User talk:Flcelloguy~simplewiktionary

Welcome

It's nice to see some activity here; I hope you will drop in every so often! Gerard Foley 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not a bureaucrat, only an admin (the only one). If you want admin access here you need to ask on Meta. If I was a bureaucrat I would be more then happy to make you an admin, after all, it's not a big deal! I will look into changing monobook as you requested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 18:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes that you asked for, check to make sure I did it right! I also deleted 2 pages that you created, let me know if there are any problems. --Gerard Foley 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you made the request on Meta. Note that it might take some time. (It was 3 weeks for me!) Gerard Foley 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, I saw your message on the 7th of Jan but I have been busy (work all day, then I get home to see the barn next door ablaze!). Anyway I made a reply at Meta. Gerard Foley 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

SE Wiktionary

I don't mean to butt into a semi-private conversation, but I thought I'd throw in my ideas about Simple English Wiktionary. I feel that this is a very useful project, and a sisterproject to Simple English Wikipedia. The main difference between the English Wiktionary and the Simple English Wiktionary (at least in my vision of things) is basically the same as that of Simple English Wikipedia: provide a resource for people who are not very good at English, whether because they are learning, they are young, or they are handicapped (or other reason, for that matter). The English Wiktionary is not a good resource for this, as it often uses much too sophisticated terminology for a Simple English Wikipedia user to understand, not to mention having a different focus/goal (to give English definitions for every word in every language). Here, all words and definitions would be in English, and, what's more, Simple English. As I mentioned above, this could be very useful, and I hope it will be highly linked with Simple English Wikipedia, for all of the less common words that one really can't avoid using there, and others of course. We would preferably moving all of the dictionary-ish entries over here, with links to them from appropriate articles. If you are curious, you can see more of what I feel about it on this talk page (from Simple English "What Wikipedia is not"). This is copied from Gmcfoley's talk page so you can see what I'm saying. --Cromwellt|talk 12:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. :-) I agree that this has potential to be a good project, but we've all got to remember to head over here more often. In collaboration with simple en wikipedia, this could become a good resource. Thanks! Flcelloguy 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As I'm not nearly as active over at English Wikipedia now (I used to be more over there), I tend to come here fairly often. It has become a sort of pet project for me. I want to see it become a valuable resource in conjunction with SEWikipedia, but I'm running into opposition from one person there: Netoholic, an admin and bureaucrat. He seems to not want SEWikipedia linking here for any reason (not even as an alternate link), and seems to think that all definitions of less common words should be there, not here. He links such articles (really dictionary entries) to English Wiktionary ("just so it's central"), despite my repeated explanations that English Wiktionary is too complex for most Simple English users. I've tried posting two different long messages on his talk page, and he doesn't respond. He only responded when I recreated a "disputed policy" template (which he had previously deleted) and mentioned on its talk page that someone who wants to delete it should tell me why first. He asked on my talk page why it was there, and I responded on his talk page with that second long message, including my reasons for having it there as well as general opinions, etc. He still hasn't responded, but he keeps working against SEWikt. I would like to work as an admin over there, but since he is the bureaucrat and I know he would not support that idea, I haven't even brought it up. He is actually an admin/bureaucrat with issues: he has on a variety of occasions done what he felt like, despite consensus, particularly on deleting pages he feels are "non-core" articles. He brings them up on RfD and then, when the vote is in, he deletes the pages he wants to and keeps the ones he doesn't want to delete, even though the vote is the other way. He calls this policy of deleting "non-core" articles "giving the project direction." I call it unnecessarily restrictive. We want it to include lots of information, not just "core articles," and if someone wants to write a simple article about "Everybody Loves Raymond" (his most recent RfD), they should be able to. If he feels core articles are important, he should write more of them, not delete less central articles. I've said this to him more than once, but as mentioned above, I've gotten no response, not even an angry reply. As I mentioned to Gmcfoley not long ago, he has done all these things, and even possibly done things like blocked users for disagreeing with him, but has not even gotten a slap on the wrist from anyone, including other administrators. Most of his issues are brought up by one or more users on his talk page if you're curious. He wants to run SEWikipedia the way he wants it run, and other people seem to just let him. Any ideas? --Cromwellt|talk 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried talking to him more. Our main issues of disagreement are non-core articles and SE Wiktionary, and he still holds the same position, without seeming to give mine any thought, even though I have explained mine at length.

