Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 46

DYK now on the Main Page

I've added the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, along with the first batch of DYKs. Thank you to all who helped accomplish this! I'll be around to check if everything is alright with DYK and if the formatting is correct. Planned hooks to be updated to the Main Page should be added to Template:Did you know/Next update so editors can look over them before it actually becomes visible on the actual Main Page on T:DYK. I realize maybe only a few editors here have experience with DYKs, and since I generally have the most experience (I've been actively involved with DYK for about half a year), I'll try to look over how things are going often. I'll tend to check T:DYK/N often also to make sure moved hooks don't have any problems such as having related hooks next to each other, formatting, consistency, etc. Again, thank you to all who helped with DYK! I'm sure our new addition to the Main Page will attract more readers to come by and maybe even contribute more often. – RyanCross (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped, it is a great addition to our Wikipedia. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

School users

Hello there,

I think that it would perhaps be good to change the way schools /school users contribute to wikipedia. I think the following would be doable:

• The teacher/person responsible has to have a named account (if possible with an email address set)
• We create a template that marks a contribution from a school; this template names the responsible account among others
• School contributions are marked with this template (which should work much like the {{inuse}} template)
• Unless there are cases of blatant vandalism, we disregard any notablility or style guidelines; Articles created from schools that do not meet these guidleinnes (probably mostly notability), are deleted two days after last activity, at the earliest.
• We modify the schools gateway to give contact persons (who have an email set in their profile, plus languages they are sufficiently good at); I am able to cover German-language requests, for example.

That way, we should be able to no longer run into cases like Kambly (and Emile Bloch SA, which I have not restored; company is about half the size of Kambly)

Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is in principle a good idea. Could you possibly expand on the points slightly? I am happy to act as a contact for English-speaking.

Thanks,

BG^7even 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While the IP blocked by Majorly does not directly point to a school, it may very much look like some kind of "homework" (also the fact that we get two Swiss choolate factories in a short time). The basic idea is this:

• Articles contributed by schools are well-identified (if that template is used). This makes people aware of them (at the moment, they are just IP contributions, which need a whois check that can be ambiguous). When the assignment is over, the template can be removed, and articles can be deleted if they do not meet guidleine, or improved to meet them.
• There is a person (named account) that can be contacted, both in case of problems, and to get more information (esp. in cases of limited or doubtful notabililty).
• By guaranteeing a minimal keep time (of say: 2 days) the person involved (teacher) has a chance to check whether the work produced meets expectations.

This is a win-win situation, we get more articles and editors (which will potentially stay, and try other things as well; and the school-user get a way to provide homework - I don't know how long an article that obviously does not meed quiality guidelines stays at EnWP. In other words, in the eyes of those teachers who know we become more attractive than say EnWP. --Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The en project is at en:Wikipedia:School and university projects with some information at en:Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools and more hands on stuff at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Might give us some pointers as to how to get started (no need to reinvent the wheel) and we may even be able to tag along by advertising there. --Matilda (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And my pet perennial proposal pops up again...

OK, so BlueGoblin7 has got his DYK proposal up and running, so I reckon I might have more chance this time. Here's the link to my "Tip of the Day" proposal, as a replacement of Mediawiki:Loginsuccess. Input? Microchip • talk 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And, as it's a bit of a minefield, the only month (currently) with many tips in is May. Microchip • talk 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to be on the Main Page, now, is it? – RyanCross (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that, instead of the "You have logged in as $1", you get a "tip of the day", based on a rotation, in the pseudorandom way that Chenzw's signature is generated. Microchip • talk 10:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting...

1. Support Microchip • talk 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - these tips have the opportunity to help editors learn how to be more efficient editors and improve wikipedia --Matilda (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, as long as you'll keep it updated and running, I think it's a great idea. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support as per my other support further up... PeterSymonds (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Support but I dont see any tips.. I do now, but its not ready. Support all the same ~ R.T.G 20:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose voting. But Support TOTD Sorry for confusing vote :P Kennedy ^(talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Support OK. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - But someone has to maintain a bot or something. Chenzw  Talk  00:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. Just various transclusions and a bit of abracadabra. Microchip • talk 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's an example of what I mean. Microchip • talk 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the randomiser, and can this re-think look like the mainpage deign, so it is uniform? I like the idea though. - tholly ^--Talk-- 10:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

proposal -- hard-words template

hi all, i find some articles require necessary hard words, nouns usually, for which translation would be hard and misleading.
ex. skiing and the word 'mogul' or Guitar and 'fret'.

i propose a new template that would list the necessary difficult words in a small box of somesort. something like {{hardlist|mogul|slalom|avalanche}}  ?
with each word linking to simple wiktionary?
i dont know the procedure for creating such a thing.

