Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 66

More editors

Hi everyone. It isn't a mistery anymore, we need more editors to maintain the project. If any of you have any ideas, please say so. Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What brings this comment on? Majorly talk 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If we had any ideas, we'd have posted them by now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows...? This is becomming impossible, and there haven't been any proposed solutions. I'm sure there are some, but what are they? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is personally. Perhaps it's our reputation as a dumping ground for banned enwiki users, the unwelcoming atmosphere, and the poor state of most of our articles (i.e. the fact most are mass-created one-line stubs)? Majorly talk 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle. Though I think our biggest problem might be our collective stubbornness, and failure to identify and address issues. For example, we harbor unproductive users, citing the fact that they "wrote lots of stubs". I'm not sure why we still have 36,000 one-line stubs, other than because "I like it". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Stubs is something that can be taken care of, if we ever get the editors. You saw yourself how much resistance I met with when I tried to have (200-odd) stubs of cities in Kentucky deleted; the stubs you are talking about are probably less hopeless- that is given the editors they can be extended beyond pure statistics. I do not want to blame anyone, because that is not productive. Is there anything we can do, (short of deleting 36.000 stubs) that will get us more people editing here, in the short run? - as to the deleting articles, be sure to read en:Nongqawuse--Eptalon (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of putting in a call for editors at the English Wikipedia? EVula // talk // 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Several months ago, I believe someone came up with an idea of adding a template onto our en.wikipedia user pages asking others to come to help out on Simple English Wikipedia. I believe it was User:Malinaccier? Anyway, if we want a chance to gain more editors, maybe we can make some type of notice then add it to our en.wikipedia user pages again... we used to have an old one somewhere, but I don't know where it is now. Thoughts anyone? — RyanCross (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If we had a singular event that we could rally behind, to justify spamming the English Wikipedia... we could probably make a good argument for including an ad on the watchlist. EVula // talk // 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a good idea EVula, my friend! Any ideas in mind, hmm? — RyanCross (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, just looking at some stats, we've got 27 GAs, 26 VGAs, and 59,052 total articles. If we wanted to really push for 30 GAs/VGAs or try to hit 60k total articles, that'd be a nice round statistic, something to rally behind. Just a thought. EVula // talk // 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page of the English Wikipedia puts Simple up top, but not too many people actually look at the toolbox. There is almost no precedent for cross-wiki promotions; the only one I can recall is the 10 milionth article across all Wikipedias (), which ranked in 40,000 hits when it was splashed on the front page of Wikipedia [1]. A major problem bogging Simple down are a clear lack of precision as to what "Simple" means, as well as a lackluster Google ranking: American Airlines Flight 11 has a #1 ranking (English) and #40 (Simple), despite both being Featured Articles. cassandra (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I give you a proposal to change name of this article to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Reason:It is, by my opinion, more proper name and watch also regular english Wikipedia.--AleksA ツ 10:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocks and bans is definitely more Simple. We are the Simple English Wikipedia, written in a simpler language than the English Wikipedia. That is why our "Watched Pages" is not the same as EN's "watchlist". If we keep is as blocks and bans, it will be easier for readers to read. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shappy. Blocks and bans is more simple. We don't have to use the same names like en. Barras (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only areas where we should be duplicating enwiki's naming scheme is for articles, templates, and sometimes categories. Project-level pages, though, need to remain Simple. EVula // talk // 15:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But, only block (blocks) is OK, because there is no bans here, but there is blocks.--AleksA ツ 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have bans. ;) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Aleksa, if you want to use the links you are familiar with from enwiki, redirects should exist - if they don't, you are free to create them as redirects. However, I agree with the others that we don't need to follow enwiki naming conventions for our policies and that the current name (Wikipedia:Blocks and bans) is better for our blocking policy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Any admin with a spare moment

Can an admin with a spare moment kindly unprotect my talkpage? I wish to return to active editing. Even though I did state an intention to leave the project, I think I would be able to able help out after taking about 3.5 months off. Thanks in advance! Maxim_(talk) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution

If there are no objections within 24 hours, I'm going to start speedy-deleting stubs under 20 words long citing QD A1. It's ridiculous to think that we have 20,000 articles in which the stub tag is longer than the content itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You can use a script to automate this process you know... Maxim_(talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that we have 20,000 stubs under 20 words, but if they are that small, they can easily be expanded using info from en.wp. It would take a long time but if the project set a goal of 2000 stubs a month, we would be finished in 10 months. It is not that hard, but it's boring. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the Romanian river stubs are the same length at enwiki. Simply put, if we can't write an encyclopedic article about them, they're not an encyclopedic topic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1, under my plan 10 editors would have to work on 7 stubs a day each to meet the goal. 2, if they exist at en.wp, then why not here? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no goal to meet. As I said, the majority of the Romanian river stubs are the same length at enwiki. These stubs are polluting the project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your point 2: We're not the English Wikipedia. We have different goals, standards, and aims. Either way (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope your script will ignore redirects. ;) Also, are you including articles such as Bonfol which have several sentences worth of information compressed into an infobox but less than 20 words in the body of the text? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That one has more than 20 words of text overall, so yes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, no objection. If there are less than 20 words in an article (including the infobox information) I seriously doubt that it would contain encyclopedic information. I suppose there may theoretically be one or two (of the 20,000) worth keeping, but.... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Either Way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the goal of this project was to provide an alternative to en.wp for non-fluent english speakers. If that is the goal, all the articles that are included in en.wp should be included here. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Either way (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading the linked policy. It could mean two things (the way I read it). This wikipedia should only have 1000 articles, or (the way I see it) this Wikipedia should not have the same content as en.wp but it should have the same articles (just in a simpler form). I think that simple is (as noted above) an alternative for use by non-fluent english speakers. Juliancolton is not deleting the articles under A4, he is deleting them under A1. Although the articles may qualify for deletion under A1 and A4, unless they qualify under A4, we should work to expand them. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A4 is entirely irrelevant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned A4 because Either Way mentioned WP:NOT, but we are getting off-topic. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think deleting 20,000 stubs will do? Clog up the deletion log. Spend a ton of server resources moving the articles from the regular table to the "deleted" table, since nothing ever is deleted from Wikipedia. Spend your time in having to delete them, if it's script-assisted that's still your time. The only tangible thing it would do is to lower the article count, which is a mostly meaningless number that does not denote quality (I think we just hit 2,500 FAs on English, up against 2.8 million articles). A1 is completely irrelevant and is not a valid justification. They have plenty of context: they're rivers in Romania. This isn't a case where you do not have a clue as what the topic is about. We know what they are. Yes, stubs are a problem. Deleting them is not the way to do it. Insist that no more 20-word stubs be created. It would be productive then to carry through by deleting them on sight to prove that you're being serious. cassandra (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

