Meta:Babel

Note: If you seek the language competence templates, see Meta:Babel templates.

---

←Index of discussion pages

Babel

archives (latest)→

This is Meta's general and policy discussion page (post a comment); for discussions about multilingualism or translation, see the translator's noticeboard, and for discussions about all of Wikimedia, see Wikimedia Forum. If your comment relates to a matter relevant to a particular page, please post it there and only place a link with a brief description here.

Afrikaans: Laat 'n gedetailleerde boodskap op die betrokke artikel se besprekingsblad en 'n enkele lyn hier wat na jou boodskap verwys.

العربية: هذه صفحة نقاش ميتا العامة (أرسل تعليقا); للنقاش حول الترجمة أو تعدد اللغات، انظر إخطار المترجمين. لو أن تعليقك يرتبط بصفحة معينة، من فضلك أرسله هناك وضع فقط وصلة مع وصف مختصر هنا.

Armãneashti: Cãndu comentarlu-a vostru easte ligat cu vãrã frãndzã spetsialã, Vã-plãcãrsim s-u publicats aclo shi sade s-bãgats ligãturã cu unã descriptsia shcurtã aoatse.

Беларуская: Калі гэта толькі магчыма, калі ласка, пакідайце свае каментарыі непасрэдна на старонцы «Talk» адпаведнага артыкулу Вікі, а на дадзенай старонцы пакідайце толькі спасылку туды.

بختیاری: ای صفحه صحبت عمومی و صحبت درباره خط مشی های ویکی مدیا هده. (نظرتو چنه); سی صحبت درباره زبانهای متعدد یا ترجمه، تابلو اعلان مترجمها را بوینین. ایر دیدگاه ایسا منه یه صفحه خاصه، لطفاً هونه در همان صفحه بفرستین و ایچو فقط یه لینک و یه توضیح خلاصه بنین.

Brezhoneg : E kement ha ma c'hallit en ober, laoskit ho kemennadennoù war bajenn gaozeal ar pennad zo e kaoz, ha na skrivit amañ nemet ur gerig displegañ gant ul liamm.

Català : En la mesura del possible, deixeu el vostre missatge a la plana de discussió de l'article corresponent, i aquí només poseu-hi un enllaç cap al mateix.

Čeština: Pokud je to možné, zanechte detailní zprávu na diskusní stránce příslušného článku a sem dejte jen jednoduché vysvětlení s odkazem.

Dansk: Prøv så vidt muligt at skrive dine beskeder på de relevante artiklers diskussionssider og blot sætte et link til den her.

Deutsch: Sofern möglich, hinterlasse Deine Nachrichten auf der Diskussionseite des betreffenden Artikels und plaziere hier lediglich einen Link dorthin.

Ελληνικά: Όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο, σας παρακαλούμε να αφήνετε τα μηνύματα σας στη σελίδα συζήτησης του σχετικού άρθρου και εδώ να αφήνετε μόνο έναν συνδέσμο προς αυτή.

English:

Esperanto: Laŭeble metu vian plenan mesaĝon en la diskuton de la koncerna artikolo kaj ĉi tien nur unu linion kun ligo tien!

Español : En tanto sea posible, coloca tu mensaje en la página de discusión del artículo concerniente, y deja aquí solamente una línea con un enlace hacia el mismo.

Estremeñu: Ena miia lo posibri, asiaha el tu mensahi ena caraba el artículu correspondienti, i solu quea aquí un atihu pal mesmu.

Euskara: Posible bada, utzi zure mezua nahi duzun artikuluak duen eztabaida orrian, eta hemen lotura azaltzen duen lerro bateko lotura utzi.

فارسی: این صفحهٔ بحث عمومی و بحث‌ در مورد سیاست‌های فراویکی است. (نظرتان را بیافزایید); برای بحث در مورد چندزبانگی یا ترجمه، تابلوی اعلانات مترجمان را ببینید. اگر نظر شما در یک صفحهٔ به خصوص است، لطفاً آن را در همان صفحه ارسال کنید و این‌جا تنها یک پیوند و یک توضیح مختصر بگذارید.

Français : Dans la mesure du possible, veuillez laisser vos messages dans la page de discussion de l’article concerné et n’insérer ici qu’un lien vers ce message.

