User talk:Wikihermit/Archive 1

Hey

Hello wikihermit:) I have decided to come here and help out. I am looking towards helping to build up this place with you and others. Have a nice week and God bless:)--Sir James Paul 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. I agree with your idea. I'll run for adminship. I noticed that the admins were inactive.:) --isis 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe the RfAs should stay a little less than a week, maybe five days longer. There aren't very many users here to vote. --Isis 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, three or four days would be fine. --Isis14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should move my request to be a 'crat? That seems pretty pointless, having three on a wikipedia (wikibooks, I mean...) with about three active users. --Isis 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll just run for adminship for now. Maybe I'll run later. :) --Isis 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you moved your request back. Better luck next time. :) --Isis 22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to the Simple English Wikibooks!

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

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit the Simple English Wikibooks Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words. It is a good idea to look at the rules before you make many changes.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page (as you have) if you have any questions.

Now, regarding adminship: you seem to think that I was attacking you in my comments on your RfA. I was not. Far from it. PulltoOpen seems to have been attacking you (or at least strongly criticizing you), but I was giving reasonable comments which I thought might be helpful. I appreciate the work you've done today (I haven't had a chance to check over the policy pages yet, and I have to go soon, but I'll try to get to it within a few days). Please continue. We've never (yet) had many contributors here, though I'm glad to see that that is beginning to change, nor many vandals. That means that there has been little need for admins, even fairly inactive ones. You might note that Michael is a self-declared vandal-fighter, not using his admin tools for much of anything else. Since there has been so little vandalism, he hasn't done much yet. I would like to point out that you did not even try to follow standard procedure before your RfA: that would have included attempting to contact a current admin first to take care of any stuff that required admin tools. My email this user works, as does my talk page, and since I had already found the solution to my transparent proxy issues, I could even have logged in, answered you, and done the things you felt needed to be done. Yes, out of the blue, I came back. Anytime I might come back would be "out of the blue," since one moment I have not edited for some time, and the next moment, I have. You were just unfortunate enough to have started editing immediately before I began editing as a logged in user again. I have also edited here since October, but because of my login issues, I could only edit anonymously (which means no admin tools, of course).

As I mentioned on your RfA, edits on a different wiki don't make you trustable here. This community must see you in action before they can decide if you deserve admin status.

I figured someone would call into question my admin status, and I'm glad you've lived up to my expectations. Yes, I am an admin with far fewer than 1000 edits. When I began working on this wiki, there was one admin, I think, and he didn't want to stick around. Because of the small number of regular editors, it was not necessary to have many admins, and it still isn't, but since there was no one else, it was valuable that I be one, to do things like block vandals and protect pages. Coincidentally, the previous admin knew me from SE Wiktionary, and knew he could trust me. As you said yourself, it is a matter of trusting the admin more than any other single factor, and this admin had seen me in action over at SEWT. Actually, he first asked me to be an admin over there after seeing me work for a while, and when I started working on SEWB and SEWQ, he already knew that I was a good editor and would be a good admin, so he asked me to be an admin in those places, too, even though I had not worked much in either place at the time. I have not seen you in action at EWP or anywhere else. When I've seen you edit here a while, I'm sure I'll have a better opinion of you and we can talk about admin possibilities then. Obviously, I'm not saying it is all up to me, but I will be more supportive of your bid once I've gotten to know you a bit more.

Regarding policies, you should know that most of the same policies that are on SEWP and EWB apply here, but have not until this point been explicitly stated, mostly due to so few people being here to write/simplify the policies or even to break them! Learning policies is nice, but someone can read all the policies on even EWP (and there are a lot of them) in a few days time. That's not the reason for the delay here or on SEWP. As I've said more than once today, it's about seeing you in action to know we can trust you. Any old vandal can come along and request adminship. He/she can even edit nicely for a while so that it looks legit. But if that person gets admin tools, watch out! Certainly, I'm not saying you're a vandal. But I am saying that we need to see you in action, over time and edits. Oh, and one "makes" edits, one doesn't "attend" edits, FYI.

I would recommend that we call all policies here "rules," either "soft rules" (guidelines) or "hard rules" (policies). "Rules" is much simpler English than "policies and guidelines." If you want to see how that might look, take a look at wikt:Wiktionary:Rules, where we use those terms. We'd be happy if you helped out there, too, just don't ask for admin status too quickly. :D

In all, I'm glad that you're planning on sticking around to help this wiki grow. Don't think I'm attacking you. Please do request admin status again when we've seen you in action. Sorry for being long-winded and once again, welcome! Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What?!

Please don't retire. This wiki needs as many editors as possible. :( --Isis 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? --Isis 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How did you get sysoped? (Px)Ma 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing page

It seems the page formerly Numbers/What Are Numbers? got lost somewhere in the move. Could you please recover it? Thank you. --Ezra Katz 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin status

I have a question: Though I appreciate your enthusiasm, why did you ask for temporary admin status on Meta? I see you were very busy as a temporary admin, but you didn't ask me to make any of those changes instead. Most of them seem fine, of course, but the better procedure would have been to ask one of the current admins to do the things you felt needed to be done, especially considering that I have returned. I admit that I've not done all that much in the last week or so, but that is because I've been busy (partially working on other SE projects), and (besides) no one asked me for help until Isis did today.

Also, why did you put your admin status request in the archive? Normally it is admins (or bureaucrats when they are there) who do that kind of thing, as well as closing the vote, etc. You should also take into account that on small wikis like this one, the one-week voting period is usually extended so that people who only come periodically can participate. Did you move your request to the archive because you had received temporary adminship? Does that mean that you are retracting/waiting for permanent adminship?

I know that PulltoOpen (and maybe others) hasn't done anything on this wiki but oppose your admin request. I was taking that into account. Yes, there is a rule that exists on some of the other wikis regarding sockpuppets, and we abide by it here, even if it isn't written out. It mainly applies to voting. However, I know PulltoOpen as an active, constructive user on SEWP, and for that reason I have a hard time believing that she/he would use sockpuppetry here. Either way, admins generally minimize or ignore any votes by non-established users, though they sometimes take into account their comments.

Please see Wikibooks:Administrators for further comments. Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm glad you haven't retired. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Thanks for the category. However, I think that the word "speedy" and the word "candidates" are not very simple. Speedy is probably okay for now, but we need to either remove the word "candidates" and leave it as "Category:Speedy delete" or we need to find a simpler synonym or change the meaning slightly. "Speedy delete pages" comes to mind. Or maybe "Speedy deletions" or something similar. What do you think? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the pages that were in the Speedy cat (except one which I changed to a stub). I thought I knew how to make it so the template was not in the cat, but it didn't work the way I thought it would. If you could figure it out, that would be great. BTW, I rather dislike the way the English contents template looks now. It takes up way too much space, sometimes more than the content of the page it is on. Either change it back or find another way to organize that template. I'll help if you want, but it needs to be smaller. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done I reverted back, I can't figure out how to organize it better. Also, I'll look into making the template not appear in the category. I know they did it at the english wikipedia, so I'll have to ask. ~ Wikihermit 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rodelator

I would love to block him/her except that you put your block notice up after he/she stopped editing, saying that it was his/her last warning. If I blocked him/her now, it wouldn't be fair, because I haven't given him/her that last chance you offered. On the other hand, the next time that user edits, if it is vandalism, that's it. Email me or let me know and I'll block him/her right away (as soon as I notice your email, that is). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)