...yeah, but in case we've forgotten, we're trying to write an "encyclopedia", not a Romanian river repository. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And? We're not paper, either. There is no production cost that would be incurred by having to print these articles out. Simple can grow to however big it wants to, and only server resources are going to stop it. cassandra (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point of this entire discussion. Over 60% of our articles are one-line stubs; it's not a matter of how big the servers are, and whether or not we're written on paper. These unencyclopedic and useless pages dilute the project and flood Special:RandomPage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what deleting them would do, other than consume even more resources clog up the deletion log. They are a problem. Grandfather clause them in and nip the problem in the bud by requiring that new stubs be a paragraph in length. cassandra (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the 36,000 useless stubs. And who cares if it clogs the deletion log...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Linked at WP:RfD, since we aren't really talking about speedy deletion here, but about either a community-endorsed mass deletion or an application of WP:IAR. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I struck my comment above because I realized I'm not really sure what kind of article we are talking about. I hear "Romanian river", but if I understand the proposal, articles such as Crivaia River, Almaş River (Turia), and Armăsarul River (Ghimbăşel) would be untouched. In fact, I did about 20 Special:Randoms and only came up with one article under 20 words - the town of Weippe, Idaho in the United States. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just did 20 more Randoms and came up with two under-20 articles: Génissac and Borne, Ardèche, both towns in France. I also ran into Valea Caselor River (Homorod) (a Romanian river), Garonne river (a French river), and 12117 Meagmessina (an asteroid) but all three articles were longer than 20 words. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Yes the rivers, asteroids and communes are annoying when you hit the random page button. But apart from that I have managed to find a quite a peaceful relationship with them....they don't bother me, I don't bother them. In my opinion keeping them in their current shape is wrong but deleting is even more wrong. These stubs do not fall under A1 as they may be short, but they do have a meaning. A4 is also difficult as most of them are notable...So if someone finds a good deletion policy to delete these stubs I'm fine with that but A1 and A4 do not provide sufficiant reasons to delete 20000 stubs in my books. The life of brian (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, we aren't talking about speedy deletion anyway because a) someone objected to deletion (cassandra above) and b) we are discussing whether to do it, quick deletion being for when discussion is unnecessary. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---I like Lifeofbrian's comment, I wish I said it first:)--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If we don't bother them, we have a problem. If they don't bother anyone, we have a problem. So coexisting doesn't work on a wiki -- articles need editors. They also need people looking them up to make it worthwhile. If either condition is unsatisfied... I see no option other than tagging &action=delete to the end of the URL. —MC8 (b · t) 07:06, Tuesday May 19 2009 (UTC) (I Protest!)

Hello all. Yes we might have a few articles that are currently too short (by whatever standard you take), but I do not think that is our problem here. Our problem here is that we are between 25 and 30 regular-heavy duty editors.

In 1856, a small Xhosa girl (a then 15 year old) was given a message by strangers. She told it in her village. The Xhosa were traditional cattle farmers in South Africa. In the 1850s, much of the cattle was plagued by a disease. She told in her village, that the cattle was bewitched and must be slaughtered, and the harvest was bewitched too, and must be destroyed. The dead would then rise, and help the Xhosa in many ways, also by bringing new and better cattle. The Xhosa killed about 400.000 cattle, and destroyed the harvest. After this, the dead unfortunately did not rise. Rather, many Xhosa starved, their number dropped from 105.000 to 26.000.

Why I tell this story? - Well, our problem here is not that we have many stubs, but that we have too few editors. No matter how many stubs we delete, we will not get more editors. If on the other hand, we have more editors, we can more easily extend these stubs to something useful. We can also use those people to help us decide which ones of all the stubs have potential, and which ones can be deleted. Might I also remind you about a discussion we recently had about a bit over 200 cities in Kentucky? - The consensus was to not delete them, despite the fact that most of them are hopelessly short (X is a city in Kentucky, USA) or very small (it turns out, most of these cities have less than 3.000 people). As to the Xhosa story, the full version is at en:Nongqawuse, the name of the girl....--Eptalon (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct regarding too less editors. When someone makes an edit at en, even if he/she clicks Recent Changes immediately, the change will be about 10-12th in the list. But here, about 20-30 edits are made in an hour of which about 5 are vandalism, 5 are reverts and the rest are article building. We have too less admins as well. Yesterday, an IP vandalized a page, Acid rain. It was reported and subsequently blocked, but it made about five nonsense edits before that. We need to invite all of our interwiki friends (from en, de, fr etc.) to edit here. We must strive to retain and improve articles of significance, not start deleting them. And we must increase our number of sysops and rollbackers. We need at least 1000 active users, 75 odd admins and 100 odd rollbackers. DYK's must be updated every two days and we must strive to make this Wikipedia one of the best. Cheers, Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Be more realistic: As a first goal, we need to double or current number of editors, that is to say have 50-60 editors. --Eptalon (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes we should have many more editors. Why is it editors still think of this wikipedia as inferior? Is this wiki really the dumping ground for banned users from en: wiki? J. B. A. (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And nobody has defined what "Simple English" actually is Soup Dish (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the number of active editors which stands at 882. My estimate puts the number of registered users having performed an action in the last 30 days at 100-200 (only the good ones; not counting those constituing vandalism). We must look to improve on that. Also, yes J.B.A. makes a good point. This wiki is in no way a dumping ground for banned users at enwiki. I can make a suggestion to users at en (or any other wiki here). Why don't you add a link inviting others to join Simple in all posts at other wikis? Definitely not several to the same users but at least one to each user you interact with. Good job improving the wiki. Cheers, Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

