I taken of the deletions that you requested. I have also put in a separate request to have you upgrade to Admin in this wikia as well. Hopefully it will go through soon. --Kirk 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --fasten 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New to Education wiki[]

Hey, there, I just popped on here to check some things out. I've got some specific interests in mind, and I'm wondering if they're best fulfilled here, or if I should create a separate wiki for it. Please head over to the forum and help me clear some things up, when you have time. Jesse Groppi (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorised Templates[]

You have three uncategorised templates that you've protected for whatever reason. Please put them in the correct categories. You'll notice I've completely reorganised the categories, having found them homes and generally tied it all up neatly together. You may want to have a look before you decide what category(ies) to put those templates into.

Also, I've marked a number of articles and categories for deletion. You can find them in Category:To be deleted. Would you please take care of that as well?

Thanks! Jesse Groppi 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The templates are no longer protected and I've put them into categories as well. They were only protected as a secondary effect of two protected pages under my personal user page. Do you intend to do regular maintenance work in this wiki? --fasten 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm categorising pages right now, then the real serious issues are done with, and I'm going to move to immproving the administration tools. After that, I should be going through all the articles, and trying to figure out what part of the purposes of the wiki they serve, marking many of them as needing some sort of care. For example, we have entire collections of articles in French and Czech. These should be moved to the correct language versions, or translated into English. After that, I'm going to try broadening the language used throughout the wiki to something with a more global perspective and non-colloquial. Instead of using "grades" I would change it to ages. After that, I will probably do some work on the Main Page, to give new readers something to actually read, and that represents how the wiki is actually working today.

I'm sure I'll have even more plans as I go. Jesse Groppi 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please add "<includeonly>[[Category:Users|{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>" to the bottom of MediaWiki:Welcome-user-page please? This will automatically add the user page to the Users category without having to rely on the user, or anyone else to do so. Having user pages in a users category helps keep the maintenance pages clean, gives readers a simpler way to get to know the contributors, and also gives contributors somewhere they can put sandbox articles or articles they're not quite ready to release to the public. Jesse Groppi 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did that but it won't have any effect. The page isn't included but copied (similar to using "subst:"). I will remove the includeonly markup, which will make the change effective for future users. --fasten 07:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I didn't think of that, but it makes sense. Thanks. Jesse Groppi 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you please put User:Fasten/Pilingual Primer into Category:Fasten so I don't have to look at it on the uncategorised pages list anymore? Thanks. Jesse Groppi 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds to me as if you were taking orderliness too far. Why do you want the uncategorised pages list to be empty? I prefer categories to contain only the pages they should usefully contain, not every template and subpage that can be crammed in. --fasten 07:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The uncategorised pages list needs to be empty so that when users are using it to attend to real issues, their time is not wasted by having to look at articles more than once. One should expect that multiple people are looking at this specials page (and hope it) and that they aren't all going to know what pages been looked at. Being sure to put all articles into a category ensures that none of the ones on the specials page were looked at before.
My conviction is that all articles need to be in a category in the same way all chapters of a book are in the contents, all subjects of an encyclopaedia are in the index, and all articles in a magazine are listed in its contents. I'm not sure why you would think it's okay for an article to float. How would anyone know it's there? Jesse Groppi 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I made a category Category:Uncategorized for the purpose. Anything that doesn't need a category can be categorized as uncategorized. Categories aren't the only way to find something, they are merely convenient. The things that have no need to be found conveniently don't need categories but I don't mind if you categorize everything. --fasten 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my css code is ready to be copied over. Please go to User:Jesse Groppi/sandbox to see examples of what it will be used for, then if you don't have any arguments, go to User:Jesse Groppi/monaco.css and copy everything but the last two lines, and paste it into the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.css. I don't know if you have any css experience, but, in case you haven't:

  1. yes, Common.css is the right place to put it.
  2. Leave a couple empty lines between the last set of css code in Common.css and the new code you are pasting in
  3. copy everything, exactly, from the first character to the last empty line before the DO NOT COPY warning. If there are any problems, I will identify them and let you know the next day.
Is there any kind of documentation or plan? I'd really prefer to read a plan -- maybe a policy proposal similar to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup? --fasten 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was also wondering if you would give me admin rights. I feel like I have been, and plan on doing lots more of asking you to do stuff I'm totally capable of doing myself. And I've generally got the site open all day long, so I'm very accessible to any passersby. Jesse Groppi 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically I could do that but I don't feel I've got a mandate to do so. I'm not sure why I have the bureaucrat flag (I didn't ask for it). I would have to check what the intended process is. I do think the wiki might need a policy (along the lines of Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator) first. --fasten 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're the only 'crat around. Kirk is actually a wikia helper, or at least was at one point. Chris Mahan hasn't touched the site since early 2008. I'm pretty sure that's why Kirk had them give you 'crat rights. Somebody needed to be it, and you are active here. Wikipedia needs an admin policy, definitely. They have thousands of admins, and hundreds of people asking for admin all the time. There are millions of people affected by the choice of who the admins are. Wowwiki, which is pretty much the second-most popular wiki after Wikipedia, only started a nomination process a year or so ago. Their "policy" on becoming an admin is only a section of a page.
Realistically, there's only me and you here, and what seems like a member of the peanut gallery (robin patterson) :P So even if there were a nomination process, you'd be the only one to say yea or nay. And I sure do fit the bill of an admin, even if it were only based on what things I've been doing here. Anyway, in the hopes of making you feel better about the whole thing, I've put in a request at wikia central to take up the "official" adminship of the wiki. If you put in your support for the idea, I'm sure it'll go quickly. Jesse Groppi 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambox proposal[]

I've added documentation to User:Jesse Groppi/noticebox, User:Jesse Groppi/dev01, and User:Jesse Groppi/dev02. Again, the examples are found at User:Jesse Groppi/sandbox.

