J Di

Welcome to Simple Wikipedia

Hello, J Di, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you are happy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

We have a special page that describes how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

We are also focusing on core articles until this Wikipedia grows. This list of topics will help show the types of topics we want most.

Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, do not be afraid to be bold! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later.

If you need any help, send a message to an administrator on his or her talk page. Administrators on Wikipedia will try to help you with your problems and resolve them as soon as possible.

Finally, if you have any questions on how things work, don't hesitate to ask me. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. Good luck and happy editing! J Di 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I guest I must've hit e by mistake. Hey! Your an en wiki user! hanks again. --Kimmy 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Please use {{stub}} under short articles.The life of brian 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubs are articles that can be expanded, and I didn't think Benign could be expanded much. J Di 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think people should use them anyway, because it does officially invite people to expand it. Sorry if I offended you in any shape or form. ;) The life of brian 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, course not. If anything, I'm glad somebody's watching over my edits. J Di 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

just a quick question. How do you install popups? The life of brian 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy what's in my monobook into yours, then hold Ctrl and press F5 or clear your cache. J Di 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! The life of brian 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. J Di 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Grazie {thank you}

Grazie for fixing the link to my userpage. --AbbyItalia 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. J Di 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator rollback

Hello J Di, and welcome to Simple Wikipedia. Unlike the way normal users do a rollback (re-edit an old version, commit the changes) administrative rollback does not give the opportunity to make a comment about it. In the case we are talking about ([1]), I simply felt rolling back would be faster than re-entering the comment. This is nothing personal against a given user. As you are probably aware, I have made a deletion/rename request for this page, as well as one other in the scope of Cowboy Bebop. I did this simply to prevent that simple-wp returns completely different results from en-wp, when searching for common terms. The other option I would have had was to re-add the deletion request; the result would have been the same.

If anything is unclear, please get back to me. -- Eptalon 10:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know how administrator rollback works, and as I said before, I'd rather not have my good faith edits revered with it; it gives me the impression that I am not worth your time. Reverting a page by editing an older revision is not a time-consuming process, and using an edit summary saves other users from feeling belittled or unwanted. Not everybody knows what administrator rollback is or how it works, and new editors could mistake an automatic edit summary for rejection. J Di 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you

You're from ** aren't ya? Muhahaha. RaNdOm26 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to tell everybody. _JD^talk 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Template

The welcome template you created is a beauty. Thumbs up!The life of brian 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh thanks, but I can't accept credit for it. It's plagiarised stolen borrowed from en:Template:Welcomeg. _JD^talk 21:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! I award you this barnstar for great contributions to the Wikipedia and some very nice templates The life of brian 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Zatch Bell!

It's no real big deal. What happened is that first, on Nov. 22, someone made up a nonsense talk page at Talk:Zatch Bell. Then you noticed that the article page should be at Zatch Bell! and did a page move, nonsense talk page and all. This automatically created a redirect for the nonsense talk page too. Pretty soon afterward, the nonsense talk page got deleted at its new location, this was all on Nov. 22. Whenever any page is deleted, all redirects pointing to it also should also eventually be deleted, because they show up as "broken" redirects - orphaned redirects that point to nothing. I may well have been the first person to check the broken redirect list since Nov 22. Since it's a talk page and there's nothing there anyway, I don't see how anyone would be inconvenienced. Blockinblox - talk 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise there was a talk page when I moved the article; I was wondering why there was a redirect to the talk page. Thanks for the reply. _JD^talk 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

How do you give people welcomes like the one you gave ZimZalaBim? I like it and want to start welcoming people with it.--Sir James Paul 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's {{welcomeg}}. _JD^talk 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SYSOP

Currently I am runing to become a sysop. The main reason why I want to become one is to better help in the war against vandalism, I believe in tougher blocks against vandals and after the 2 time they vandaliz an article I will impose a ban on them. I have a lot of free time so I will be a active sysop. At one point I had a average of 50 edits a day, now I have a average of 30 because I was busy and not able to edit. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page please. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Copyvio template

No template, I wrote it myself. Feel free to steal it! Archer7 - talk 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else... That'd explain why I couldn't find it, anyway. Would you mind creating a template with that text in it? I wouldn't want my name appearing first in an edit history of a template with your text in it. J Di 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, Template:Copywarn. Don't worry about stealing my information, the whole world can do it under GFDL! Archer7 - talk 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Thank you. J Di 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting my article up for deletion