P.S. What does Soup dish mean exactly? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEW has a section devoted to what is Simple English. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See this recent discussion Soup Dish (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello, the 25-30 editors is established as follows: 50 edits/week on average, over the last 4 weeks, named user; at least 200 edits total. Re Soup Dish: I am well aware that we cannot agree on a target group for this wikipedia; this is also not needed to determine the current number of editors, and to set a doubling of that number to 50-60 editors as a first target to reach. In many books, this Wikipedia has a negative image, but image is not something you can change in the short run.--Eptalon (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If we want to establish this Wikipedia for children, then I suggest we include only those articles suitable for children and those which they'll be able to understand. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only children use this wikipedia. I think it is used more often by foreigners (those who do not speak English as a native language). It is often used as a base to translate articles from English (simple) into other languages. Therefore, we should have as much articles here as we can, regardless of how "appropriate" they are for children. J. B. A. (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we really need to discuss this again; we did so, perhaps half a month back; At that time we could not agree on a target group for this Wikipedia (link given by Soup dish above)...--Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Point is, while this Wikipedia is intended for those whose second language is English, is this edited by them as much as those whose native language is English, or whose first language is English? And the foreigners is an important issue. Practically, many of the foreigners have English as their first language and are able to uread & understand the articles at en. (Citation: I am from India and have no problem whatsoever to read or to edit enwiki articles. Cheers, Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

My point was more: Half a month back we could not agree on the group of people to target this Wikipedia at, so what has changed since then that would make having this discussion (whom to write for) again at this time? - Had we not better look at ways of attracting more editors? - Spelling out that we write for a given audience (whatever they are) will make us lose those editors who do not agree with that decision. I do not think we can afford to lose many more editors at the moment.--Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Will try to invite new users. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"this Wikipedia is intended for those whose second language is English" - that's not true Soup Dish (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Be bold. Modify it. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Being bold does not apply to all situations. Changing focus is too radical for WP:BOLD -- it's the equivilent of going to de: and changing their pages to say that everyone now has to write in es:. Wouldn't work. —MC8 (b · t) 23:56, Tuesday May 19 2009 (UTC) (I Protest!)

Activity

Hello again. I've been convinced. Many people wanted me to stay, and more people have told me to come back. I do now feel that I can keep it separate from my work. So the question is, what do you think? Will I return to admin/crat duties? I'd prefer the communities thoughts and decisions. Thanks Kennedy (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All I will say is YES. I think you can interpret what the yes means. Hurry up, I want my userpage back!!! ;) Goblin 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back :) I haven't any problems if become an admin and 'crat without a extra vote again. Barras (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I might not be qualified to vote on this (I joined after you left), in the time that I have been here, I have noticed all the work that you put into this project, and I think that it would be a great improvement if you would come back. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we need all the help we can get. You were also a very good administrator and bureaucrat... — RyanCross (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The more the merrier. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but we'll have to put you in hand-cuffs so you don't keep leaving! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't leave us again, Kennedy! :P Let's give him his tools back. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, in whichever roles you choose. Non-controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks folks. Would someone care to do the honours? :) Kennedy (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I give another shirt? ;) Chenzw  Talk  08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chenzw! Don't worry, I still have my old one somewhere... :P Kennedy (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse giving his tools back without further discussion ( Done by Chenzw). Welcome back, Kennedy! =) American Eagle (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wilkil

I have a concern about Wilkil (talk · contribs)'s user name. It sounds like "Will kill" which I don't think is appropriate for a Wikipedia name. Additionally, I have concerns about his editing in calling me a vandal and telling me it is my job to make sure that his out of place, unreliable sources are fixed in the article where they do not belong. Any help? Either way (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Freddy. Feel free to block this banned user on sight. Majorly talk 11:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User blocked by Majorly. Page and talk page is tagged with the block message. Barras (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a confusing loop now

Hi from a new editor (although I've been on the main English Wiki for a while !)

I've been cleaning up articles that were on the list at Wikipedia:Cleanup.

Now that all the articles on this list have been sorted, the page really just provides an extra step to link to:

Pages that link to "Template:Cleanup" [2]

and

Category:Cleanup needed [3] (which also links back to Wikipedia:Cleanup !)

What should we do here ? ThisIsAce (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. I have seen we have a lot of categories such as Category:7. Do we need these kind of categories with one page in them or are they pointless? If they are, I'll go ahead and delete them. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Cats with less then 3 articles are pointless. Barras (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Majorly talk 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, sometimes there may be less than 3 items in a cat, because a new cat has been started and articles in the parent cat should have been moved into them. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would however, be careful with that, as some categories (probably even the example you use when you get to more recent years) are likely to have articles added to them and should thus not be deleted. But articles for some very specific subcat for example you probably could delete. Basically what I am saying is use some discression. -Djsasso (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some categories should be empty most of the time, so automated tools cannot be used for this. — neuro^(talk) 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another similar proposal :)

I propose to change name of article: Wikipedia:Deletion policy to Wikipedia:Deletion rules or: Wikipedia:Rules of Deletion, not sure how exactly, but have to bee more simpler, if you have better propose names, tell me.--AleksA ツ 22:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they aren't really 'rules' -- 'rules' and 'policies' don't mean the same thing, and I'd rather not jumble up language simply for the sake of simplification. If we can't think of something simpler that still retains the original meaning, I'd put in my support for the original title to be kept. — neuro^(talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is well known with this name. No need for a move. Barras (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the meaning of policy is clearly stated in the template. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:ShortPages

In Special:ShortPages, many of them are redirects. Although ShortPages is quite useful to help expand articles is there anyway to exclude all the redirects and so on? --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll review the mediawiki documentation and the mediawiki namespace, but I'm pretty sure it'd take a change in code from the developers. It's a pretty good idea though; ignore all pages with REDIRECT# in the lead! :-) fr33kman ^talk 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This should do the trick. --Chris 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to us!

You know, we often get down on ourselves here at simple about the state of the site, the mission parameters, the goals we have/have not/should have achieved. But I'd like to congratulate all beneficial editors (named, anons and admins) who have helped us get to where we are now. I remember back to the old days of enWP and man did we have teething pains over there! But, it has to be remembered that enWP has thousands upon thousands of editors, and into the seven digit figures of registered users (not counting anons) and I think that in our own way we hold our own for relevance and quality. Sure we don't have articles for everything and many of our articles are stubs, but let's (please) give ourselves a break; we only have a couple of dozen editors and it's never really gone above that figure. Yet, here we are, 5 years or so later and we are still alive, still going pretty strong and to boot, we are a much nicer place to hang out at than many other WMF sites!

