which has been rejected in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I am not even sure how our percentage got to be so much lower than other wikis. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

65% is still a majority of users plus a few. We get a lot of participation at RFA, so that means a lot of users would be supporting. If the admins that complained about too many admins resigned, the problem wouldn't exist. Stopping the flow of admins won't fix the problem, it will just stop making it worse. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it will make alot of issues better, one of the reasons we have a hard time attracting editors to come over from en is the perception that we let just anybody become admin here. And because of it the quality of the wiki suffers. We have been over the past year making changes such as these to try and help our reputation and bring more users over. And I would say they have been slowly working as we have slightly more active quality editors than we had at this time last year, but we need to keep going. Hopefully our editors still have the courage to try change, because it can't hurt to make it harder for awhile. Good editors will still pass the requirements. And those that don't will improve and try again. And if it prooves to be a total flop the standards can always be lowered again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So under the new plan, the requirements for adminship would be the same as cratship? After all, !votes on RfBs still can happen under the rule. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

<-Also, BG7 mentions a required percentage? Since when was 65% percent required? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Generally, at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support of a candidate to indicate a consensus for the adminship request to succeed." From Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's not a hard fast rule as 'crats can use their discretion. But we would like to bump the guideline slightly higher. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So the guideline would be upped to 75%. But what about crats? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which I note is higher than the CU/OS percentage. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cratship will almost likely never go to a vote again. That was sort of the point of our changing the process for them. And if they do I have no problem with them remaining at 75%. CU/OS is 80% if I remember correctly. Crat on en is at 90%. So its not like we are difficult. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

CU/OS (source:Meta) is 70%. You have brought up a good point. I'm not sure how this will change the high amount of admins, but I may be willing to support. I'll think about it some more. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  From what I have been reading, this sounds like if someone successfully passed their RfA under this proposed system, 'cratship will be automatically given to them after a few months. Essentially most if not all admins will also be crats. That is way out of scope for a wikimedia project imo. Why should we bother about this if our goal is to attract more editors? Focusing on raising our standards may not be the answer. Why not try to build a more stable wikipedia instead of debating on who gets adminship and who doesn't. —§ stay (sic)! 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We already passed the change where admins become crats after so many months. That happened two months ago I think. This discussion isn't about doing that. One of the ways to try and build a more stable wikipedia is to stop the trophy hunting for adminship. -DJSasso (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify Dj's cmt. Crat is automatic if 2 crats support, and nobody opposes within 24 hrs. and you want to run. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great idea. I don't really have anything other than that to add to the discussion, sorry.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have staled, though there does seem to be a loose consensus certainly for raising the guideline to 75%. If there are no objections I will implement this within the next 24 hours. Regards, Goblin 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I'd be fine with 75%. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SEWP on DVD?

Hello all,

I have had the idea that it might be time to get a version of SEWP on an "offline" medium; this has already been done by DEWP. It would involve the following steps:

1. "Freezing" - as in getting a DB dump everyone works on.
2. Reviewing the articles to select a number of them for inclusion. Ideally, we should get 20.000-25.000 articles to include. The decision if an article should be included should be taken by several reviewers. If three people review, two need to agree the article merits inclusion.
3. Once we get the set, the rest is probably doable by scripts.

If we want to get a version for Christmas and want to allow for some "space" (eg. to burn DVDs), we should be done by October 1st. - The feasibility of all of this and the length required do of course depend on who is interersted in helping with it. We also need a test-run to see if it works out.

Just an idea of mine. --Eptalon (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to help (as said on irc!). Yotcmdr (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC) _{Fail. That's the inconvenient of not having SUL. Yottie ^=talk= 19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}

I had an idea a while ago to make a pack for a school to use. Giving instructions and ideas on how to use WP properly. Seeing as kids are (part of) our main aim. I never got round to doing much of it, but a copy of WP on DVD would certainly be a good idea. I'm gonna get started on that again. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of how to use wiki properly! Maybe something to include. Yottie ^=talk= 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would rather focus on creating/ writing decent articles for the online source first, but if you have enough people willing to dedicate time to this, I see no reason for it to not happen.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. For English and German Wikipedias - which both have thousands of editors, hundreds of thousands of articles and cover every imaginable topic, then maybe. But not for simple - at least not now. What would be the point in filling a DVD with thousands of stubs? Thousands of complex articles? Thousands of 'unimportant' articles which form most of our (V)GAs (yes, i'm guilty for writing some of them, I admit that). See the thread above. When that's happened, then maybe. But at the moment, it's only going to detract effort from our main priority and give an extremely mediocre result. Furthermore, we'd need the WMF's permission, and I doubt they would sanction it for such an empty wiki. However, Kennedy's idea is something that could be much more useful as it encourages schools (or perhaps adult education for those with learning difficulties?) to come and use us - also possibly bringing in new editors. Again though, before this was sent off it would be a good idea to actually get some more decent articles written. Goblin 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I've created a placeholder for further development here. Feel free (everyone!) to change it and help out! :) Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

@Goblin: We were thinking of aiming the CD/DVD at schools (UK/US and/or other countries including for ESL speakers). Also reviewing the articles will permit us to:

• Get a rough idea of what needs doing on this wiki.
• Improve the articles dramatically for the DVD, therefore making them better online.
• Promote SEWP somewhat.