good/bad idea? is it difficult to make?-- cheers. Spencerk (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I could do that if you wanted? It would be a lot of work but dont see why I cant take it on. WashingManwithwings (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will be easier if you make a Hard Words section at the bottom of the article where you can explain the hard words. If you make piped links like [[#Hard words|the hard word]] to the Hard Words section you can click on a word you don't know and jump down to the bottom and read what it means, and then you use Backspace or the browser Back button to jump back up where you were reading. Try it. Or else you can use a star or something, like [[#Hard words|*]] NEXT to the hard word* (<--Try it) so you can still link the hard word to another article. I used the "Disambiguation" section on this page for an example because there is no "Hard Words" section to jump to. Teenly (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Game ads on article talk pages?

Is this really necessary? Things like this isn't a good idea, IMO. – RyanCross (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm - I too thought we didn't do that here at Simple. I don't think it helps. If people want to find relevant articles they can use categories. --Matilda (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Displaying project info is standard practice. It is not for finding articles. It is to invite people to join the project. We are supposed to encourage that. WP:OWN It doesn't belong to us. If we could formalise projects we could create proper templates but linking all the pages to someones user space is hardly acceptable is it? Do it right kids !!! ~ R.T.G 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where, here on Simple wikipedia, is displaying project info standard practice? --Matilda (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We've never allowed it since most wikiprojects are small. I believe I read somewhere that you can have banners instead of adds when it has been decided for the wikiproject to go into projectspace. But looking from the !vote going on a few sections above, I don't think that'll happen at this moment for the video games wikiproject. – RyanCross (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is[1]. In the case where (according to wikimedia) a lot of people vote for something dumb like not having any projects or restraining all projects to personal users we are supposed to override the votes. Questioning project activity on project articles talk pages is a bit null to say the least (don't forget every one of these pages has been empty for a long time and you are proposing locking them as empty of standard project content permanently, ie ridiculous). Show some support please. ~ R.T.G 06:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

note all projects on this 5 year old wiki are on user space since permanently... ~ R.T.G 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No matter. The link you gave us is en.wikipedia. They have their own standards, we have our own. – RyanCross (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

this is the simple version of that site. If you want your own webpages there are places to do that ~ R.T.G 06:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Its quite straightforward to move the established projects off the user pages as proof you are not stagnant at least ~ R.T.G I'm sorry Ryan but you cant have your WP:OWN (that is taken fron en.wiki) ~ R.T.G 06:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to weigh up the things that will help the wiki and avoid WP:POV. ~ R.T.G 06:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The community decided a long time ago (not sure when) not to have projects in projectspace until there is consensus to do so. I'm just following what the community thought a while ago. Until the projects reach projectspace through consensus, there can't be any ads on article talk pages, banners, etc. yet until it does move to projectspace. This is the community rules, not my own. – RyanCross (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Ryan, a regime of no concensus has been produced. Look at the lack of input in the vote about the video games project above. None of the members entered an opinion and several were active. I made efforts to show the existance of the video game project. To seek prevention of this is questionable at least. Why on earth should I not display the existance of the project? I should keep it to myself only to be found by accident? I cannot show people without displaying it and neither can you. What do you, or anyone else, propose as a possibility of gaining interest in a project? You are promoting the closure of sections. Look into ways to help instead please (such as supporting the project or leaving it as a non project person!! again show some support please!!) Dont correct me until I do something that will not help the wiki, what do you say kiddo? ~ R.T.G 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC) BTW what #channel is this wiki on? ~ R.T.G 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC) NOTE Freenode server: #wikipedia-simple ~ R.T.G 07:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would rather you did not spam talk pages with your any banner. I don't think it serves any useful purpose. --Matilda (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not "my" banner , Matilda. It is a standard wikipedia one ~ R.T.G 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

refactored my comment --Matilda (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a standard Wikipedia ones. The ads are there for user pages, not for talk pages. Talk pages have a more specialized banner, one that has not been approved by the community. alexandra (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking for you and ryan now on the irc ~ R.T.G 07:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@Alexandra I agree and all projects should have templates as with normal practice (i am on irc) ~ R.T.G 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should, but for now, policy does not permit it. Please do not add them. And I refuse to use IRC under any circumstance. alexandra (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think RTG has some confusion with banners (the ones on article talk pages) and ads. Banners are the informative ones that are placed on talk pages. He thought that he was adding the banner. Ads should stay somewhere else, like in userspace or the WikiProject's page. Chenzw  Talk  07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