SE Wiktionary issue

I have also asked for comments regarding the SEWiktionary issue from all other administrators and some active contributors (since they didn't seem to want to do it without me directly asking them on their talk pages), rather than talking about him to others (kind of like behind his back, which he might not appreciate), and I have finally gotten two responses. One active contributor (Eptalon) feels that SE Wikipedia is not ready for an SE Wiktionary yet (which I pointed out already exists, so why not link to it/use it?) and that our only main priority should be reaching 10k articles (with quality, preferably). I agree that his goal is a good one, but I feel that both can be done at once, even though that may mean we won't reach 10k as quickly. The other (Blockinblox) seems to be more on my side, because he wondered what to do with short articles that are only dictionary definitions. He was thinking of deleting them, but wasn't sure, so I stated my opinion and Netoholic's as succinctly as I could. Haven't gotten an answer on that yet. Oh, and one other thing: Freshstart, another active contributor who has not responded (yet) mentioned to me a while back that he thinks we should link to both EWikt and SEWikt. I said, "Sure, why not? Giving the user more options is a great idea. If you could convince Netoholic of the same, I would be eternally grateful." So it sounds like he at least wouldn't be against linking to SEWikt.

My request (and list of links)

I would really appreciate it if you would look into this a bit deeper. The main pages that we've talked on are:

• his user page (three sections scattered through the latter part, which he has never responded to directly; oh, and there are some interesting comments from other users about "leaving to let him run his Wiki-kingdom in peace," though that might be on User:Angela's talk page)
• What Wikipedia is not (both of the last two sections, but based on the comments/questions in the first section)
• the Everybody Loves Raymond (RfD)
• Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary (RfD log) (at the very bottom of the page, and Encyclopaedia Dramatica directly above that)
• comments on his RfD actions
• simple:Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English articles
• under Project direction (where I have not yet made my statement, but where Archer7 makes a statement that fits my position regarding non-core articles).

There are a few others where we've made a statement or two, but nothing really cogent or important that we haven't said on one of these pages. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. I am not asking you to get involved, just give me your advice. I am thinking that my next step will be to call in a mediator from English Wikipedia. I feel as if I've tried to reason with him and convince him, and he has not responded. He will not accept any comparisons to other Wikipedias, always saying things like "Simple is a different Wikipedia" (but see his comment here under Actual structure of the wiki). And he has continued to change any pages that disagree with his position (such as the How to write Simple English articles page above), regardless of the fact that there are people (at least one) who do not agree. He would be in a variety of edit wars if I were the aggressive type. As you can see on the deletion log and its talk page, he has done what he wanted to against the vote and consensus, even though he calls his opinion consensus. Though he has been what I would consider downright rude to other users, including newcomers, which is directly against w:en:WP:BITE and w:en:WP:CIVIL, he has kept his comments civil to me, so I don't know if I should mention it to the mediator who comes in. I guess they'll be looking at his talk page anyway, so I shouldn't need to.

BTW, I made a personal template as a subpage of my userpage over there, but I can't figure out how to make it work. Can you tell me? Gotta run, but happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think you and Netoholic have different ideas on whether simple wikipedia is also a dictionary. Asking for mediation for this issue seems sensible, but there's no telling how he'll react to that suggestion.

However, you'll be glad to know that I agree with you for a lot of your points.

Refusing to acknowledge us seems silly considering we exist. And by the look of the "what simple wiktionary is not" talk page, we are probably needed. I think it's that he is not understanding how much we want to make this work - if we can convince him on that we'll be doing well.

As for whether he's rude, I haven't seen him really insult anyone. However, some of his decisions are quite petty - such as not including links to sister projects on the front page. If people think simple wiktionary is full of crap, that's for them to decide, not him. In my opinion, his dictatorial attitude ("we are not a democracy") is wrong. It may not be a democracy, but he isn't the leader of the dictatorship.