The article is a simplified version of the one on wikipedia, witch you are allowed to do. Can you please take of the deletion template. Thanks and have a nice week.--Sir James Paul 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that simplifying Wikipedia articles is allowed, but Henry IV of England appeared to be a direct copy with only a few words changed; the text wasn't even separated into paragraphs as it was on the Wikipedia article. I've removed the quick deletion tag, but in doing so I have created work for another person to tidy up. I'd do it myself, but I'm way too tired to do any proper work right now, so I'll probably sort it out tomorrow if it hasn't already been done by then. J Di 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the article a little, I made it more simple. I am going to do research on him and add some new stuff to it. The reason why the article was the exact same was because I only had a few min to simplify it. I did it a little more after sending you the message. By the way thanks for taking off that deletion template, I do not want to have my articles deleted, it looks bad. Have a nice week and god bless you and everyone you know.--Sir James Paul 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not spaming

I am asking people to vote and ask me questions. I never said vote for me. --Sir James Paul 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus I only said it to two people.--Sir James Paul 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But would you have asked more had I not asked you to stop? Asking anybody could be looked at badly; it could look as though you're asking people that already like you to vote, and if they do like you, they'd probably say yes, even if you're a bad candidate (I'm not saying that you are). In any case, it's probably a good idea if you don't ask anybody else. J Di 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask anyone else. Will you ask me some questions before voting not to promote me please.--Sir James Paul 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

hello

hello J di, I fix your babelfish ;) --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo, thanks. I didn't realise there was a second template; I haven't used {{babel}} before. J Di 08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

IP

How can you tell that a IP belongs to a school. Also thank you for leaving a comment about that on my talk page.--Sir James Paul 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the IP here. J Di 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

vandal

sometimes the vandal have a dynamic Ip...and in this wiki there isn't any ceck user...so sometimes I block for 1 or 2 day the page, --vector ^_^ (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

Yes, I've enabled autoblock. The guy seems to be working from a dynamic IP. PullToOpen ^Talk 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at Special:Log/block when I should have been looking at Special:Ipblocklist. That'd be why I didn't see the autoblocks. Thanks. J Di 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

vandal

I think that the vandal has a dynamic Ip, do you know a stewarts, for a Ceckuser? --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So now what. you want to rangeblock me for creating a good-faith article.Kerano 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know any stewards, sorry. m:Requests for CheckUser information looks like the place to go if there's no CheckUsers here. J Di 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen to what I'm saying, it's important.Kerano 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to say something before I can listen. J Di 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Guinness is a good faith article, range blocks for creating it will be in bad faith and I will report you to Jimbo Wales if you do so.Kerano 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're one of many sockpuppets of an abusive user. You're evading your block by creating these accounts. Administrators are acting appropriately to prevent disruption. J Di 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Welcome

Thanks. The next time you leave a message expect a reply to you on my talk page. I don't want to create an account. --71.231.130.56 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just where I like replies to be :) J Di 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

What template should I use with vandals? Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how much vandalism the vandal has one. I'd expect you should start with {{test1}}, and then leave {{test2}} and {{test3}} (separately) if they continue to vandalise. J Di 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you for trying things out on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it is now gone. Please use the sandbox if you want to do any more tests, and see the welcome page if you want to learn about helping Simple English Wikipedia. —This unsigned comment was added by Trenchon Taveblady (talk • contribs) 00:17, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

I haven°t seen a hoax be dealt with here, so I kind of winged it. However, I believe false information like that should be deleted as fast as possible. PullToOpen ^Talk 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! I am happy to give you this barnstar for your hard work.

--Sir James Paul 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Initialism

Hi, I haven't found a list of acronym or initialism, can I create it ? Because it maybe exists or it's maybe not very important, but there was one on the English Wikipedia. Kitame 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Kitame (talk • contribs) 19:38, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen one, but then I haven't really been looking for one either. I don't see a problem with creating one, as long as it's encyclopaedic. If there is already one on Simple English Wikipedia, the two can always be merged later. J Di 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll begin to create one with these I know, I hope it will be useful. Kitame 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry about giving someone a welcome on there user page. I pressed the talk bage tab and thought I was on the talk page but was not. For some reason it will not let me go on his talk page. Are you having the same problem? Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy's redirected his user talk page to his user page. Please start a new section when leaving a message on a talk page. J Di 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I've now closed your RfA. I think in a few months when people have seen a bit more of you you should do fine. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Use interwiki links