The article you found is not a proposal, but a description of, and directions for the proper use of a far more complicated system of article management boxes than I think we will need. Wikipedia is reknowned for its bureaucracy, and widely disliked for it as well. I can't say if it's appropriate for Wikipedia, but I can say I don't think it's appropriate here. Rules and directions are basic, of course, but the level of deliberation that goes on at Wikipedia is nothing but a hinderance to smaller wikis, especially ones having just started (which is the category I put this wiki under, despite its age).

That said, my plan is:

  1. add the proper css to the common.css file, so all the boxes conform
  2. move the code for User:Jesse Groppi/noticebox to Template:ambox
  3. create a bunch of boxes such as User:Jesse Groppi/dev01 and User:Jesse Groppi/dev02 that will cater to any potential need
  4. use them to organise the improvement of the wiki, and give unified direction to new contributors.
  5. watch other people use them
  6. watch other people create more of them as new needs arise

Here is a quick list of uses I can think up at the very moment. It is not necessary for all of them to be implemented at once.

  • when two articles should be merged
  • when an article should be separated into two
  • when an article doesn't conform to the layout standards of the wiki
  • when an article is inaccurate
  • when an article is biased or not written from a neutral/global perspective
  • when a lesson plan is under construction
  • when a lesson plan is complete, but in the testing phase
  • when an article should be deliberated upon for editing or deletion
  • when an article requires more citations
  • when an article could use more visual elements
  • when an article doesn't have enough content
  • when a policy is up for deliberation
  • when an article or category is part of a project

If you've any experience even just reading Wikipedia, or any of the larger Wikia, you should have a good idea of exactly what I'm doing here. If that isn't the case, please let me know what specific areas you are confused about. Jesse Groppi 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to be a teacher? I think you might want to work on your patience. A wiki is a good place to be patient and to give preference to calm and well-considered language. I'm not a native speaker but "any experience even just reading Wikipedia" and "what specific areas you are confused about" may appear very patient in other wikis but I see it as slightly provocative and inappropriate for this wiki; the tone could be interpreted as condescending. --fasten 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if I come across and attempting to provoke, or as condescending. However, I'm not sure coming back at me in a like manner is appropriate.
What I am is a writer, and as such I take the meaning of my writing very seriously. What I was trying to say is that this situation isn't one that is difficult to understand, and I don't think it requires exact or thorough documentation. If you aren't familiar with the use of such templates, I can completely understand that, and as I offered, I'm absolutely willing to answer any specific questions you have. If you're not familiar with them, I have already suggested two wikis that rely on them: WoWWiki and Wikipedia. There are also Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha, and various others. You should visit those sites if you need to see them in action.
I am a big fan of communication, and I've tried to be very communicative with you. However, I can see that you're a fan of documentation and deliberation. This coupled with the fact I am an advanced contributor means I will, however, overlook some things you may find important. I can already tell I can trust you to point that out to me. However, you should fully expect me to argue with you on the degree of the procedures.
Jesse Groppi 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted, of course. Please see Education:Administrators for a transitional policy. Your wording, by the way, appears somewhat confusing: "This coupled with the fact I am an advanced contributor means... "? --fasten 18:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It means that you want things well documented and thoroughly talked about, and I will overlook that sort of thing because I am either thinking about more technical things, or because I don't believe it is necessary. I don't think either of us are extremists, but we are definitely on opposite ends of the spectrum. We need to meet in between, and it will be difficult. Jesse Groppi 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we are not on opposite ends of the spectrum, at least not this one. While I'm not opposed to documentation and deliberation I've always been more interested in writing software, not documentation. I'm merely asking you for documentation and planning because I think bureaucrats and administrators do have to do that. Who else should do it? This wiki doesn't exactly have a problem with too many different opinions and contradictory plans but why should we wait for the problem to occur? It's better to get it right from the beginning. --fasten 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll say it a lot, but anything that slows down the process, at this important point, slows down the success of the wiki. Anything that makes contributing more difficult detracts from contribution. For instance, I start uni again in September. I'm hoping to get all these organisation and administration tools done by then so I can relax and concentrate on populating articles and attracting contributors in my spare time. If I don't finish by then, who is going to do it? We need to constantly ask ourselves that question, here, now. If we don't do it, who is? In light of that question, and of the fact there are only two of us, why slow the process down by "discussing it civilly"? Jesse Groppi 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why should this wiki be so important? Is there anything you need to get done in a hurry? --fasten 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Jesse has asked at the adoption page for admin rights here, but that page is meant for the adoption of inactive wikis with no regular users. I have no objection and it looks like he has some energetic ideas for working on the wiki, but it's up to the local users to decide. If you and other users agree with his ideas and/or are willing to work with him to mold a group consensus on the project's direction, then you can use Special:UserRights to give him admin rights. If you don't feel that's the right choice for this wiki, then discuss it together, and he can alter his approach or create a new wiki at -- either way, it looks like Wikia will benefit from richer educational content. Thank you for your continuing interest in this wiki! — Catherine (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are working on the decision. --fasten 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


for an all encompassing pdf? 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)mk

I'm working on it but OpenOffice apparently wasn't the best choice. I either have to do some formatting or I have to use a different converter. --fasten 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've sent you a copy. --fasten 13:46, September 2, 2009 (UTC)