Jump to content

Wikibooks:Simple talk/Archives/2009

From Wikibooks
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.



A proposal has been made to close this project.

Please see for more info This page

See ya, Abigor 10:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for forgetting to notify. Cheers. SwirlBoy39 talk

The request is closed. The result is Keep. And I am happy with that :) Abigor 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Import Rights


I wan't to ask the community to grant Microchip08 and me import rights. The rights will I use to import some missing templates, the babel templates from the lanquage that are most used and that kind of stuff. I believe its important to make sure that simple.wikibooks all templates has that are important to use. Also the babel is handy because not all people are native English speakers. . Abigor

I believe that is an interesting and idealogical trait for the simple english users. I approve of this act for the benifit of new users to the English language from their native tongue. If you can do it or need some assistance I'll approve. Grinktis 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, just a note to say a) this has been discussed, and that I'd like to apply for it as well, and b) please don't message people about things like this: most of us will check ST on a regular basis :) Microchip08 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oke, but because there was no real activity I placed notes on talk pages. But we can ask for the rights both. Abigor 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. So, what would we use the rights for?
Use Reason Comments
Babel templates Making people feel more welcome, allow multi-lingual users

We don't want every single language, do we? Prehaps only the top-20 common languages? Microchip08 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done The babel system from meta is complete transferred here. (it is a lot of templates and breaking it in half would brake it down. Abigor 05:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome templates Making people feel more welcome, allow multi-lingual users

Prehaps only the top-3 common languages? German, French and .... Abigor 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would we translate them? Would we use a Commons-style dropdown menu, or should we just have links? Microchip08 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dropdown menus require some additional functionality that is not working on this wiki. I can look into it if there is really a need. --Ezra Katz 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The commons system is just working with templates. I see no reasson why it shouldn't work here also. Abigor 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it's a parser function that is governed by an uninstalled extension. We could ask for it if we really need it, but it will take ages to file a bug & get it up and running. Microchip08 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked but the new Welcome on Commons is using a lot of templates Abigor 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missing templates Templates like copyvio, nonsense ect ect ect. Templates that can be used in the day to day maintence. Abigor 09:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion templates aren't needed. A copyvio template can easily be created, it doesn't need importing. Microchip08 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking, prehaps we should use the meta style template (m:Template:User language) instead of the babel templates (en:Template:Babel)? Microchip08 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the meta style much more. Abigor 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all old Babel have to be deleted before we can import the new ones. And that can be a problem because we both don't have administrator rights. So we have to tag them all and ask a steward to delete it? Abigor 05:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As an admin, I can delete and import whatever you like. Browsing through the tools though, it seems meta is not an option for importing (I assume I could ask one of the devs to enable it). Importing from en doesn't seem to be a problem. If one of you could come up with a list of what needs to be imported and deleted that would be very helpful, otherwise I will get on the task as soon as I find some time. Thanks! --Ezra Katz 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I placed a request on Meta. See here Abigor 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- we now both have our rights. Microchip08 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The new logo is choosen and update. But now quistion: Do we need to translate the text under the logo?

See ya, Abigor 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new logo. I'm not really sure how we would simplify the text under it though. Any thoughts? Maximillion Pegasus 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't simplify the old slogan, we don't need to simplify the new. Microchip08 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I have setup MaximillionBot to maintain interwiki links and just tested it. Anyone object to me getting a flag for it? (I will have to request the flag on meta) (I might also set it up to do automatic archival of talk pages in the future) Maximillion Pegasus 18:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it straight away. As far as I know, it just falls under what Global Bots would do. Let me check up on this, and I'll reply soon. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okai, at the moment the guys in #wikimedia-stewards are too busy purring to deal with my request :/. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No problems by me. I will come with my bot soon (Not for interwiki but against vandalism) Abigor 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! All three active editors say yes. Off to go ask at m:. Abigor: We don't get enough vandalism, do we? And feel free to drop by #wikipedia-simple when you have the chance :). Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've requested it at meta:Steward requests/Bot status. Maximillion Pegasus 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Walter 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (steward)[reply]