Hello, J Di. When you create new articles, please use interwiki links. An article should have at least one of those links to another language wikipedia. Otherwse, keep up the good work. -- Eptalon 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. I wrote up most of that article earlier and was thinking about whether or not it was good enough to use, so I didn't have the English Wikipedia article up when I saved it. J Di 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reproach. Its just some small bit to think about when making new articles. :) -- Eptalon 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I thought I'd offer some sort of explanation as to why I forgot to do it this time. Thanks for the reminder. J Di 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DeLorean

I tried to make the article a little easier, is it still necessary to have the "clean up" on the top of the article . Kitame 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags aren't used because an article isn't simple. They are used when an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards. I've tidied up the article a bit more, and removed the cleanup tag. J Di 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Enchenton

As proposed, I have increased the block time to infinite; the account was used to make personal attacks, which cannot be tolerated. Thanks for alerting me. -- Eptalon 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP: blocks and bans

Next time you move a page, try and remember to make sure to clean up any double redirects the move causes. -- Creol 09:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there'd be any... Sorry. J Di 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it was a quick fix anyway. it is just a good idea to alway check (even on a bozo article you couldnt beleive someone could possibly create a redirect for). In this case there were the redirects for the 3 shortcuts to the main page. -- Creol(talk) 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Footballer

Just a quick question. Wouldn't it be better to say Footballers are called Soccer players in North America? Comparing World football players to American football players is kind of like comparing them to Lacrosse players (or lacrosse to hockey) : Some similarities, but for the most part, entirely different sports. -- Creol(talk) 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think the whole article could be expanded to cover footballers in the different leagues... We could have an article that's better than its English Wikipedia counterpart! J Di 15:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also looking at the changes, a few things:

1. With the change from football player to footballers (rather than football players), now the category English football players should be changed to English footballers for consistency.
2. Cat:American football really needs to come out of footballers as the category is about the sport, not the players themselves. American football players (which there are not currently enough article for)would fit, but not the main category for the sport itself. -- Creol(talk) 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed both of them not long ago. I think the categories should be changed, but I'm not sure about calling them English footballers and American footballers. I think they should be called Association football players and American football players or something like that so it's more clear that the category is categorising people by the sport they play, and not by where they were born. Thinking about it now, it might be a good idea to rename the Football category to Football players, so that there's some consistency. J Di 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Using English football players is both grouping similar articles and cutting down on clutter. It allows for the entire group (all English people who play football) to be placed in multiple categories at the same time without having to enter it each time on each page. Rather than having to enter English people and football players, putting them in the category and linking the category save time with changes, keeps the players pages a little cleaner, and helps reduce the number of articles on the category pages. If we had 20 athletes from 20 different countries, that would be 2 completely full pages of info for the one category. With english football players (and french, and german, etc) we would have only 20 on the main page - less of a mess and easier to locate (if you know the country.. Alphabetical list of players with countries in the main cat could come in handy at times). Sorting by commonality at the lowest level currently possible just seems to work out for the best -- Creol(talk) 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've confused myself a bit here. I misunderstood what Category:English football players was being used for. Now (I think) I properly understand, I don't have a problem with Category:English football players being renamed to Category:English footballers. J Di 16:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Yes i#Ve just notced, what I#ve done wrong. The life of brian 14:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted articles

Thank you for your concern, but I have decided against restoring Dirty sanchez, G-spot vibrator, or any of the other articles I speedily deleted yesterday, as they are purely pornographic in subject matter, and contain no other redeeming information of any kind that might make them compatible with the Simple English project. I'm sorry if you can't see it that way, but such things actually do more harm than good, and we have no obligation to be forced to cater to aticles that are exclusively pornographic content. Blockinblox - talk 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My request included only