there is a clear lack of projectivity ~ R.T.G 07:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry I cant appreciate an unwillingness to communicate @alexandra (it isn't nessecary to but I am only recommending it, if you are worried about irc itself I respect that) ~ R.T.G 07:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a lot of heckling here but I'm not angry at anyone. Just this project thing would be a help (no matter how small a help) ~ R.T.G 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do not and will not use IRC - it is not the place to get community consensus. It is merely a chat room. I am displeased that anybody should suggest it as a place to try and gain consensus off-wiki about a matter being discussed here. --Matilda (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh lighten up will you? No-one is attempting to use IRC to gain consensus. He asked if you Cassandra could go on IRC to make the discussion easier. Stop making a mountain out of a bowling green. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On Ryan Cross userpage is an invitation to "slap him with a large trout" which is specific to chatting with mIRC software. Wikipedia supports irc communication (its just the same as this except we can reply and stuff). Although en.wikis room right now has more than 50 people on simples only has 8 of which 5 or 6 are offline and just keeping the room open for queries etc. Anyway I am going off now but for any future time Matilda and Cassandra should know that on wikipedia chat rooms the admins are online in force and although a bit more joking and chatting of talk pages is allowed, the same basic rules apply (its basically a text box anyone can edit). Anyone biting will not be appreciated (of course!!) cya ~ R.T.G 10:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

en:WP:TROUT is the reference on Ryans page. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not make discussion easier. It punts it off the record and chat logs can be and are easily faked, compared to here, where diffs are undisputable. Perhaps it's just the Giano influence that makes me wary of IRC. alexandra (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think quite strongly that these ads should not be used on talk pages - the ads are for userpages. The link you provided to enwiki did not show an ad, but a project banner. These are used to show the quality and importance of the article, as well as providing a link to the Wikiproject. However, this is not feasible on this Wikiproject as there would be an awful lot of articles to asses. The ads on the talk pages also looks messy, as they are not centred, and are on what is otherwise a blank page. I can understand a text link at the top of talk pages that already have comments on, but I do not like the ad.

Due to the size of this wiki, Wikiprojects come and go, and there might easily be a time within the next few years when there are no editors active on the video games Wikiproject - or at least not actively editing video game articles regularly. Then we have a load of links to an idle Wikiproject... The community decided not to use these for a reason, and seeing as this wiki is still not that much bigger, I think it should stay that way.

In reply to your (RTG) "no concensus has been produced" (about above vote): although you're right - not many people provided input - there are three opposes and only one support (from you). Some people may have not voted as they did not think it would pass as only one user appeared to be for the idea. Surely this conversation makes it clear that a consensus has now been reached with other users.

Another point I've just noticed is that the ad was made for enwiki and would need adapting to use here:

• We don't have featured articles, we have very good ones,
• The articles aren't currently being assessed like the talk page boxes do on enwiki, as I've said, that would be too much work.

Sorry for the long and disjointed post - I thought of things as I wrote! And BTW Kennedy, "Stop making a mountain out of a bowling green." - I like that :). Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:) Kennedy ^(talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho, hum. ~ R.T.G 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, everyone's gone quiet. To be honest, not many people look at the talk pages anyway, so the links won't help all that much. You may be better contacting users individually who you see editing video game articles. Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 10:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK Suggestions

Hello. This may help with suggesting DYK's. It is almost ready. There is a few points I need to iron out. But it works. So give it a try, and you will see what I mean. Also, any comments, or fixes to the coding is very much welcome! Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 08:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As i mentioned a few days ago, I really like it Kennedy! I will take a look later to see if I can streamline it a bit, and then move it across!

Thanks,

BG^7even 10:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hook" is not simple. ~ R.T.G 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, when I clicked "Submit"... I was leaving a comment at the Main Page. Yeah... you need to fix that. – RyanCross (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Flood flag

As everyone might have seen today, RyanCross and I have just deleted 100+{{fact}} pages that were tagged as G7 by a user who either:

• Was trying to cause havoc
• Went out of his mind
• Didn't want his contributions to be licensed under the GFDL

5 hours ago, Creol did some mass deletion as well, but had the bot flag, so didn't cause much harm to Recent Changes. I feel that the whole deletion process will be much cleaner and neater if sysops on this wiki are able to set the flood flag on themselves (in case such a thing happens again). Any thoughts? Chenzw  Talk  06:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys bowed down to I-210 (talk · contribs) – they were legitimate articles and you can't revoke the GFDL. He was blocked on en for two months, didn't realize it until I looked today. alexandra (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But he requested for the articles to be deleted, and he was the sole author of the article/template. Chenzw  Talk  11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Any page whose original author wants deletion, can be quickly deleted, but only if most of the page was written by that author and was created as a mistake -G7 The criterion they use on en, I believe, is whether the tag is in good faith or not. alexandra (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hello, i put a complex tag on No personal attacks some time ago. I have now rewritten the page; please feel free to read and improve. I am posting this here since the page is considered policy. In general, we should look that none of our poicies or guidelines have a {{complex}} tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talk • contribs) 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User creation log