So, can we all take a moment after reading this and pat ourselves on the back and realise just WHAT has been acomplished? We've survived multiple closure attempts and we are ALL still contributing to simple in our own little ways and we continue to have more articles and to grow faster than many wikis based upon national languages.

fr33kman ^talk 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

...just WHAT has been accomplished if you don't mind me asking? The basic thing we seem to have accomplished in what you've said is that we didn't get shut down several times... Either way (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have articles about every stream in Romania and every rock in space, so that's quite the accomplishment. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We have simpler articles on many subjects; social sciences, historical, sciences etc. We get used by schools and we get used by people with limited language skills. Sure they don't always fit what we'd like to see out of them, but we are still alive and we are still trying. Both of you responses makes me wonder if those are your opinions, why do you remain? If I felt that way, I'd leave! Think about that for a moment, why are you here then? If you are truly despairing of what has been accomplished then perhaps you should be voting for a closure?? You both seem to indicate that nothing good has come from this project; pretty poor opinion for two admins! fr33kman ^talk 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is in a terrible state in my opinion; but it would be hypocritical if we left without trying to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not in a terrible state frankly. It's growing and people fix it all the time. Some people come and some people go; admins who are critical of editors who try to help (and we all know you're talking about Razorflame, JC) do more harm than good; and YOU know it! An editor who makes a single useful edit in a month is still an asset to the project, as is an editor who makes a single useful edit in a year. fr33kman ^talk 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment wasn't directed at anybody. This projects needs to identify and address its issues, which it has yet to do. Just because we've dodged a proposed closure doesn't mean we're out of the woods. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. I was asking for clarification of your statements because your argument seems to be that we're great because we haven't been shut down. Either way (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said we were great; we're okay, that's all! A close reading of my comments would allow you to understand that it is not that we remain, but that we grow and we continue to attract new editors. Sure we grow (in our goals) slowly, but so what? We grow none-the-less. I've noticed a marked problem with drama on this site and much of it stems from admins and editors who feel that the site should be a certain way (their way) and no other; perhaps the issue is with them, rather than the natural evolution of the site. Many great editors and admins have simply left due to this type of attitude! fr33kman ^talk 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues...

Hello all, and indeed congratulations so far. Here are those issues I see (my opinion, you are free to disagree). I have ranked the issues, most important first.

1. This project depends too much on certain people contributing. The only way out of this I see is to have/get more editors.
2. We need to work more on building a community. Our community processes (DYK, GA, VGA) are centered too much around one editor. We cannot do much about this in the case of DYK. Getting an article to GA or VGA is however still seen as a pet project of one (or a few) editors.
3. VGAs (or their equivalent) are specially marked in other Wikipedias. Getting a few well-selected (don't ask me which) articles to VGA might attract new editors.
4. We need to think about collaborating with certain EnWP Wikiprojects. Editors that are part of an EnWP Wikiproject may be able to help us improve an article on simple, if it touches the subject area of their wikiproject. Since they volunteered, they may even be interested in that particular subject field.
5. We need to be stricter about what to include. A stub should at least give a basic idea about the subject. Stein, Appenzell has about 1.200 inhabitants, a church from the 18th century, and a place where people are shown how cheese is made. The centre of the village is authentic, with little modification. Please go and look it up in Google Maps (search for Stein AR). I think it is probably not notable, but I am European, a village with an 18th century church is not notable, most of the time - For US citizens this might be different. Several of them live in places where the historical town centre is 100 years old, if that. Werdenberg (55-60 people), probably one of the smallest places with town privileges in Europe, may be another case, though. Note: this is not about deleting old stubs, this is about creating new ones.

Thats about all I can think of, at the moment. --Eptalon (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something. Stein can be reached on foot, from St.Gallen. Its about half an hour's walk. Just outside St.Gallen, there is a ravine, with a river (called Sitter) inside. A bridge was built over this ravine, in 1935. Originally, the idea was to link Stein to St.Gallen, that way. This bridge is 99m high, and 335m long. After it was built, many problems (among other, stability issues) became apparent. The people call this bridge Ganggelibrugg (which translates to swaying bridge). This comes from the fact that a few people marching over the bridge can cause it to start resonating/swaying. Anyway, this bridge is the highest pedestrian walkway of Europe, as cars are forbidden to circulate because of the problems mentioned. For a long time, this bridge used to be the most popular choice in Switzerland for people committing suicide. Anyway, I am probably ranting here. --Eptalon (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with these points. It is one thing finding these points, but the most important thing is finding a solution and until anyone does, or goes and asks at en for some help, this won't work. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one of our issues is that we spend a lot of time talking about our issues. Maybe we just need to all go on self-imposed topic bans and focus on only articles for one entire day to see what comes of it :-P Either way (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How about 'not self-imposed ones' (or imposed :p) Then it would really work :D Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm mildly confused by the concept of GA/VGA being a "pet process" of one (or a few) editor(s): Bloc Party by Garden, Tropical Storm Barry (2007) by Julian, Crich Tramway Village by Bluegoblin7, Romania & Charles Spurgeon by Razorflame, Gothic architecture by Eptalon, Powderfinger by Giggy... seems to be quite varied to me. And sure, some of us put more effort into reviews and put more articles up for nomination, but a "pet process" and a process "centred around one editor"? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The subjects I am interested in do not even have an article here. This is why I, and many other enwp editors find it difficult to edit around here. I only work on DYK here, which, despite its flaws, is fine here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what Eptalon means is that each article is a pet project for one author. Either way (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No different from en.wiki. I have occasionally worked with one other editor to get an article featured, but generally it's a work from the heart of one person. Can't see this changing, people won't write about something they're not bothered about. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To cite an example, I put up Abortion and Ten Commandments as candidates for GA, but I found out that for both articles I was pretty much the only one editing them. The GA/VGA process as I understand it should be more like Look I found an article that can be improved to the given standard with relatively little effort, yet when you look at what is done, you will find that the articles proposed are mostly edited by the people proposing them. This is contrary to what I think the GA/VGA process should be like: Ideally, it should be the community improving those articles, not 3-5 editors at best. To take the example above: I had to abandon both articles because the support from within the community was not sufficient. And if you look at the process as a whole, you will see that most candidates are written/improved/commented by between 5 and 10 editors. --Eptalon (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I nominated India yesterday with just one edit to it. Perhaps you can propose this again. Also, you can take a look here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We clearly only have between 5 and 10 regular editors interested in getting articles improved to this standard at any one time. Beyond fixing your point #1, that won't change. You must have seen folks here saying "well, I'm okay making up stubs, but that's as far as I feel I can go". And quite possibly the 5-10 who were around when you nominated Abortion and Ten commandments simply were not interested in those articles. Your view of the GA/VGA process is somewhat idealistic. This is not how it works at en wiki, why should you think it would work here with considerably fewer contributors, and contributors who confess to not being interested in these processes? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Why this quick update of the main page DYK? My article has only been on there for a day, while others were on there for 10 to 7 days! We cannot update daily on such a small wiki. It wouldn't work - is this some kind of expiriment? Mighty Wodan (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's my fault... apparently when I was away, the rules for DYK changed to weekly updates. I'll be happy to revert back though. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do so. Updating daily is not something we are ready for here on such a small wikipedia, and I want my article and the others to stay on the main page as long as any article so that it can be watched as much and be edited as much. It will only be for the better. Will you move it back now? Mighty Wodan (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:RyanCross#DYK. And it will work, just give it a try. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — RyanCross (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want my article to stay on the main page as long as any other article used to be (which would be a week). I think we are not ready to update very frequently and I think that if the articles stay on the main page so short they will not receive the attention they would otherwise have. If articles are on the main page for a week, people will edit them, expand them, and they can then be brought to GA more easily. My article, aswell as the others, do not have that oppurtunity now. Mighty Wodan (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"as long as any other article used to be" So you mean a day? Because that's how it used to be. The use of the week's time is a recent thing based only on need, not desire. Need meaning we didn't even have enough to update every week at times. Now that we do, why should we stop it from updating? Either way (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for your comment that "if they're on there a week, they'll get edited"...Of this set of DYK hooks (which were up for 10 days), none of them received attention in terms of editing that they would not have received otherwise. In fact, an argument may be made that it was harmful to some of the articles. Ant had 4 edits (2 vandal edits and 2 reverts of those edits). Mars had 2 edits (1 vandal edit and 1 revert of that vandal edit). Hurricane Ismael had 6 edits (1 vandal edit, 1 revert, 4 by established users--but during this time it was up for GA consideration, so those four are from that process). Italy had 5 edits (2 vandal edits, 2 reverts, and 1 bot adding an interwiki link). Islam had 9 edits (2 vandalisms, 2 reverts, and several edits to a paragraph that was removed...only one "good" edit remained of those 9). So there really was no major benefit to being on the main page. In fact, you can say that being there led to more vandalism in the articles. Either way (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I said, Either way. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Domain-stub