G-spot vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
and

Egg vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
. I had seen only a small amount of G-spot vibrator, but what I did see of it did not appear to be pornographic. Nobody is forcing Simple English Wikipedia to have only articles about human sexuality, but from where I'm sitting it looks as though you'd rather there were none. Wikipedia is not censored, and as there are no policies specific to censorship on Simple English Wikipedia, I do not believe that one administrator should be allowed to single-handedly carry out such an action as this and then refuse to have that action fairly reviewed when it is contested. "Wikipedia works by building consensus", and it has the right to decide as a community whether or not these articles should be here. You do not have the right to deny them of that. There is a deletion review process on English Wikipedia for reviewing deletions with which there is disagreement. During the process, a request can be made to have the article restored and protected so that a fully informed decision can be made by members of the community. Please reconsider your decision. J Di 13:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with your assessment of G-spot vibrator, it is strictly pornographic / instructional and has no information of legitimate interest to this project. It even contains spam links to websites whose primary (only) purpose is to sell sex toys. Such articles have always been routinely deleted, and there have indeed been discussions last November where consensus was reached by the community (including Netoholic and Archer7 who agreed with me on Zephyr2k's talk, and the conversation was continued on Simple talk) on the appropriate level of censorship here. In response to your other statement that it looks to you like I would rather there were no articles about human sexuality, please note Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_2#Sexual_reproduction where I applied this same standard, to vote to keep the article Sexual reproduction that someone had proposed for deletion. Human sexuality is of course a legitimate field of study with useful information. Articles about how to use and where to buy vibrators and dildoes are non-core to say the least and seem like someone is only trying to test the limits of how provocative they can make the encyclopedia. If you truly wish to pursue this, I suggest holding a "request for undeletion" beforehand, and if there is community consensus that an article specifically about the G-spot vibrator has any positive value, only then I will undelete it. Blockinblox - talk 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have only seen a small part of the article as I wasn't given the chance to look at it properly. Could you restore the article for a short period, perhaps five or ten minutes, so I can look at the rest and decide whether it would be worth trying to get it undeleted? J Di 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are users who have been specifically entrusted by the community with the power to look at deleted articles and make that kind of decision you are asking to make. Since you are not an admin, I guess you would have to decide whether or not it is "worth it" or even possible to have any article with the title G-spot vibrator that could contain legitimate, useful information in its final form, and if so, put it to a vote on that basis. Blockinblox - talk 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

en:G-spot vibrator has some legitimate, albeit unsourced, information in it, and an article's title should never be used to decide whether its content is, or would ever be, worthy of an encyclopaedia article. As I haven't been on Simple English Wikipedia long enough to see the now forbidden articles that have been forever hidden by the magical administrator buttons, I would settle for another administrator reviewing the articles and telling me how pornographic encyclopaedia-worthy they are. J Di 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Hey, thanks for the welcome.

A quick question. I tried to put a picture in the "How insects grow" section of the insect article, and it's not showing the picture for me. Just not sure if it's something with my computer or if I put it in there wrong, or what. The whole adding pictures thing is new to me (never have done it in my edits in English wikipedia), so yeah. If you could take a quick peek, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jhml 16:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The images on that article look fine. You might need to clear your cache, or it could be another problem that I wouldn't have a clue about. J Di 16:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the welcome! :) Cbrown1023 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Award!

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! Only to the guy I know with super enthusiasm in him. Cheers!

-- Tdxiang 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, JD!  :) Aleta 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. J Di 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey J Di!

All that talk in the admin chatroom convinced me to come here and give it a whirl. Seems like a good place to make improvements. =) Nishkid64 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... J Di 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why the heck did you block yourself? I would like to see you come back and edit wikipedia again. Peace. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern (I think) but, with all due respect, I'd rather not discuss the reason for the block with you. J Di 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. Its a bit sad to see such a great vandal fighter leave wikipedia. Peace. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said that I am leaving and, if I'm not mistaken, I remember a comment made about a certain person being "fairly abusive with his tools"... J Di 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Please, unblock me. I will never create a sock again and the only reason I created a new account was so I could stop editting annonymously. Please. User:AbbyItalia is my username please unblock me. --—This unsigned comment was added by 168.99.166.135 (talk • contribs) 22:22, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator so I can't unblock anybody, sorry. J Di 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you stink

you stink, your undies stink, you gay boy. i hope u get cancer. --Kimbleeashton 12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You wanna keep it?