What is the difference between "New user account" and "Account created automatically"? (and why is it a red link? I will fix that) ~ R.T.G 09:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A "New user account" is when a user creates an account with Special:CreateAccount. An "Account created automatically" is when the user has an single login for all Wikimedia projects. When they load any page in the simple.wikipedia.org site an account is automatically created in case they want to edit something. Hope this helps - tholly ^--Talk-- 09:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that means that "Automatic account creation" doesnt mean that a person has visited simple.wiki ~ R.T.G 00:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it means they must have wisited simple, even if only to look at one page. The reason your account is not created on all Wikimedia wikis when you create an SUL is because that would put massive strain on the server all at once, and you will only ever visit a fraction of the sites. - tholly ^--Talk-- 08:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7 and WashingManwithwings

Today on simple English Wikibooks, some vandalism was done by a sock of WashingManwithwings (talk · contribs). Steward Spacebirdy ran a local checkuser to reveal that Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) and WashingManwithwings (talk · contribs) were meatpuppets; one had asked the other to vandalise so the other could get adminship. Spacebirdy then locked both global accounts belonging to Bluegoblin7 and WashingManwithwings. Other socks were discovered on simple Wiktionary. This is posted to inform the community of these findings. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Bluegoblin7 is confirmed as a Wikipedia banned user, Chris19910 (talk · contribs) via the checkuser mailing list. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the lock for WashingManwithwings. Synergy 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So they're the same users here too? Disappointing. Have they double voted anywhere, or abused socks? Majorly ^talk 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointing. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both of the accounts indef. Though generally, I hate the idea of banning when someone is being productive (like with Did You Know), but using/abusing sockpuppets like that isn't really on. Majorly ^talk 00:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait. I think you're going majorly fast here. We just can't block. First, let me unblock, and then you need to reblock again and warn me not to wheel war. Then we need to conduct a prolonged, long discussion about the merits of what Blueglobin has done versus his minuses. Then we'll argue and vote on whether he should be banned. alexandra (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) A block is already not needed. Locked global accounts are inaccessible, which means that both will be unable to edit, unless they edit using an IP or create a new account. Chenzw  Talk  01:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better to mark it in the block log locally imo. Majorly ^talk 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If he weren't globally blocked, I'd think that we should focus his very good contributions here. But it really wasn't our decision and we can't choose. Too bad for Simple talk's sake. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, yes, they have double voted at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Oppose_3. – RyanCross (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) After speaking with WashingManOnWings, I ran a few CheckUser requests. These are of course only valid for SEWP, as I do not have the priv anywhere else; Here are a few of my findings:

• Both users edit from different IP addresses and ISPs - one is not a sockpuppet of the other.
• I cannot rule out them talking to each other off-wiki, but per our policy, neither has violated OUR rules (I cannot speak for other projects, their rules may be different)
• It looks like global locks are global to the point that they also lock out of meta. In other words the user cannot himself request a review of his situation or an unblock.

Given that at least one of the users has contributed here productively, it would in my opinion be appropriate to globally unlock their accounts, or to provide evidence that a global lock is indeed necessary. This would mean that the resp. projects could tackle the situation as they see fit, rather than having to abide by a global ban. These are of course just my findings.--Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, here is the enwiki CU case related to this matter. Synergy 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely an interesting situation. Much of the results cross-wiki (en and global) are based on the changes of the accounts on Simple:Wikibooks. As they have limited edits there, it is hard to fully determine actual information beyond a past history and their handful of interactions (mainly Washing's support of BG7 for admin). Our CU information has quite a few more edits to get info from. As Eptalon pointed out, the two users are entirely separate when it comes to which ISPs they are using. At no time did they ever use the same ISP let alone the same IP. The closest tie is that they are using similar computers in the same country (which I think they also share with multiple admins here). Interestingly, BG7 was previously tied to the Chris19910 sockpuppet case and cleared as being technically not connected (different ISPs). So far, BG7 has been cleared twice on being Chris19910 (his first en:CU and by both Eptalon and my own checks here) and is up for a second en:CU which would likely give similar results to ours.