I propose to create a new template stub for internet domains - {{Domain-stub}}. Are you agree?--AleksA ツ 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new stubs go here. Either way (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I have concerns that the word "notability" is too complex for simple Wikipedia. I think we need to replace the word, especially in our dropdown reasons for deletion. Currently the dropdown reason for deletion is "The article does not show notability." I propose that it should be changed to something else such as "the article does not show why the subject is ___________." I originally thought "important" should go in that blank, but our guidelines say that notability is not the same as importance. Any ideas/suggestions on what we can change it to? Either way (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe something about "not well known enough to be included"? Just my $0.02. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "not well known enough to be included" is sufficiently Simple. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Well known" doesn't necessarily equate to being notable, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How about linking it to Wikipedia:Notability. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in context I think it would work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the rule: "If an article has an article on en:wiki, or any other wiki, it can have an article here aswell." Mighty Wodan (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point of this discussion. We're talking about wording here. Either way (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This argument also implies, by reverse reasoning, that if an article exists here (and is notable) but does not exist at en: then it should be deleted here; poor reasoning. fr33kman ^talk 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your "reverse reasoning" commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As you guys mentioned already. Something like: "not known enough"... — This unsigned comment was added by Mighty Wodan (talk • changes).

Notability != how well known sth is. — neuro^(talk) 19:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly! How about simply using the dictionary definition (either inline or instead of)? Something like "worthy of notice by the reader"? fr33kman ^talk 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"The content of this article is not important" is too simple?

--M7 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notability does not equal to how "well known" something is. Misunderstanding of notability (and WP:RS) has been one of Simple English Wikipedia's biggest flaws. I strongly oppose renaming it to anything. Read en:Wikipedia:Notability, it is what it is. American Eagle (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Some people are completely missing the point here. It's not about changing the principle of notability, but a proposal about the wording. Now, if you oppose a change to the wording, that's okay. But opposing on the grounds that well-known != notability is irrelevant. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, the word is explained very well in the template headers. It is fine, and I am opposed to changing it. Why not also propose a simpler word for "Wikipedia", as that can be hard to understand? We don't need to oversimplify. "Wikipedia" is Wikipedia, "policy" is policy, and "notability" is notability. American Eagle (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is comparing apples and oranges. Wikipedia is a proper noun and as such can't be simplified because its a name. -Djsasso (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah... I was trying to make a point. That is, there isn't a need to simplify it. I wasn't saying they are the same thing, I was using the same principle. But it's fine. I gave my view. =) American Eagle (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency with profanity articles

Yeah yeah, "hilarious" topic.

Articles pertaining to profanity seem to be inconsistent. Fuck redirects to profanity, as there is already a detail definition of the word meaning of the profanity page, yet shit is a page on its own, even though the word "shit" itself is already describe on the profanity page. Should all swear words redirect to the profanity article or should swear words have articles on their own?