??? --Archer7 - talk 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I keep everything. J Di 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hi I have a question can I add the simple English to en.wikipedia? I never seen any thanks. Artaxiad 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the simple English"? J Di 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean this one we are on, but if I go on en.wikipedia.org to any article can I add these articles to those, simple.wikipedia.org articles to en.wikipedia This section "In other languages" at English.wikipedia?. --Artaxiad 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think you mean the interwikimedia links. You can add an interwiki link for a Simple English Wikipedia page in any other Wikipedia by adding [[simple:article name]] to a page. Hope that helps. J Di 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks, thats exactly what I meant i just wasn't sure since I basically never seen any. --Artaxiad 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. J Di 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, one more thing can I make WikiProjects like the ones on en.wiki? :-) --Artaxiad 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions about WikiProjects and something that comes up a lot is that there are not enough regular contributors on this wiki for a WikiProject to work efficiently. May want to look at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 5#Wikiprojects, the only discussion I can find at the moment, and Wikipedia:WikiProject, which appears to have some misleading information in it. J Di 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thats bad, there should be alot it also motivates users, I can get tons of users here If we had projects Ill probably wait for the outcome thanks for all your help. --Artaxiad 23:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you look at it; I don't really think there are that many regular editors to motivate and WikiProjects may make collaborative efforts more difficult to manage. Anyway, if you need any more help you can leave a message here, but you may get more of a response if you leave it on Wikipedia:Simple talk instead as I'm not as active as I'd like to be. J Di 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Artaxiad 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

I've now closed your RfA as unsuccessful, due to gaining only 50% support. In the interests of fairness, I decided not to count votes from users which have not made any edits to the Simple English Wikipedia except to oppose the RfA. You are welcome to re-apply in a few months when you feel that the concerns of other editors have been addressed. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

50%? It looks like 77% to me, excluding votes from people that don't regularly edit here: 77.778% support, 22.222% oppose, and 0% neutral. Anyway, not that bothered, I can wait. Thanks. J Di 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, recount in progress... Archer7 - talk 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - 7 votes: Archer7, M7, FrancoCG, Tdxiang, TBC, Eptalon, Vector

Neutral - 5 votes: Creol, Blockinblox, Browne34, Anthonycfc, PullToOpen (posted in wrong section)

Oppose - 2 votes: Majorly (has edited from November), Nishkid64.

Total: 14 votes. 7/14 = 50% support.

How did you get your figures? Archer7 - talk 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seven supports (you, M7, FrancoGG, Tdxiang, TBC, Eptalon, Vector)
• Two opposes (Majorly, Nishkid64)
• Five neutrals (Creol, Blockinblox, Browne34, Anthony cfc, PullToOpen)

77.778% support (7/14), 22.222% oppose (2/14), 0% neutral (5/14). Neutral votes don't affect the percentage of support. J Di 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

JD, this is simple.wikipedia, not en., not to mention neutrals are from time-to-time counted at en. MatthewFenton 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thinking straight... I haven't done one of these in ages :). Well, I guess it's successful then, as you are correct that we do not usually count neutral votes. Welcome to the admin team! I'll just go and fix everything and then you'll be promoted. I cannot believe I just did that, I checked it twice! Archer7 - talk 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad day for a Wikipedia when a troll gets promoted. MatthewFenton 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you have continued to post inflammatory comments, presumably in an attempt to get a reaction out of J Di. If you continue with this behaviour you will be blocked for 24 hours. Archer7 - talk 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! (I'm still hitting myself for that mistake). If you need any help at all, please don't hesitate to ask a more competent admin than me. Take a quick re-read of our policies as well just to make sure you're up to date. Archer7 - talk 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! J Di 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :)

Congrats on becoming a admin here also :) I did not notice that because I have not been to active here. Good luck :) --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit driving me crazier

Here I am working on adding infoboxes and iw's to the final fanatasy articles. I hit preveiw, everything looks fine, a few touchups needed but nothing major. I preview again.. no colors???.. try to figure out what the hell I did to cause that to happen to no avail. A little while later, "some colors?? What the hell.." I felt like I was going crazy till I check new changes and saw you were working on it. -- Creol(talk) 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! J Di 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Substituting Warnings

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I don't think I had ever heard of substituting before. Browne34 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! For reverting vandalism. 68.111.92.229 17:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Interface

Okay, rather than engage in a back-and forth edit war over the site design, let's solicit some comments from the community at large to see if there is a consensus about the various alternatives... There has got to be a way to succinctly explain what that simple box is for without getting long winded about it, in my opinion. Anything that fits on one line will be OK with me. Blockinblox - talk 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I apologize for my edit comment that offended you, I guess the table for the history page isn't all that bad... we could try it and see what people think... Blockinblox - talk 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By "try it", do you mean revert your edit so that it is is currently in use? If so, something needs to be done so that it uses less space; I think it's too big. J Di 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I went back to the table, then touched it up with simpler language as you can see... what do you think? Blockinblox - talk 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on it at MediaWiki talk:Histlegend. J Di 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Archival protection