On the other hand, Washing is a match to the information I have seen for Chris19910. He matchs in too many different ways for it to be a likely co-incidence. The whole thing does seem to hint against socking although meatpuppetry is a possibility. Another option is wiki-stalking of BG7 by Chris19910 but that's iffy at best. This situation has been ongoing for a little while now. We had a steward check our logs based on Checkuser-l discussions of the cross-wiki problem for details on Washing back on the 14th and nothing was brought up from that as it was not conclusive either way. Chris19910 has repeatedly used IRC and mail to try and talk people into removing blocks and providing him with more information on the case. A global block on his school was temporarily lowered here in this manner when he made the case that he was just an innocent user and not the vandal in question (Part of his home ISP's range is already soft-blocked until January due to a different vandal).

Obviously, without access to Simple:Wikibooks CU information, it is impossible for us to be certain that no puppetry has taken place. They could have damning evidence there where the accounts screwed up when we do not because they did not make the error here. Spacebirdy has access to a lot more information than we do as a steward. While our information tends to show no connection, there may be something out there that proves the opposite. Looking at our logs though, only our own CU's have checked the situation here in the last week so it is hard to say if they have all the info the need on the case. Cross-wiki checkusers have been notified of the basic results of the activity from the accounts here through the CU list. -- Creol(talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Creol. As for the information retrieved from Simple:Wikibooks, Spacebirdy hasn't yet been in contact with either WashingManwithwings or Bluegoblin7, so we'll know more when contact has been made. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have one thing to say, Bluegoblin7 does not equel Chris19910, this Im certain of.— This unsigned comment was added by Promethean (talk • changes) on 21:20, 26 October 2008.

Yes, he isn't..I'm not sure why people think they are the same maybe because they misunderstood what Spacebirdy wrote in the block log, so I will repeat what I said on IRC again, they are not that Chris19910 guy, though Washing and Chris share a similar ISP, but washing is on UK-OPALNET whereas Chris is on OPAL-DSL, and Bluegoblin is on a different ISP all together BTCentralPlus. I'm not defending both but i will clarify this, they were not blocked for being the socks of chris, but blocked for socking and vandalising on the simple wikibooks to rack up edit count (bad hand accounts) so that they could request for adminship on that wiki at Meta which failed when a steward saw that vandalism happening and granted herself Cu to find out what was going on and found a similarity between all those accounts..there..btw, chris19910 account was blocked on meta already. --Cometstyles 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Washing has used several ISPs. He was active on both Opalnet and Opal-DSL as well as two others. Opal-DSL was actually used more often than OPALNET. -- Creol(talk) 01:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, just found out some of his ips through my logs, they vary from UK-OPALNET to OPAL-DSL to BSKYB-Broadband...though I clear Bluegoblin of being chris19901, i have my doubts with washing, i'm not saying he is chris too, but he is definitely some other banned sockmaster...--Cometstyles 01:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i think the an error has been made by the enwiki admins, Benniguy is Chris19910 per this>> IP and which is very similar to Chris19910's ip and to add to add, this enwiki edit which is quite similar to this request and that karl person is blocked as a chris sock..i hope a Cu can understand what I'm saying..sorry, this has nothing to do with Bluegoblin and/or washing ..just too much of a coincidence..--Cometstyles 01:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Hello there. After a long talk with Spacebirdy and other CheckUsers and Stewards it was found that Bluegoblin7 was probably not involved in any puppetry. The global account has therefore been unlocked, and the local block has been undone. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.--Eptalon (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have contacted Bluegoblin7 immediately via email and appologized for any inconvenience, we had a talk today and he will continue with the good work he is doing on the wmf-projects, thanks, --Spacebirdy (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

...is not a simple word. Could someone use a bot to change (disambiguation) to (different meanings) or similar? ~ R.T.G 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that. And we've had this discussion before, somewhere. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... its not on the list Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist and certainly is complicated (I didnt know this word before reading wikipedia pages, I went to a good school) ~ R.T.G 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this a while ago started by Hippopotamus (talk · contribs) (I think him/her). I'm not sure where it is now though, but I'll try yo find it. – RyanCross (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Found it! The other discussion about disambiguations is located at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_36#.22Disambiguation.22. This was way back at the end of June and the beginning of July of 2008. – RyanCross (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I learned latin at this school [2], and yes the word "ambi" was similar to the word "two" 2000 years ago, but in english "disambiguation" is roughly the most complicated word for that meaning and found only in text books (certainly beyond "simple english"). Anyway, perhaps it is not important. ~ R.T.G 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Before seeing this thread, I tried to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (two threads actually). Yes, this was discussed before, but no conclusion was noted and the discussion was not closed, either here or on the dab talk page. Also, some of the dab pages here seem to have got entirely out of hand with piles of useless links, that needs discussing as well. SpinningSpark 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the thread of July: I would think clarification would do, rather near to German Begriffsklärung. But you learn what it means from the pages, not from the word disambiguation or clarification anyhow. --Cethegus (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [...]