I'm not sure if I should take a community vote or if an admin will decide. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content issue; therefore it's a community issue. Admins don't have a more valid opinion on content issues than any other editor here. Admins only have extra responsibilities (given to us by the community) regarding the running of the technical aspects of the site and things like behavior of editors etc. With content issues your opinion is as valid as any admin's or even Jimbo Wales' opinion is. A vote is not the way forward, however. Seeking the communities' consensus on content is normally the way to move forward with an issue such as this. In this instance, I'd say that you could be bold and simply redirect shit to profanity. If another editor disagrees they can undo it and that would then be your cue to seek consensus. Hope this helps! fr33kman ^talk 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a problem; there's an article on shit because someone wrote one, and there isn't an article on fuck because someone hasn't. I've undone the redirecting of shit to profanity, as there's really no reason to do so aside from the knee-jerk reaction of "oh noes, it's profanity!", which isn't a particularly valid reason.
To answer the question: I think swear words could be redirected to profanity if they don't have articles otherwise; once they do, though, there's no reason to redirect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Import

I recently imported Template:ThamesCrossings with an auto-import of the templates it uses. I checked my import first, and thought it would only also import Template:Crossings navbox and I did not realize that that would also include Template:Navbox. It imported 39 revisions with Template:Navbox that I rollbacked but can someone in the know please check Template:Navbox to ensure that it is the way seWP wants it? Thanks! (I think I'll import one-at-a-time from now on) Cheers! fr33kman ^talk 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with Template:Navbar? I've noticed redlinks appearing on SPL etc but the template doesn't seem to have a history? — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they're different templates; but I've fixed {{Navbar}} for you. Check SPL to see what it's supposed to do. :) fr33kman ^talk 10:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah great, danke schone! — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Bitte! fr33kman ^talk 10:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Random link of the day

http://againbutslower.com/ - thought you'd be interested. Lots of publicity in the Twitterverse. —MC8 (b · t) 14:18, Tuesday May 26 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy)

Interesting; of course if it's got lots of hits in Twitter, we can expect a flood of new vandals users coming over. Still, it's nice to know that we're gaining a following out there. fr33kman ^talk 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero tolerance policy

I'd like to get some discussion going about implementing a zero tolerance policy regarding users who make edits to seWP that contain homophobic, racist or other similar language or attitudes in articles or towards other users. In reviewing recent contributions, I was shocked to see a named user utter vicious homophobic comments to another user here, be blocked and then have it lifted. Cyber-bullying is now a federal criminal offense in the USA, and I believe it is also an offense in most, if not all, the EU; it certainly is in the UK. Any form of utterance of racist or homophobic comments are also criminal offenses in most of the EU; the UK certainly. I notice that many anons (and some named editors) have used such comments. I think a zero tolerance policy of immediately blocking such users on sight. I tend to block an anon much quicker and with far fewer warnings if I see them use such language in their editing; it is something I find highly disgusting! I've blocked some anons for a first offense in the past. We need to discuss time-limits for the block, but I think we should consider making this an official seWP policy. Obviously we'd need to hash out the full details. (btw: admins already have the "right" to block any user, even for a first offense, for rule breaking at their discretion, I'd just like to formalize the process a bit.) fr33kman ^talk 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It is dependent on the kind of vandalism how many warnings I give the anons before I block them. If the vandalism is really bad (offences, 3 times blanking a page, etc) so they get a block without warning. I think this is an admin decision. Our blocking policy says that admins can block users without or with only a few warnings. And if users create copyvios and so they should get a 72 h block. So they have enough time to read our policies and guidlines. If they do it after this again, so they get an indef block. That is how I work. Rassism, Nazism and such cases are blocked very fast by me without warning. I don't need a policy to do it so. If someone have a problem with how and why I do it so, so they can talk to me on my talk page. Regards, Barras (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• It really depends on the intensity of the vandalism. If it is horribly bad (such as those above), it would be good to give a {{uw-vandalism4im}} before blocking. That's why that particular template exists anyway. Chenzw  Talk  12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If someone is really hard offence to me (in aticles or on my talk page) so they get a block without warning. A temp block isn't the end of the world. Barras (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I see a link to the discussions or a diff for the homophobic slurs here? I don't remember anything as such... — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is one such incident involving a named editor (this is the incident I was referring to above). I can find additional diffs that anons have made into articles such as "X is fag and does Z to Y" and the like. I feel that we should take a hard line against hate speech; even if done by a school kid anon and even if done as a laugh (in their opinion). I personally am in favour of blocking anyone I see doing such things. fr33kman ^talk 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please note: the above diff actually involves a criminal offense taking place; ie: cyber-bullying fr33kman ^talk 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And you say we can't handle such situations with WP:NPA? --Eptalon (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not at all; just that we need to take a harder line. The new laws also put a legal onus on the website and its administrators (ie: us). We have an obligation to act. fr33kman ^talk 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why don't we just block that user indef? He/she has done little/no productive work whatsoever and has been blocked twice already. No need for them to keep wasting our time. Majorly talk 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 100% endorse! That diff alone is enough for me! fr33kman ^talk 13:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with an indef block. Barras (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented the block, indef. fr33kman ^talk 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a discussion; I consider truly abusive editors as being pretty solidly under the RBI banner. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my thinking was aimed not just at named editors; but also at school-kids and others who edit as anons and edit articles (and other pages) with comments of a homophobic, racist or other hate nature. I think they should receive a block for a first offense (obviously just 24/31 hours or so) but a block, no warnings, no discussion; blocked! I'm also an admin for wiki.answers.com and the legal pressure to act is getting greater all the time. I'm trying to encourage admins to react harshly to such incidents. fr33kman ^talk 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree actually. Any instances of racism/homophobic/sectarian etc actions and I would agree with an immediate indef block. They can then request unblock and can explain their actions then. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) (usual disclaimers: a) my opinion, free to disagree; b) longer) Hello all, I though a little about this, and here is a longer reply to the statements above.

• Homosexuality can have many different shades and distinctions; it is not about someone being straight or being gay. Depending on what is defined as gay between two and about twenty-five percent of the population of different states are gay - If they express this at all, and how is another matter. Note also that in Western Europe most states have adapted and offer some kind of same-sex unions; whether this is called marriage or has another name is mainly a question of naming -the Netherlands changed their laws, so that both kinds of unions, same-sex and different-sex are now called marriage.

I'm not sure what you are saying here? fr33kman ^talk 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality is probably a matter of definition, we are talking about shades of grey, not black and white - It can also depend on the situation, certain people see certain situations as homosexual behaviour, others don't. The people I am talking about below do not take this into account, for them you are either homosexual, or you aren't - black and white vs. shades of grey, so to say. Also note, that in most parts of the world social norms have changed. People are openly talking about certain aspects of life which they would not have 30 to 50 years ago. --Eptalon (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree; but definitions don't matter for our purposes. If a person blanks a page and replaces it with "Gay people should be arrested!" That is hate speech; it doesn't matter what they mean by the word "gay". fr33kman ^talk 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the abuses I have seen in that respect were of the kind XYZ is a <add bad words of choice here> (commonly related to sex). Most of these come from IPs. Very probably they are written by teenagers who discover their own sexuality. In the view of the teenager, a relationship that involves both sexes is the norm, one that involves only one sex is abnormal or bad. So in the view of the offender if they write XYZ is gay they are doing something very bad, perhaps tabooised (because it is about sex, and things about sex are often tabooised). They are doing this because they feel brave, but also because they want to get noticed (much like vandals: all they want is attention). With that in mind, we should give them as little attention as possible; that is: block (for a day, add more for repeat offenders, but do not block IPs for too long, as they may change), perhaps warn, and move on.