Very well, okay. :) If you insist. You see, I protected it because I believe that archives do not need to be changed any further, so I protected it. Hope you're alright about it. Well, I unprotected it. Maybe I should have dicussed it. Sorry about that. :) See you soon.-- Tdxiang 08:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, it's just that it goes against the protection policy and m:Protected pages considered harmful, and I have had to edit talk page archives a few times and would have been pretty annoyed if I wasn't able to. J Di 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 204.184.250.115 for one day

Hello, J Di. I have blocked the user mentioned above (as listed in WP:WIP) for one day. I do not think that a two-hour block (as you imposed) is an effective means to combat vandlaism; esp. if account-creation remains enabled. --Eptalon 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt a two hour block was fine at the time, though I would have blocked for three had that option been available. I do not make IPs' first blocks longer than 24 hours in case they are dynamic, and will only block an IP for longer than that if there is a history of vandalism and no good faith edits made by it. J Di 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

coff coff

it's ok J Di :-p? --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah that might have been just a bit too much... There was a problem with the IRC bot in the anti-vandalism channel, and I needed to make a big edit to see if it was working properly. J Di 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AWB

How do I get my name added to the checkpage on the simple? I have been approved on en.wikipedia (user: Maelnuneb) and I am wanting to start working on this project as well. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot of J Di

In your bot flag request, you said that "If Werdan7 is willing to use database dumps to make these changes in future, then this account won't need a bot flag". Apparently Werdan7 does use dumps to do them, so you won't be getting a bot flag this time. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Active