On words with more than one meaning you are redirected to a page called, for example, "Example (disambiguation)". To keep with Simple English, I would suggest "Example (List of meanings)" or "Example (Words with many meanings)" ~ R.T.G 03:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about RTG's suggestion? --Cethegus (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous means able to write (or other things) with both hands or multi skilled. Disambiguation is a rare type of word which is contradictory to its origin i.e. disambiguation does not mean removal of skills or arms which would most commonly be in line with the dis- prefix i.e. regard and disregard. In fact the dis- prefix is often the confusing one such as in stance and distance but it can be made sense of because possibly a long time ago stance was regarded as the word for in place and distance would therefore mean removed from place. Although this stuff can be worked out, it's speculative and not very simple. ~ R.T.G 00:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it just occured to me this mistake. Ambidexterous is the one about being twohanded, not ambiguous. ~ R.T.G 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SEWP WIKIMEET

I haven't been editing these past few days because I've met up with Archer7. Photos can be found here.

Hopefully this will encourage people to see the person behind the editor, and help each other get along. Conversation was not (surprisingly?) dominated by Wikitalk, it was a meeting between friends rather than editors.

Here's to our first Wikimeet up! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Where did you meet? FSM ^Noodly? 09:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, where? Did you go to Britain? Or did Andrew go to Switzerland? alexandra (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a 2 hour plane trip, Archer took a 2 hour train ride. We met in London. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 10:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are awful pictures of me. Better than the ones we had to delete though :) Archer7 - talk 11:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We should really organise another meetup. I've been to quite a few en.wp ones, and they're really fun. Majorly ^talk 14:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in London or very near it, takes me about 1 hour to get to London Bridge train station. I'd be up for a meetup definetly. FSM ^Noodly? 15:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A short flight from Glasgow shouldn't cost too much. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I can afford to do it again in the next few weeks, I am a student with no money! Archer7 - talk 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was going to be relatively soon anyway. These things need a bit of planning. How about you all come to Scotland and I will show you around Edinburgh Castle, Holyrood etc? Kennedy ^(talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming then Australia is out of the question :( --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If I ever vacation across the country, me and RyanCross would meet up :P

Da Punk, Giggy's an Australian... Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy lives in Brisbane [3], which looks to me about mroe than a thousand kilometers from Victoria. Not an...easy drive. That's 600+ miles, a ten-hour drive at least (that is, if you're unlike most people and drive the speed limit). alexandra (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not an expert on Australian geography. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I almost met Bulletproof from enWP at WrestleMania XXIV but I got sick and missed the event live. That's his photo on the WrestleMania XXIV article.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  01:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not the good ole USA??--  ✧ ChristianMan16  01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie too. Foolestroupe (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Aussie meetup sounds good (I'm in Victoria too). ס ^Talk 13:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken image

I typed in the accurate name for an image but it is not showing up. Why is this? Tharnton345 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Only free images are allowed to be used here. If it is on commons, It should be able to be used if I remember correctly... Kennedy ^(talk) 12:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The image was fine, it was the use of the {{Userbox}} that was the problem. I fixed the syntax. -- Creol(talk) 16:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Article thing

I created an article and it shows it as if the page wasn't created. Why is this? Tharnton345 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes when an edit is made, the servers are so busy that it takes a short time for them to get the compete information. This happens most often with new pages. You hit save and it takes you to the page saying that "This page does not exist. yadda yadda...". Wait a few seconds and hit refresh and the page should pop up. Some new page edits can take up to 2 minutes before finally showing if things are extremely busy and the databases can not keep up with changes. If the page you are talking about is Dodge, it registered just fine. -- Creol(talk) 05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can also force your browser to reload the page by adding "&action=purge" to the URL. That usually works for me. Also, if you go to "My settings", then "Gadgets" and select "Live Clock" which adds a UTC clock to the top right-hand corner of your screen, clicking on the time forces a reload. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 07:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Broken Signature

When I test my Signature is broken. Why is this? [[User:Tharnton345|<font color="red">'''Thar'''</font>]] (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to put a tick in the "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" box at Special:Preferences. Giggy (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Protection

Could it possibly be either changed to Edit: Autoconfirmed Move: Sysop or Edit: Sysop Move: Sysop (cascading off) so that I can edit {{Did you know}}.

It's a tad annoying that I can't edit it seeing as i did contribute a lot to it. *sigh* i knew this would happen...