Galego: Na medida do posíbel, deixe as súas mensaxes na páxina de discusión do artigo relacionado e non insira aquí máis que unha ligazón cara a mensaxe.

Bahasa Indonesia: Ini adalah halaman untuk membicarakan mengenai hal-hal umum dan kebijakan untuk Meta (klik di sini untuk komentar baru); untuk membicarakan mengenai hal multibahasa atau penerjemahan, lihat di papan pengumuman penerjemahan. Jika Anda hendak mengomentari dengan suatu halaman artikel tertentu, tuliskan komentar Anda di halaman pembicaraan artikel tersebut, dan letakkan di sini pranala ke halaman pembicaraan tersebut dengan penjelasan singkat.

Italiano: Nei limiti del possibile, lasciate i vostri messaggi nella pagina di discussione dell'articolo e inserite in questa pagina solo il link alla discussione.

日本語： ここはメタの全体的なことや方針について議論するページです（新規の議論を追加する）。多言語化や翻訳についての議論は、翻訳者の掲示板をご覧ください。くわしい話はなるべく関連するページのノートに書いておき、ここにはそこへのリンクを添えた1行程度のメッセージだけを残すようにお願いします。

한국어: 만일 당신의 의견이 특정 문서의 내용과 관련있을 경우, 그 내용은 그 문서에 적어주시고, 이곳에는 그 문서로 가는 고리와 간단한 설명만 적어주세요.

Ripoarisch: Wann mööshlesh, schriiv Dinge Bëijdrach op däm Attikkel singe Klaaf_Sigk un donn hee nur ene koote Henwiiß unn_enne Lengk drop henn.

Nederlands: Laat je gedetailleerde berichten zo veel mogelijk achter op de discussiepagina van het betreffende artikel en hier een enkele regel met een verwijzing daarheen.

Norsk: Prøv å gjøre din beskjed her så kort som mulig, og lenk heller til relevante diskusjonssider.

Occitan : Dins la mesura del possible, daissatz vòstres messatges dins la pagina de discussion de l'article concernit e inserissètz aicí solament un ligam vèrs aqueste messatge.

Português : Se possível, poste sua mensagem na página de discussão da página concernente e deixe aqui um pequeno lembrete com um link para a discussão.

Русский: По возможности, оставляйте ваши комментарии непосредственно на странице обсуждения соответствующей статьи Вики, а на данной странице помещайте только ссылку туда.

Slovenščina: Kolikor je le mogoče, pustite svoja sporočila z vsemi podrobnostmi na pogovorni strani ustreznega članka, tu pa naj ostane le vrstica s povezavo nanjo.

Српски / srpski: Уколико је могуће, оставите свој коментар на страници за разговор конкретне странице, а овде оставите само линк са кратким објашњењем.

ไทย: การอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับหัวข้อเรื่องใดๆ กรุณาเขียนไว้ที่ หน้าพูดคุย ของเรื่องนั้นๆ และทำลิ้งก์จากหน้านี้ไปสู่หัวข้อเรื่องนั้น โดยเขียนไม่ควรเกินหนึ่งบรรทัด.

Türkçe: Eğer tartışma konunuz ile ilgili özel bir sayfa varsa, lütfen mesajınızı oraya bırakın ve buraya yalnızca bir bağlantı ile kısa bir açıklama ekleyin.

Volapük: Ma mög, pladolös küpeti(s) olik sui bespikapad pada tefik; pladolös isio te nuni brefik e yümi lü bespik at.

中文： 请尽量在讨论页发表你的详细意见，只在本页用一行写下你的意见摘要，然后做个链接连到即可。/請儘量在討論頁發表你的詳細意見，只在本頁用一行寫下你的意見摘要，然後做個鏈結連到即可。

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Special:UnusedCategories

This was last updated 11:39, 25 November 2008 - and yet it is showing a bunch of categories that already have parent categories. Any ideas as to why? Cirt (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was looking in the wrong place. :P - Cirt (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit = true for Meta

The following discussion is closed.