I agree that we should not fulfill their need for attention; that's why I'm an advocate of revert, block and ignore. An editor who is blocked can always ask why, and it can be explained to them at that time. Named users perhaps should be blocked first and then receive an explanation/warning (if they are to be unblocked later). fr33kman ^talk 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of a named user, I think the procedure is likely very similar, but I would spend more time warning, and discussion on the user's talk page - make sure they understand why they have been blocked.
• Another case, which I personally have not seen on this Wikipedia yet is the user who persistently attacks another, well-targeted user, not just I want attention, I saw you in the RC log, and I picked you.

In my opinion we do not need a policy or guideline beyond what we have (that is WP:NPA), we need admins that act in a sensible way.

I wouldn't warn a named user (or any user) who used hate language on seWP before blocking them; I'd block and then explain if I felt it's needed. fr33kman ^talk 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A final note: If those users actually strike a point about you where you must say it might actually be true, then it is probably time for you to leave - you have left too much personal info on this site. This project is about building am encyclopedia; it is not a social networking site where the drama is more important than our purpose.--Eptalon (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not usually about an abusive editor who is picking on a named user; it's more often about a vandal who uses hate language in their vandalism. They should be blocked rather than warned (unlike "normal" vandals who should be warned prior to blocking). fr33kman ^talk 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Example

A good case-in-point to illustrate this issue just came about. This person is a prime example of a person who should be blocked on the first noticed edit and without warning them. In this case it was a mixture of hate speech; and further in this case, the sheer volume of vandalism would warrant a block without warning any way. But, I'd argue that they should (indeed must) be blocked on the first edit they did. fr33kman ^talk 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the problem? If you think the IP should be blocked after one edit without a warning, so do it. I don't have any problems wih this. Be bold. Barras (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do; I'm just suggesting that we all consider making a practice of doing this in cases of hate speech. fr33kman ^talk 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

piedude I'm

Can any one send stuff to my user talk page im bored Piedude (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Per don't feed trolls: Most users have better thinks to do. Don't spam simple talk with such nonsens. Thanks Barras (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barras, please done imply that our users are tolls. However, I do agree: Piedude, please don't ask for stuff to do; there's plenty to do! EhJJ^TALK 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done [4] EhJJ^TALK 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought first to remove the section and send stuff (a warning) to the user. If I would do it so, ST would be very big. Such comments here, because there is someone bored is trolling. It's just my opinion. And btw, I found on de a wikipedia page with this comment Don't feed trolls and I don't say User x you're a troll. Next time I remove such comments without any comment. Barras (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I don't care if you delete it, im done now Piedude (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea...

This is a very good idea. Although we are a little short on active, experienced users, this project could help us with getting long-term contributors to Simple. Would anyone object if I moved this to my userspace and removed some inactive users? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Adopting an eager and good user is pretty easy; recruiting them can be hard, however. The only ways I can think of of getting a large number of new users is an ad campaign on enWP (not sure if it's allowed) or getting some serious press coverage (perhaps by running an event of some kind and sending out press releases). Of course, large numbers of new users means more vandals and problem users also. We do need to do something to up the numbers. btw: Go ahead and move the page itno your userspace, no objections here. :-) fr33kman ^talk 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done All users are hereby invited to sign up to be an adopter! :D Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the above link to the new page in your userspace; this avoids there seeming to be two seperate projects on the go. If LB22 becomes active again it can be undone if needed. fr33kman ^talk 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I change my username?!

As the title says, how can I change my name in Simple English Wikipedia ?!. The reason is that I want to link it to my other Wikipedia accounts :). Moho (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Place a note at WP:CHU, then wait for a friendly bureaucrat to deal with your request. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but I don't know what is the code I should write to make the request :( ?!. Moho (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be some examples of previous requests there. Otherwise, don't stress too much and leave a message there which just explains which name you'd like and make sure you sign it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot buddy :). I've done it the old fashioned way :D !!. Thank you so much. Moho (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted help

Please help me to fix article Sakhalin, in infobox it shows unwanted sign: ,,[[image: |250px]]", please help me, because I don't know how to remove it. Thanks in advance, --79.101.68.26 (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done The template needed to be changed with some fairly complicated syntax to better match the one on the English Wikipedia. The change was: [5] EhJJ^TALK 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New idea

See page: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Not registered users personal page quick deletion. --79.101.68.26 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Destub of the week?

What about instead, or in addition to the translation of the week, we de-stub a vital article per week. For example, Salvador Dali is an FA at en.wiki, a vital article, yet a one-line stub at simple. Maxim_(talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a bad idea. Probably not take more than two hours to expand a stub to WP:MOS standards with proper WP:RS for WP:V. I could see it helping. fr33kman ^talk 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Some other ideas at User:Maxim#Vital_articles_needing_expansion_big-time. Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Hello. As you will know, we get a lot of vandalism from schools. Currently we act the same as with regular vandals. BUT we have a School portal. As we are (jointly) aimed at children, I would like to ask everyone to have a look at Wikipedia:Schools and see if we can make it easier to read, and perhaps more aesthetically pleasing (graphics/colours) to get kids to read it. I'd like to know if anyone has any other comments on these? Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first icon (File:Nuvola apps gaim.png) strikes me as an odd choice, but I'd like to see more topical icons in the Subjects section. Putting the content of the Help section into two columns would help kill some excess whitespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Flood of new accounts

Bots, anyone? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or seWP was mentioned on some website again. Let's see what a CU says. Chenzw  Talk  05:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bot & cross-wiki. Hand it off to your CUs (& they should share on checkuser-l) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, looks like we're talking about different patterns. The current account creations don't seem to match the pattern I was referring to. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