Cheers,

BG^7even 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - usually autoconfirmed users can edit the main page, it just got protected a few days back my Majorly, because of vandalism. I just put it back as per our usual rule. FSM ^Noodly? 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, thought it should be autoconfirmed ;). I've been on IRC for an hour and a half asking for it to be done, and its done withing 30 minutes on wiki! Another failing of IRC... BG^7even 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback enabled

Rollback is now enabled. See bugzilla:15747. Hurrah! Majorly ^talk 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please give it to my bot? It easier on the servers and reduces the chance of a stuff up reverting an edit --Chris G (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Chenzw  Talk  08:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please have rollback? I have it at the English Wikipedia and it would make life a lot easier.

Thanks,

BG^7even 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kennedy ^(talk) 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My thanks Kennedy :D BG^7even 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, anyone who has not used Rollback before should test in a sandbox. It might not do exactly what you think it might. For example: If I make three edits to a page, first two are good but the third is vandalism, if you hit rollback, it will undo my good edits too. So watch before you hit rollback. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback feature/Testing ground ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Any way I can have rollback?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please request it on an admin's talk page or at the Admin's Noticeboard. The above requests were made before that was in place. BG^7even 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Asking here is fine also. – RyanCross (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating a mass amount of talk pages

The conversation on my RfA has got me thinking. Is it really necessary to create the talk page of an article you have created, noting that it came from ENwiki? If it is in fact really necessary, then I've asked Bluegoblin to help. I'd much rather a bot or script to be used to create all of them, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks before this takes place. Thoughts? Synergy 18:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm that if the community felt it necessary I would run GoblinBot (talk · contribs) to carry out the actions... unless it was felt to distance it from the TotW updating, in which case GoblinBot2 (talk · contribs) would be used ;). BG^7even 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the points we get quite often is copyright complaints from Enwp copy/pastes (with or without simplification). It is a very grey area on how we are conforming to the GFDL on these articles - mainly with the requirement to attribute the articles authors and history. The major issue was basically if 'any' link back to the original article was enough to conform to the link back option. The one problem with this is that any changes there after the article was written here are no longer part of the history here and it gets a little muddy. To clear up the attribution problem, {{Enwp based}} was created for talk pages of articles based mainly on the enwp article and references the exact version used for the base to limit the history carried over as from that point back. The only other real option would be to transcribe the entire history from Enwp prior to the target version and this is just too much data on some pages with little to no usable data just to meet the requirement.

One of the problems with the bot doing the work is that the reference need to denote the exact version of the page that was used as the basis for the article. Easy enough to do when you originally create the article as the current version is the target version, but when looking back, you have to either know the exact version or compare edit dates and times to find the most current version at the time that the article was originally written here. This is definitely not a simple "add template {X} to talk page {Y}" bot job. -- Creol(talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with accidentally attributing someone? It might be unwanted, but it isn't serious. Could the bot not take a permalink from the current revision? The only way people wouldn't be attributed would be under oversight. MC8 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... therein lies the problem: the articles were created a while ago and so the original version is unknown. From my findings at another wiki, it is ok to simply attribute them with a link to the article, not even the current version, and this satisfies GFDL. And that came from some legal boffs... BG^7even 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of it, lets just say its needed. Hypothetically, a bot or script could go by the date and time it was created, and reference it back to a copy of the en article, corresponding to that date and time. Synergy 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For those that are interested, Cary Bass says that the legal position on this is 42. MC8 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cary's statement on the matter is quite key. Different lawyers with have different takes on the interpretation of the wording of the GFDL but only the presiding judges opinion will matter. The only legal opinion that matters up until that point is the legal position of the WMF itself, and they are only giving us the Ultimate Answer ^(tm). Better to play it safe and over covered than hope the one group of lawyers who agree with the linking is the correct group. -- Creol(talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

change conflict It's certainly possible. Due to my limited coding knowledge, i'd have to do it in two runs, and also due to the large amount of articles involved a bot flag would help. BG^7even 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone I've asked on IRC says "that's what import is for". MC8 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IF import worked properly, they are exactly correct. Import includes the copying of all versions with the complete history intact or 1 version with only that single versions history. Because of restrictions, only a limited number of versions (100) can be copied in the "all versions" mode. If the article has more than the limit, the import fails and only a single version import can be done. With a single version, the complete history would still need to be copied over and pasted on the talk page (huge amount of data for little to no useful reason). With a full import (when possible) the history links each user just as normal. This is another issue as many accounts prior to SUL are separate people (Simple user Isis is not En user Isis) so the attributions can point to the wrong people. Also, some times, import just simply fails to work on a particular page. I get this a lot with template imports. Add to this that Importing is limited to admins, and the entire process is a lot more problematic than just tossing a simple template on the talk page when you create the page. -- Creol(talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Acrediting is nonsense, any long article on en.wiki has thousands of editors and templating the whole wiki is incorrect. And, how can you botmark all pages as imported if you don't know which ones were? Also, the manner in which articles are simplified is the same manner as the editors on any wiki reference. Catch 22. You cannot file charges against a person if you are guilty of charges yourself. If the editors are notable enough, they are listed in the references. You should run the bot to make templates for every page on the en.wiki to say "This page needs simplified for the Simple English Wikipedia"!! ~ R.T.G 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Creol: Non-administrators can get the import right by getting consensus onwiki and contacting a steward. Unlike rollback, the feature is already there, and just needs implementing (so no bug needed!). MC8 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL...