---

Consensus to do this clearly exists. Requested on Bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Setting $wgBlockAllowsUTEdit=true would allow blocked users to edit their own talk page to contest their block. Currently we have no mechanism to review blocks on Meta which is public. Many other wikis such as Commons and English Wikibooks allow users to edit their own talk page while blocked, and cases of abuse have been found to be easily handled with either full protection of the talk page or disallowing user talk editing specifically in the block settings. (An additional block setting becomes available to disallow user talk editing for the blocked user - please also note we no longer have to unblock to re-block a user). Thanks for your consideration.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? They can't edit their talk page when blocked?? Why has this only just been noticed?! Strong support implementation... Majorly ^talk 15:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's off by default. The vast majority of wikis have not allowed users to edit their talk page while blocked.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this. I've worked with it on ruwiki, and it hasn't caused any major problems yet — vvv 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support that, by default, blocked users should be allowed to edit their talk pages everywhere, unless a wiki specifically opted out, or the blocking admin decided not to let the blocked user have it. --Purodha Blissenbach 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I too would support this. James F. (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag-along support: I'd think this should be the default for all Foundation projects, actually. Kylu 23:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I did too... but some small wikis wouldn't be able to manage {{unblock}} abuse, since there are not really active admins. OTOH, such abuse is confined to a single page. I wonder what others think of the tradeoff there.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support changing this on Meta. We have the manpower to deal with it. Support further discussion on whether the global default should be changed, but not a change just yet, as there are pros and cons, and further discussion would be of benefit to clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support enabling it here and on all wikis by default.--Werdan7^{T @} 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What Werdan7 said. I don't understand the current default... --MZMcBride 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support I think even it would be good that we could have this on all wikis by default --Mardetanha ^talk 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support Agree that it should be enabled by default. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support - per Majorly, LOLWUT?? .I never noticed it weirdly ....--Cometstyles 03:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support, both here and by default. – rotemliss – Talk 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose by default: it.wiki choose with a large consensus to do in the opposite way, each project must be free to decide indipendently--Vituzzu 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, would you support enabling this on Meta?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For Meta I let you (you community) the decision: I'm not enough active here to judge what is better, by the way Meta has an greater ratio of "admin/potential users" and this this new feature should be easy to handle--Vituzzu 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support Blocked user should be able to edit their talk pages, unless an administrator prevents them from editting. Ruslik 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support for Meta. I guess having it turned on should be the default, but I haven't spent enough thought on that. --Erwin(85) 21:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support for all wikis. Local sysops will decide if user should be able to edit own talk page.--Kwj2772 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support for Meta (I support it for other Wikis but that should not be discussed on this page). I am amazed that Meta does not have this already, everywhere else does as it has proved to be useful on this project. Anonymous101

 Support agree with above by Mardetanha (talk · contribs) and also Majorly (talk · contribs), in addition to many of the others. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support tried this here on Commons & it works fine. --Kanonkas 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done

Rob has done this for us. Just a reminder that blocking talk page editing should be only for cases where we know ahead of time the user will abuse it (I'll give you three guesses who I'm thinking of...) As well, note that one no longer has to unblock then block again to change block settings - there is a checkbox to override previous block settings. I'm unsure whether previously-blocked users will be able to edit their talk page currently & I will ask shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've confirmed that this applies to all users, regardless of when they were blocked. I will put together some unblock templates etc shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redesign of wikimedia.org

See Talk:Www.wikimedia.org template#Redesign. Please comment there. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for enabling RevisionDelete on Meta

The following discussion is closed.

---

The software isn't ready. When it is, it will be enabled.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, as we all know, Meta is a good testing ground for extensions and features which we would like to slowly introduce to other wikis more specifically, the bigger wikis. Recently we have had success with Central Authentication and Global rights and i think its about time we tested revision delete on meta (who knows, it may be the next big thing to hit wikimedia!! :p ).

What it does (from Mediawiki.org)

With that page you can change the visibility of a revision:

• Hide revision text
• Hide edit comment
• Hide editor's username/IP

Or change the visibility of a log entry:

• Hide action and target
• Hide action comment
• Hide editor's username/IP

Deleted revisions and events will still appear in the page history and logs, but parts of their content will be inaccessible to the public. A group of oversight users can also be created that has power to make these parts inaccessible to sysops as well.