Yottie ^=talk= 20:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See also {{EveryWiki}} — μ 13:03, Tuesday January 12 2010 (UTC)

Yotty, I did gather that much, enwiki have been doing it for years. As Microchip has pointed out, the priority should be the articles that all wikis should have to VGA status, not some fancy pancy DVD that as I said will require Foundation endorsement, and then once you start distribution you will need to be careful not to tread on the Chatper's toes. WMFUK already have a fairly successful schools project running, and tbh promoting our wiki as part of that can only be a bad thing. 58,000 stubs on crap are not a good thing. Don't make a select handful of articles better "just because it's going on a DVD" - make a large bucketful of articles better because we want to, because we care about our wiki. No. Goblin 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I wonder whether we have the editor base to improve even 50 articles to GA/VGA or even to a start class article in a short time. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Enable Abuse (Edit) Filter

Simple Wikipedia is steadily growing everyday, and with it brings more users and of course vandals and trolls. While vandalism is not a major concern, I think we should enable abuse filter for this wiki. Unconstructive edits, personal attacks between users, and borderline vandalism is also becoming an issue here. We have a large enough group of active, regular editors and admins for it. With abuse filter, it can be beneficial to this wiki. —§ stay (sic)! 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be more trouble than it's worth. There's no evidence to indicate we're understaffed in the anti-vandalism department. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. ENWP has more than 4,800 users with the antivandalism tool, yet they also have abusefilter. We have just over 100 users with the rollback bit. If anything, ENWP is overstaffed. —§ stay (sic)! 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare en to simple. They have a few unproductive edits every second, we have a few every hour or so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

En also has MUCH MUCH more vandalism :) Personally I'd say whynot as long as people are careful that they know what they are doing before they make one (copying from en isn't always a good thing with the filter). I can give people access to test with it on my wiki as well if needbe. James (T|C) 05:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still against this, due to things like not needing it, and the likelihood of false positives since we don't have the manpower to keep it accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No point. We always have a few people watching RC. With 40 admins and 100 rollbackers, we don't have an issue with missing stuff. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, a better tool would be a second rollback button specifically for vandalism. I believe such a tool exists on En Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what rollback is for, vandalism. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my comment. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Considering the majority of our Administrators don't even know how to use "Protect" and "Delete" correctly, enabling the Abuse Filter will be a complete nightmare. Many of ENwiki's regexes won't be required here, and furthermore they will need tweaking to work correctly - and who knows regex *properly*? As has been said, Vandals are caught and reverted as it is - we don't need this. Goblin 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Vandalism on simple is nowhere near enwiki or even other small wikis. EF will cause more problems that it'll solve. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy's request for desysop

As per the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship/Kennedy, Kennedy (talk · contribs)'s sysop and bureaucrat tools are to be revoked. This is just a public notification to keep everyone informed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. At my count (and depending on how you look at it) there is

• 16 in favour of full removal. (65.51%)
• 3 or 4 in favour of removal of one or 'tuther.
• 10 in opposition to the removal of either.

Just would like to hear your views on this, and if you considered removal of only one flag, and if so your reasoning. Just to confirm not questioning your decision, just would like to hear your reasoning on your decision. Also I don't have access to meta just now so if someone would care to do the honours if not done already? Also again just to apologise and thank those who supported me. Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I count 9 in favor of retaining the flags, excluding the IP. In any case, as I explained in my closing rationale, sysop and bureaucrat rights are positions of community trust, and if a wide majority of the participating editors don't feel that trust is still there, it's necessary to remove those special rights. I did consider the option of leaving the sysop flag on and only turning off the 'crat bit, but there was in my opinion sufficiently strong consensus to remove both. Sorry it worked out this way, and I hope to see you around still. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough I understand your reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn't see the rationale at the top and was looking at the bottom of the page. :) Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(<-) It is technically possible to have crat flags without sysop flags, the "bureaucrat" role is very limited in what it can do, namely user promotions, and bot flags, IIRC. So it is technically possible to remove one of the flags while keeping the other. We would have a big problem though if the admin flag were removed (and the crat flag weren't): As we have handled here all CheckUsers, Bureaucrats and Oversighters are also admins. While I personally trust Kennedy at the base, I cannot express this in a vote. I am a CheckUser, so voting would put me in a Conflict-of-Interest situation. But if people think that removing one flag without removal of the other would be an option, we should perhaps discuss it. (In fact: It should probably have thought of at the start, but oh well, shoot first, think later...) --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki service awards

I was looking for a way to mark some milestone edits today, and found it on the English Wikipedia. I have transwikied the page and templates for use on this wiki, but before we start using them I would like some ideas about adapting them for this wiki. Could anyone interested please make some comments on the Wikipedia talk:Service awards please. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)