Hello there, I write this in a new section, because I felt the break would visually make sense. Don't be afraid to disagree. First of all, I am not a loawyer, so basically I write about stuff I don't know much about (like so many others). For sipmlicity, I assume we have a GFDL without invariant sections; having one with invariants would make it possible to state the whole work was invariant (which in turn defeats the purpose of the GFDL). If this is the case, I think alineas 4.I and 4.J apply here.

4.I basically says it is possible to carry along all the (change) history. This would point to importing the whole page, and then modifying it. As Creol stated above, because of technical limitations we get at most 100 versions; to me this basically says that we currently cannot fulfill this clause (-> import in its current form may be very nice, but does not meet GFDL)

4.J basically states that it is possible link back to an "online version" (which has all the history, as of 4.I). This is what the {{enwp based}} template does. The problem with this is that there is no 'one place' where there is all of the history, but two: EnWP, up to the version where we created our derivative work (i.e. copied the article), and the history page of the article on this wikipedia for local changes. If another language version uses our article, we will get three steps. In other words this is not sufficient either.

I therefore want to propose a procedure (that isn't GFDL-compliant either, but at least then we do it all in the same manner):

1. Take a version from EnWP, copy it here; Edit summary Copied from EnWP (plus article-name if non-obvious/not the same)
2. Add {{Enwp based}} template to talk page (stating the exact revision)
3. go on simplifying/changing....

Even if you forget step 2, the article is attributed; it is easy to find the resp. article in EnWP. Since we don't give the exact revision, we do perhaps overattribute, but we cannot help this.

And remember: I am a techie, interested in how to do it in practice. I leave the more abstract thoughts to the lawyers. --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular difficulty with what Eptalon is proposing but I would really like to see editors not copy and paste. I don't understand the purpose of copying and pasting anything other than the briefest of stubs from en.

We are not building a competing encyclopaedia, we are building something different and you don't get something different by copying and pasting. I appreciate that many people then go on to simplify but ... why don't you simplify on en then to make it more readable there instead. So why would an editor copy instead of write?

Just because we can comply with copyright, we need to avoid plagiarism. Attribution does this in part but ... in fact this article compared with its en counterpart shows that that author hasn't copied. Sure it is a very short article but it is much better to my mind than one which would have been created by copying, pasting and simplifying.

I think we need to be clear as a community how to comply with GFDL but we should also as a community deprecate the practice of copying from en - it doesn't produce good articles. --Matilda (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matilda. In my eyes it is better to create a whole new article than to copy paste one from enwp. See here for some comments on this. Giggy (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While it would be great if editors decided to take it upon themselves to write fresh articles for Simple English Wikipedia without relying at all on corresponding English Wikipedia articles, I don't think there is anything wrong with editors choosing to use enWP articles as a basis for seWP articles. However, I suggest that editors work on articles in personal sandboxes until the articles have been fully adapted for seWP before making them live. What is undesirable is if an article is copied from enWP wholesale into the article namespace (i.e., it is made "live"), and then the editor starts simplifying it there. The simplification process can take some time, and while it is going on the article remains in a state that is unsuitable for seWP. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if an editor doesn't copy and simply relies on the English Wikipedia article, it could be considered a derivative work (linking to the en.wiki version as it is more legally precise) and need to be sourced the same as if it was simply copied. Maybe ask the Foundation lawyer, w:User:MGodwin, to comment on this? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm back

I have returned full time from my wikibreak...I did some thinking and cleared my head and am now read to go. I shall get started tomorrow morning (cause it 2am here as I'm writing this) updating Wrestling articles. Talk to y'all soon. :D--  ✧ ChristianMan16  06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/List of types of clothing

The above RfD is supposed to be closed today at around 11:00 (UTC). Since there is no consensus yet, can others participate in the RfD discussion? I'll probably leave the RfD open longer until consensus is reached. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

75% of the people who made a statement on the topic say delete.. thats pretty much a consensus. (count the originator as pro-delete since they are putting it up for deletion in the first place). -- Creol(talk) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just keeped it. --  Da Punk '95  talk  05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it maybe be turned into a template? It's a useful article, just doesn't fit the name of an 'encyclopedia' article. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)