Basically this is very useful to admins on bigger wikis such as enwiki which gets hit by page move vandals and this allows the admin to hide the log entry of the page move which usually contains links to shock sites or personal attacks on editors and admins alike or abuse of the privacy policy. I hope english wikipedia admins will support this idea which in the long run will benefit them the most ...--Cometstyles 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

See also: Wikimedia Forum#Implement of RevisionDelete.--Kwj2772 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Majorly ^talk 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
2. i was testing it on testwiki if it is live and if it is implementable i think it would be very helpful So let's  Support it here --mardetanha 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
3. For a three-month test period with a re-evaluation at the end of said period. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
4.  Support - Per above by Cometstyles (talk · contribs), but for the three-month test period as suggested by Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
5.  Support sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. --J.smith 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
6. I'd love to see this get enabled on enwiki, and Meta's a great test bed for it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussions

• This is absolutely not a matter for voting. Nobody is objecting to having RevisionDelete replace Oversight. In fact, almost everybody is strongly in favor of it. There are a few more things that need to be done (making sure data doesn't leak into dumps, cleaning up the UI, etc.), but it's currently live on test.wikipedia.org. I suggest instead of spending time voting here, you help test it out there and find any bugs. :-) The relevant bug (which has comments from Brion) is bugzilla:15644. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have tested it on testwiki too, and I think its about time for it to be implemented on a broader level, the idea to get it enabled on all wikimedia wikis might not really be such a good idea for now and as you have mentioned, it still has some 'bugs' to fix and basically I think we should give it a kick-start here...--Cometstyles 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with MZMcBride, it's the same as I said when this was suggested before. He's right, we test on testwiki not on production wikis (Meta). :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, there's no need for community-level discussion. This will be enabled when it is ready, as determined by the technical team (ie Brion). Until then, testing will continue. In particular, the UI could be better.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Get up to 1,000 € for translating???

So who gets to say what advertisement is allowed on Wikimedianotifier? And, if we ignore the fact that this ad was misleading: Wasn't being paid to contribute to a Wikimedia project frowned upon? (Then again, maybe this isn't a Wikimedia project. But then, why was it on the notifier?) Aliter 22:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The notifier is a user-run project. It is not sanctioned or run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not meant for "official" announcements; it is like Wikizine, an informative notifier for Wikimedia communities. Cbrown1023 talk 23:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Betawiki is the project where the Internationalisation and Localisation for MediaWiki is concentrated. The announcement of this price that is to be shared has been widely published. The official announcement has been checked by a large group of people and it is not misleading.

Payment to Wiki content is done on a wide scale. It has largely disappeared from the radar screen because that is considered the more prudent action to take. When you talk about "for money" contributions, you have to assess what the issues are. Here existing localisers are stimulated to help us reach the aims for the year Siebrand formulated in 2007. It may get us more people to consider contributing to Betawiki so the 1000 EURO spend is first and foremost advertisement money. The key thing to realise is that ALL MediaWiki users, including the WMF, do benefit from more and better quality localisations. Thanks, GerardM 08:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Global user contributions

Hi. My guc-tool is translated in many languages and it's pretty expensive to provide them all. so I think it would be practically to automate that; I think I will create for each language a (protected) wiki page, which will be read by the tool some time; eg.

• Global user contributions translation/en or shorter guctranslation/en
• Global user contributions translation/de or shorter guctranslation/de
• Global user contributions translation/fr or shorter guctranslation/fr
• ...

What do you think, can I create such pages in the meta wiki? at the moment it gives +- 45 pages. --Luxo 14:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't mind, but I think if you put all the translations on one page it would be easier to protect and maintain it — vvv 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

that's right, after a good deal of thought I think that's also possible (and easier). I think I will do it this way. simply one page Global user contributions translations.--Luxo 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishes

