Talk:Simple English Wiktionary

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Hi Netoholic. I am surprised by this edit. You know as well as I do that Simple English Wiktionary is not the same thing as the "Simple English Dictionary," which is a non-functioning project, as I mentioned in my RfD which you have so promptly deleted before any discussion. I am sure based on past response that this redirect is not in accordance with consensus. If it is, prove it. Get people who understand the situation (Archer7, Freshstart, Eptalon, Blockinblox, aflm, etc.) to come here and state that they think this redirect is correct, honest, a good idea, or the way it should be, etc. If you can get two or three other active editors to agree with this redirect, I won't touch it any time in the near future. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, I stand by Cromwellt on this on. I have asked you on your talk page about this with no response. Simple English Wiktionary, although you may not agree with it, has many editors working on it and it should not just be at your decision whether to remove it. My look at the deleted edit showed no 'advertising' as you put it. I should not need to tell you that if you have a problem, to calmly discuss it, gain a second opinion, not leave messages asking people to 'stop messing with policies'. As a bureacrat you stand as a role model to the community here, and abusive messages like that will not be tolerated. I would appreciate your opinion on this. _Archer7 | ^talk 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply put... "Simple English Wiktionary" is not an encyclopedic topic. It is a self-reference, and Cromwellt's creation of it was self-promotion of a wiki-project that probably should have been deleted a long time ago. In my role a bureaucrat, I am doing what I think is best for this project, by keeping to our very narrow focus and discouraging someone that I feel is repeatedly causing disruption on this project. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of the Simple English Wiktionary is not the only one. You know you should talk things like this over with the rest of us, and we have discussed on Simple talk under project direction about Simple Wiktionary. I have not seen your comments there, although I invited your contributions on your talk page. I do not understand at all you comments about our 'narrow focus', and I fail to see how Cromwellt is causing disruption. If Cromwellt is causing disruption, you should know better than leaving messages like that. If you do not agree with community consensus, you must stand back and let us do it, not carry on anyway. _Archer7 | ^talk 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I did not create that page. The history of the page shows only one edit, when Netoholic created the redirect. My contributions agree that I did not create that page. Even my accidentally-created account's contributions do not show that page. Netoholic is mistaken. He's right that I would create this page. If allowed by consensus, I even will create this page. But I did not create this page. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I finally tracked down why Netoholic thinks I made this page. I commented on the deletion policy earlier this month, and I linked to this page, though it had not yet been created. Apparently he did not notice that it was a red link when he created the redirect. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the deleted history of this page is this edit 02:25, 20 May 2006 . . Cromwellt (created short description). Any admin can verify this fact. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wondered how/why you deleted the page at the same time you created the redirect if the redirect stayed. Thank you for clearing that up. I still don't understand how it doesn't show up on my contributions page, since it should be counted as an edit. But I guess that's one of those special functions of the special pages. So I guess I did create the page. I take full credit/responsibility. Archer7 is still right. I guess we need to fill a gap: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)