If you want to be on the active list, I suggest you be active instead of just showing up whenever you are about to become inactive. Razorflame 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. We're not going to remove your sysop rights from you just because you're on the inactive list. But you're not an active editor. If a user has a problem and doesn't know who the admins are, it helps them to have a list of people they can contact who can help them quickly. Putting yourself on the active list without being active only confuses matters. Thank you for understanding. · Tygrrr... 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am readily available to act whenever I am required. I was not aware of any other requirements that needed to be fulfilled before I was allowed to be listed as active; is how active I am not my decision to make? J Di (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If this was true, then why didn't you do anything about Jackjack a couple of weeks ago? I had to bring in a steward to help fix the vandal.Razorflame 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise being active meant not having a life, and being prepared to take action every second of the day... J Di (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean, but the point is, you aren't here enough. That is what Tygrrr was trying to say up above. Razorflame 20:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And how much is 'enough'? Twenty-four hours a day? Twenty-five, perhaps? I do enough to make sure there are no problems whenever I can, and it just so happens that whenever I do do that there are none. If that's not enough, I may as well not bother; I'm not going to sit at my computer waiting for something to come up. J Di (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More than just 15 minutes a day. If you look at how often some of the other administrators are on here, you will see exactly how much time you should spend on here. Razorflame 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any amount of my day just sitting here waiting for a vandal to appear. If something needs to be done and I'm able to do it, I'll do it, otherwise there's nothing I can do. Though, if you'd rather I didn't even do that, then I'm fine with just putting zero time or effort in. J Di (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. All I am asking is that before moving yourself from inactive to active, at least be somewhat active. Razorflame 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Unlike Razorflame, I don't think it's about specifying an amount of time that you are active. I think it has to do more with the number of edits you make. You have had 2 edits in the last 7 months that weren't reverting WP:A and B. That really doesn't qualify you as active. No one is attacking you. No one expects you to give your life to the SE. We just want the list of active editors to honestly reflect the level of activity of a user. · Tygrrr... 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and what I'm saying to you is that I am active. Administrators are here to maintain peace and order in the encyclopaedia, not edit it. But I'm not going to even try to do that if if anybody who looks at that list has to assume I'm inactive simply because I don't have anything to do when I'm available to do it. As I said before, I think whether I'm able to help maintain that peace and order should be my decision to make, as I know better than anybody else just how available I might be. J Di (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators maintain that peace and order by editing. Administrators should be the more dedicated users/editors in the project. That's one of the reasons there is an edit count guideline in the RfA guidelines. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, an edit count guideline? Where's that, then? And since when did dedication equal number of edits made per month or whatever? J Di (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what we are saying. Razorflame 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, silly me, I must have completely misunderstood everything that's above this sentence, because there I was thinking "there is an edit count guideline in the RfA guidelines" meant exactly that. J Di (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is here. We require that a user have a "large" number of edits. There's no set number, but rather we ask the voter to use common sense about a high level of activity, thus showing the user's dedication to the project. · Tygrrr... 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the best you can come up with, then I'm not convinced that there is such a requirement; that page is not policy. I've already shown my dedication to the project in the form of the many hours of my days I gave up patrolling RC, when I had other things to see to. Things have since changed, and I'm now putting in as much time as I can. However, if you're not satisfied by that due to the simple fact that the time being given up by me can not be shown in my contributions page, then why should I feel motivated to 'earn' my Active status back? That is more or less what you are asking of me, after all. J Di (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do anything. What we're trying to do is tell you what shows "activity". We basically consider any productive edit (i.e. anything other than reverting WP:A and B) to show activity. I personally don't believe that's a very high requirement. If you choose to meet that, you can remain on the active list. If you choose not to show your activity, then you will remain on the inactive list. It's up to you.· Tygrrr... 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If all you want for me to do is edit articles, then what is the point in my being an administrator? Furthermore, how am I to make these edits if I feel I have nothing to contribute to the Simple English Wikipedia at this time in terms of creation and expansion of articles? And, how can you know that what you are saying is the opinion of every other editor of Wikipedia? Last time I checked, everybody here spoke for themselves, and themselves only. J Di (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why all the argument? J Di has made almost no contributions to the project since April last year, which can hardly be defined as active. If you are worried that you will lose your tools (although being an admin is no bad thing) then don't be as that won't happen. Admins need to be active so they can be aware of changing policy and guidelines. As things stood, if you were to stand for RFA at this moment, you may no received the mop due to your lack of activity. Would you be prepared to stand for a re-confirmation RFA and just settle this argument? Or, as you seem to want the views of as many as possible, shall we take this to AN? (Yes, I am a new editor but I have experience over n EN before my lack of time here is thrown back at me - just wanted to point out that there is work to do here and this discussion is not helping!)Whitstable (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am clearly not the only person who views you as inactive based on the number of other users who have placed you on the inactive list. Also, how we have handled the active/inactive lists in the past, users have been allowed to remain on the active list as long as the make the occasional edit, be it a vandalism revert, correcting a spelling or grammar mistake, adding a new article, voting in an RfD or RfA, or a number of other types of edits. That is what I'm basing the use of "we" on. I don't think it's stretching the imagination to say that I am summing up the community's opinion based on edits I have seen of the community's actions in the past. And if anyone disagrees with me, they certainly are welcome to say so here. But so far, you've got 4 users saying the same thing. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what I'm saying... · Tygrrr... 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that is now the reason for why I need to be seen as active, then I can assure you that I have paid enough attention to policy pages to know of the policy changes that may affect any actions that I might need to take quickly. The 'argument' is because I know I am active, but I'm not feeling particularly motivated to remain active as of now. I don't see the point in a re-confirmation, because at this moment I'd rather just give up the rights than go through the hassle of somehow convincing everybody that I am an active user in order to retain them. I wouldn't cry over or be angered by losing those rights; I have more important things to shed tears over than Wikipedia, and the fact that I'm not wanted in the active list just shows me that the time I do spend on here is unappreciated because I have nothing to do when it is spent. Take it to AN if doing so will please you, but I cannot be bothered to use any more of my time on this right now. J Di (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought an "active" admin did things for the community. There is no evidence of that from J Di. and as for August's petulant edit summary "List of administrators - I'll decide when I'm inactive" how wrong can anybody be? Surely the community does deciding. --Bärliner 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User privileges removal discussion

Hello J Di. In the interests of keeping out admin list somewhat accurate and active, we've asked for your rights on Simple to be withdrawn here. This is not a reflection on you, or your prior work here, which we all appreciate. If you decide to rejoin the project in the future, please feel free to ask for your administrator privileges back, or perform some administrative acions before the closure date. Hope to see you back soon. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of 22nd century

An editor has requested deletion of 22nd century, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/22nd century and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. PokestarFan (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:MediaWiki block log link

An editor has requested deletion of Template:MediaWiki block log link, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Template:MediaWiki block log link and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

The page you wrote, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. RPBG 💬 🖊 32:42, 37 April 2469 (UTC)

Don’t worry, it’s been sorted. I accidentally added the deletion tag.I’ve removed it now. RPBG 💬 🖊 22:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)