Thank-you. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what are our thoughts on implementing a "yes" to m:Global Bots? I'd say sure, as we need as much help as we can get :-) Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with activating global bots. But there isn't a lot of botwork going on here. Abigor 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe enabling gbots will increase the amount of bot work? Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there all. I have a request that only administrators can deal with because they are the only ones with access to the Mediawiki prefixed pages. Could an administrator with knowledge about the MediaWiki software change the link that is displayed in the upper right hand corner (where it says your pages) and change the link that says My Preferences and change that to say My Settings so that it is the same as the Simple English Wikipedia? Thanks, Razorflame 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, using my super-duper new powahs I'll have a look. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done. Make sure you're using "simple" as a language, and prehaps purge? Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That'll have to be changed at MediaWiki:Preferences/en for it to work. PeterSymonds 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Mypreferences is the one that needs changing. Maximillion Pegasus 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about content of en.wikibooks

Hi. I regulary consult en.wikibooks, but I discover this simple.wikibooks. The question is, I can put some content of en.wikibooks here?, of course, I adjust the language to do simple english. -- Regards Oleinad 19:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. However, you need to make sure you give a link to the English Wikipedia history page, either in the edit summary, i.e. This page adapted from http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Spain&action=history, or on the talk page. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speed answer. I visit this proyect several times. Soon -- Oleinad 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. By the way, if you see anything we're missing (project-wise), feel free to add it! Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag for User:ChenzwBot

I'd like to propose a bot flag for Chenzw's bot, who is dutifully adding interwiki links. Although the bot does not run regularly, a random sample of the bot's edits shows that they aren't mistakes. I don't see any reason as to why we should not grant Chenzw Bot the flag, especially as it makes RC easier to patrol. To allow for the small community here, I propose that we do not apply at meta, until 28 days are up, or when most of our active(ish) editors have !voted. (at my count: MC8, Abigor, Yotcmdr, Bluegoblin7, Ezra Katz). Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

Yep, I agree with this proposal. Cheers, Razorflame 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abigor 14:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted by me from meta --Mardetanha talk 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta admin policy


I have been thinking for a while and I think it would be a step forward if we change our admin policy.

I would sugest to use here the adminpolicy as used on Meta.

The most important things in that policy are: Inactite admins can be desysoped after a year of inactivaty but can ask for return of there rights without needing new rfa. All admins can be a bureaucrat after 2 months of good behavior A admin or crat can ask for new bits if the are desysoped on there own request.

I hope that our complete communety supports this policy. The complete policy can be found on Meta. Abigor 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Administrators are good to have; on the offchance that they come back, there's nothing stopping them (whereas if they are -opped they might think that their contributions are not worth anything anymore). We do not need any 'crats at the moment; we have had maybe two bot requests in the time I have been active, and no 'serious' RfAs. We need a 'crat? We ask a steward. Meta, bear in mind, has a relatively large userbase; we have a tiny one. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember adminship has nothing to do status. If somebody thinks he is nothing worth after he has been desysop for inactitety he needs to remember that he wasn't worth a thing as inactite user. In my eyes you have to lose your adminship if you don't use your tools for three monthts. Adminship get it when you need it, lose it when you don't use it Abigor 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, regardless of what it is, think of what it is thought of. What's the point in desysopping if they will simply get them back when they return? Seems like pointless energy. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on this wiki again, given that last time I was checked as a vote-stacking sockpuppet, but I saw this thread on #cvn-simplewikis and asked myself whether either of you know what this wiki is here for, and/or what it needs. This wiki needs no bureaucrats. This wiki hardly needs more administrators. When I supported your RfAs, I did so in good faith that you'd put effort into building content. Well, Abigor hasn't edited the mainspace for nearly a month, and Microchip08 hasn't been that active in the mainspace either. If your activity in the mainspace grinds to a halt after your RfAs, it does not inspire me with confidence. The mainspace is, however, the most important area, and the area that needs the most attention. I urge you to focus your attention elsewhere, on content building perhaps. Adminship and bureaucratship are only useful when there's a need — there currently is no need for local bureaucrats. It has a slow recent changes feed, no RfAs, very few bot requests. Indeed, bigger wikis still rely on stewards. So, please, drop the talk about flags — it's not a healthy use of time for either of you. Thanks, PeterSymonds 14:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care about flags orso. I dont see why we should keep inactite admins. But I will remove my adminbit in a week or two. "get it when you need it, lose it when you don't use it". Abigor 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for desysopping inactive admins. I'm against auto-promotion to cratship, however. PeterSymonds 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly oppose administrators gain the bureaucrat flag after 2 months of sysop. Not appropriate and should not happen. I am not opposed to inactive administrators losing the bit if they are inactive for a period of more than 1 year, though. Razorflame 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an inactive sysop that has come back periodically, I agree with MC8 on this one. See my related comments at Wikibooks talk:Administrators#Temp adminship. I also disagree with automatically upgrading admins to bureaucrats. Having a 'crat here wouldn't be a bad thing, exactly, but isn't really necessary at the moment, and each 'crat should definitely be voted on just like admins are. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I would like to ask for a new bot bit for Abibot.