New year... you certainly do not have a LOT of time. But you certainly have ONE minute. Come on Wishes 2009 and without giving it long thinking, drop there the FIRST wish that comes to your mind for year 2009 regarding our projects and helping the world to be a more informed/educated place. Rule: no more than two sentences. Anthere 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Jimbo has admin and bureaucrat rights, but is never reconfirmed for some reason. He has made one deletion ever and is extremely inactive. He should not be above our rules for admins/bureaucrats. I think, as he's a steward, he already has the rights should he ever need to use them, so I think he should be removed as admin/bureaucrat. Majorly ^talk 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo is an honorary admin, so his right is permanent here unless he chooses to remove it himself. I know he has lost most of his rights on other wiki but I prefer if he maintains the admin right here, not to sure about crat, that can be removed...--Cometstyles 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As a simple factual matter, it is not true that I have lost "most of his rights on other wiki". I still have rights everywhere, via the Founder flag.--Jimbo Wales 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? He doesn't use his admin or 'crat tools here. He has Steward access already. Adminship isn't a trophy. I don't see how there's even an argument here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And honour is not something you give to yourself. Hillgentleman 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be an idea to notify Jimbo that this discussion is happening if that hasn't been done already. In fact, a good starting point might have been just asking him if he still wants the local rights given he has the global ones... WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, done over on enwiki. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what would be gained by removal of the right. It isn't like there's any serious reason not to trust him if he hasn't used the tools in a long time (which is the standard argument for forcing reconfirmations). We don't have a limited number of admin slots. JoshuaZ 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He has the rights already as a steward. Other admins are desysopped for inactivity on this project, including people who are more likely to need them. Majorly ^talk 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to retain the rights. Desysopping for inactivity is a generally bad idea for people who are extremely active every single day working for free for this project. I am frequently asked to look into things, including looking at deleted revisions, and when I do, it is of course true that I could give myself the rights at that time, what's the point?--Jimbo Wales 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You already automatically have sysop powers on every wiki with the global steward flag. You don't need to edit user rights to get those sysop powers, they're already there. Cbrown1023 talk 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

However the global sysop flag does not confer 'crat powers such as renaming or making admins. We prefer that admins made here are done by 'crats, not stewards. I don't see the point in removing this. ++Lar: t/c 06:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of Wales having the bureaucrat flag on meta at all? Is he going to make somebody sysop or rename someone on meta, when he hardly even edits here? Hillgentleman 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I could see him saying that he'd rather keep sysop powers for "emergencies" or things like that, but there really isn't an "emergency" bureaucrat action. (Anyway, if he someone needs bureaucrat actions done by him and not by local users, he can give the rights to himself.) Cbrown1023 talk 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. However, a clarification, there is indeed a class of actions that are "emergency bureaucrat actions". They involve renames of userids. Per w:WP:BEANS that's about all I want to say. However, Himself doesn't tend to do a lot of emergency things (the bit of business at Wikiversity a few weeks ago notwithstanding). ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a little pointy to me. He's a special case. Are you saying he's not? KillerChihuahua 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not a special case. We're about to desysop Brion Vibber and Tim Starling, who technically both use the rights moreso than Jimbo. Please explain how this discussion is "pointy"? We desysop inactive people all the time. Jimbo has the rights as part of his steward tools. He therefore does not need separate ones, because according to Meta policy, he is inactive, whether he's busy behind the scenes or not. He can use his admin tools should he need to as part of his steward package. Majorly ^talk 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm about as confused as to why there's any desire to desysop Brion and Tim. What do we think this accomplishes? JoshuaZ 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't use their tools actively in the community here, that's why. It's part of our philosophy here: get it if you need it, lose it if you don't. Brion, Tim and Jimbo do not need extra user rights on Meta because they have them already. They are redundant. I really do wonder why you're so interested in this discussion though, considering you barely edit here Joshua. Drive-by comments from people who don't actively participate in a project are one of my pet hates if I'm honest. Majorly ^talk 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not a special case, and I too fail to see anything disruptive concerning this conversation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this, haven't we had an agreement that staff and the like don't have to go through confirmations, they will have the same rights after removal, so why bother and wasting everyones time with discussions and burocracy...? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Staff" right is inherently a special case: You give it to folks like Brion and Tim and Jimbo so they they have the exact same rights as before but nobody brings up the issue of removal again: Let the elected stewards use the "Steward" right, let the Board and various staff use "Staff". As long as they keep bits that the policies say are otherwise confirmed regularly, someone is going to bring up the issue that those folks should be confirmed. If they take the Staff right, they keep them until they feel like removing them or they quit the project. Seems to me that if they'd voluntarily give up the community-confirmed bits, it'd make things easier for them... Kylu 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo is allowed to retain his flag then everyone who founded Wikipedia is going to expect that right, obviously this is a major problem that requires lengthy discussion. Guest9999 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)