I suggest that we have 3 choices:

• We can try to convince him of our point of view ourselves. If you like, I can talk to Netoholic and try to come to some kind of compromise. Hearing something from fresh ears might help. Mind you, considering the lengths you've gone to to get his attention, a response will not be guarenteed....
• We can use mediation. Mediation will give a compromise solution, or enforce a decision from above. It will be a solution, but may not win us any favours over at simple wikipedia. If this is done, it needs to be done with a consensus here and in a non-confrontational manner to be most successful.
• We can wait. This option isn't as bad as it sounds. Don't forget that we don't need his permission to draw from or copy his definitions if we want to. We can go to him later, when we have even more words and try to convince him that we're serious about wiktionary.

Honestly, I don't know what's the best option. Good luck though ;-) --H2g2bob 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi H2g2bob! Thanks for your comments here. I didn't expect anyone else to comment, but I'm certainly glad you did! I think you have the right idea when you say that we don't agree on whether SEWikipedia is also a dictionary, but I would say it is more subtle than that. He doesn't verbally claim that it is a dictionary, he just thinks that putting short "descriptions" (which I would call definitions) over there is what we should do ("to help users"), rather than putting them here, and that SEWikipedia should link to EWikt (which I am willing to accept, even though it doesn't help the majority of simple users) and should not link to SEWikt. I admit that I am glad to know that you agree with me in general. I definitely agree that it is silly to not acknowledge us and that we are probably (I would say definitely) needed. As far as not understanding our interest in making this work, I would say that he perfectly understands my interest in making it work, but that he thinks I am the only one who feels that way. I think you may be right about him not being actually rude to anyone (on researching more, it seems that it is mostly vandals who complain about him, rather unimpressively), and I mistakenly attributed an unsigned comment to him, though he is still rather uncivil in his way of implying that if they don't like how the project is (how he is acting), they should leave. All this is under w:User talk:Angela, the section on Dispute resolution. I agree strongly with your statements about his pettiness and his dictatorial attitude, especially when you say, "This may not be a democracy, but he isn't the leader of the dictatorship."

As for those three options, I'd say we should do a combination. First, we can start copying anything worth saving over right now, as you say. However, I don't think that means we should wait on the other things. I think the next step I would prefer would be you talking to him to try to get him to come around, though I don't plan to absent myself from any further general discussion in the meantime. My guess is that he won't agree to anything with you either, but it's possible, mostly because you will say things a little differently from the way I do, and because responding to two people is not the same as responding to one. If you have tried and failed to come to a compromise with him, then I say we get some form of mediation, definitely letting him know what we are doing and preferably with his agreement, but without it if necessary. I have a feeling he may be very much against mediation, since he tends to seem petty and unreasonable and want to run things his way no matter what, but that's a chance we'll have to take.

Thank you, Flcelloguy, for the use of your talk page for this. I'll also be putting this comment on h2g2bob's talk page, so you can delete it if you feel the need. Or you can join in the discussion! I think we can all agree that all good-faith comments are welcome.  :) --Cromwellt|talk 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple English projects

I'm leaving this message both here and on your En Wikipedia talk page, hoping that you'll see it and respond soon. Remember Netoholic and his hypocritical campaign against all simple English projects except SEWikipedia? Well, because of some developments in the situation at SEWikipedia, he's taken it to the next level. He has proposed that those projects be closed. I know you don't want that to happen, so please vote oppose. I made a sort of advisory banner for the Main Page of all those projects, which makes it convenient for you to vote:

---

Advisory: Some users from other projects are trying to close Simple English Wiktionary, SEWikibooks, and SEWikiquote, even though we've barely begun! If you think these projects should not be closed, vote oppose here and here.

---

Thanks for taking a moment and helping stop this outrage! --Cromwellt|talk|contris 07:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of access

Hello Flcelloguy, I've removed your sysop status according with request on Meta (and voting in your project). Thanks for your work! Regards, Leinad (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Flcelloguy. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Flcelloguy~simplewiktionary that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

08:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)