Best regards, Abigor 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Seems fine. It's doing good work. TheAE talk 04:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Abibot appears to be a welcome bot: this is not needed, as we are a small community -- humans come on here every so often; why do we need to have a bot to do it, when it is already being done much more personally? Also, I feel that such welcome bots *should* appear in RC. This unsigned comment was added by [[User:Regards, Microchip08 (talk)|Regards, Microchip08 (talk)]] ([[User talk:Regards, Microchip08 (talk)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Regards, Microchip08 (talk)|contribs]]) .

TechBot Bot Request

I would want to use User:TechBot to fix interwiki links. It's been running on the English and Simple English Wikipedia. I also want the bot flag on this account. For now, I'll run a trial up to 100 edits. Techman224Talk 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Abigor 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
There's not very much here that it detects what has another page on other projects, and also, Are you the only one active here?. Techman224Talk 21:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Microchip, I will go to meta and say its okay. Abigor 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. Could we reopen the "automatic approval of all interwiki-only bots" policy proposal? Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already proposed. Techman224Talk 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I proposed first :P, not that it matters. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to run TechBot on only Wikipedia, so I'm withdrawing this request. Techman224Talk 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast deletion backlog

Hi, could an admin please look at Category:Fast deletion pages? Some speedy deletion candidates have been sitting in the queue for a long time. Thanks. Tempodivalse 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the wait. Microchip08 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tempodivalse 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Would an admin mind setting up popups? I use it a lot and it gets annoying when I have to click on the diff. Griffinofwales 03:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js, yes? MC8 (b · t) 13:43, Wednesday September 2 2009 (UTC)
I have always use gadgets to set it. Do you have a link to where I can copy the info? Griffinofwales 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gadgets can be found at w:Special:Gadgets. MC8 (b · t) 19:17, Wednesday September 2 2009 (UTC)
I tried following enWP's instructions. Didn't work. What am I doing wrong? Griffinofwales 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't ENWP, that's why :P MC8 (b · t) 22:08, Wednesday September 2 2009 (UTC)
Popups work for me: try copying the content of my monobook page and see if that works for you. Don't forget to do a hard refresh or it might not work. Tempodivalse 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-Thanks MC8. Why did you add it to my css page, and what is different from the two? Tempo is using his js and it works fine. Griffinofwales 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About picture shown in New changes page

My suggestion about this picture:

Sounds good. Wikibooks:Be bold needs writing. I'll link it up. MC8 (b · t) 18:32, Monday August 31 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, In my free time, i will try to write something there. Srhat 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing update

Hi, in the footer it says content is under CC-BY-SA license but there is a link in the main page which goes to GFDL licence text. It should be updated, I think. Srhat 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. As long as you are logged in and your account is older than four days, you are able to edit the Main Page. MC8 (b · t) 13:32, Wednesday September 2 2009 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know that. Srhat 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated main page. Srhat 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip08 plays with blocks ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) was created recently and needs to be blocked, it's part of a series of disruptive usernames. Thanks Tempodivalse 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account was locked globally. SUL 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Never mind then. Thanks Tempodivalse 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Plays with blocks" should be added to the blacklist. This is the second such account here. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there will be any more; there's only active two administrators at the moment. However unlikely, I'm adverse to blacklisting in case a legitimate editor comes along. MC8 (b · t) 21:17, Friday September 18 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to bl in my opinion if you want. The "plays with blocks" deal is a crosswiki vandalism. (there will be more not necessarily there) if you check the user rights deal you'll notice a certain steward became a checkuser here twice to check it out as they were making accounts across multiple wikis and have in the past. If you don't want to bl it don't worry either the stewards and a couple other people prowl a thread that instantly tells us accounts created over all wikis. Jamesofur 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]