I've been thinking for a while about this. We do have 3 checkusers here, but no oversight. Although there would not be constant need, there is very much potential for privacy being violated here on Simple. Having a couple trusted oversighters would be very nice. A few I can name off the top of my head as potential candidates are EVula (talk · contribs) (who has it at EN), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and Eptalon (talk · contribs). Thoughts? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some editors who don't have lots of responsibilities already would be better, to spread the workload (assuming there is any work, which I don't think there is). Eptalon and TRM are already bcrats and CUs (and admins). Majorly talk 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MC8? (If he stays active.) (Which I hope he does.) I am unsure of anyone else I would trust (if not admin/CU/crat) with OS. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think MC8 is old enough, and as much as I ♥ MC8 too, I think it would be better that the oversighters were admins. Majorly talk 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that until we have need of it locally (say twice a month or so) it would be better to simply make an oversight request of a steward. fr33kman ^talk 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not? Ah well. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think just using a steward is fine, but have a local OS is not going to hurt imo... Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It won't hurt at all! We would need to have the old 25-30 users approving (always a dodgy number to find here), and we (admins) can delete a specific revision so that only we can see it. I think the admin community is trustworthy enough (and small enough) for oversight not to be needed except in very worrying circumstances. fr33kman ^talk 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably don't need it. I would also only want it on someone who isn't already a crat or cu if we did go that way. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather oversighters be local, meaning no steward involvement. I'd also believe that its best we restrict this to admins only, and spread it around as to not put too many tools too few people. If we eventually decide to elect users, I'd probably put my name up for consideration. Synergy 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we elect an oversight, we'll need to elect two. Per meta: "On any wiki, there must be at least two local oversighters, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. If only one oversighter is left on a wiki (usually when the other retires or is removed), the community must appoint a new oversighter immediately or remove the remaining oversighter."^[6] EhJJ^TALK 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a bad idea. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to have local folk than always running to a steward. I'm not sure that there would be that much need for oversight, but at the same time, I could buy a "better to have them and not need them" argument.
If we did opt for local oversighters, I'd be willing to put my name in the hat.
Also, I believe being a sysop is a de facto requirement for having Oversight rights (though any candidates would also have to identify themselves to the Foundation; that is an absolute requirement). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought also about this tool. But I'll oppose the users who are CU and/or 'crat here on simple. Because they have enough to do. If we elect people to have this tool then people who aren't 'crat/CU. To many power in the hand of one people isn't good. If necessary and if I am trusted I would be a volunteer for this tools, because I think this isn't a lot of work. Only some cases in several months. I hope we can elect at least two oversights here on simple. It is better to have a local users rather then asking stewards who aren't familar with this wiki. Regards, Barras (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I am of age as well so I could do it as well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested, too, but I don't think I've been around long enough (and actively enough) to be a first choice. There are a few admins on here who would be good choices. Should we have a poll to decide who should run, or wait for someone to be bold and nominate two or three? EhJJ^TALK 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait and be bold. We need to have three to four candidates, as only having two is not a good idea. If one passes, and the other fails, we still only have one oversighter, and thats not enough. We need volunteers who are interesting in running. Currently, there is me and Barras who have a request on hold, and I am about to write one up for another admin. But I'd like there to be more people running at the same time, to allow us the opportunity for the community as a whole to make their decision while agreeing on at least 2 to fulfill the meta requirement. Synergy 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to keep an eye on RC ;) EhJJ^TALK 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are four actual candidate pages now (my own being the fourth). Synergy made the tweak to the RfA page (which ECed me, grr :P), and I made the Request for Oversightship redirect so that the subpages behave just like RfA and RfB subpages... are we good to go now? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why crats/cu cant do it. I'd throw my name in there if required. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because of too much power in the hands of too few. But thats just my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a minimum age required, of 18 years old, or I may be mistaken. I don't mind doing if not, but I think the limit exists. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an 18-year old age minimum for CheckUser and oversight. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec] There is an age requirement, and all Oversighters need to be identified with the Foundation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I'd like you to all ask the other people before nominating them as if they aren't 18 it's a bit silly. I also think this is going very fast, all creating millions of RFO-ships, can we have some kind of example they'd be used in, because what's the point if they don't do anything? Flag collecting? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. All the "throwing the hats into the ring" is fine but (1) what will these candidates do? (2) what makes them any better those standing alongside them? Since we don't have questions at RFX, this will simply become a popularity contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just Oppose - No need for them. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly valid, in my opinion. I think it'd be nicer to have local oversighters, but not the end of the world if it doesn't happen. I think we could safely axe the entire "RfOS" system (for lack of a better phrase) if all the candidates fail, as it'd be indicative of a lack of community consensus for local oversighters. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same. I opted to do this to provide us with a reference point only. Although I do find opposes based on process a little less helpful when not voting is a sign of opposing the process in this case. Opposes in fact, should be critiquing the candidate, and not the process. :) Synergy 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was accused on IRC of being part of an "oppose cabal" and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, of which I (and others) are doing neither, so I recommend that people brush up their knowledge of what a cabal is and what WP:POINT means before calling anyone either. — neuro^(talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just showing your "'I'm not part of a cabal' Cabal" colors! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a part of the I'm not a part of the cabal cabal. — neuro^(talk) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

...you just blew my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that we have User:M7 who is a steward & admin here. I don't really think we need oversighters here. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is one person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not putting him up for candidacy. I am pointing out that we have a steward here at SimpleWP who can oversight edits if needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole point of having local oversighters is that we wouldn't have to go to the stewards. Obviously, it isn't going anywhere so we'll still be doing that, but that has more to do with a lack of oversightable edits (which we should definitely be happy about) than because we've got a local steward. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we truely lack oversightable edits or if people just don't take them to stewards to oversite because of the red tape... -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just close all the rfos because the opposes are all pilling on, and they won't pass. Pointless. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that'd be the best for now. I think the opposes are only due to lack of community discussion on the idea.fr33kman ^talk 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its amusing that people think we discuss things too much here, but then oppose cause things weren't discussed enough... -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps? I don't know, I've personally never thought we discuss things too much here; perhaps not enough at times. fr33kman ^talk 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, have never seen an edit that needed oversighting on seWP. Admins already have the ability to delete specific edits, thus removing them from public view. fr33kman ^talk 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight is for stuff that should be gone gone, such as personally identifying information, libel, or severe copyright violations. In such cases, merely selectively deleting the diffs isn't enough (though that we don't have much need is certainly a valid argument). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Short of developer action, nothing removes data from the database forever. Oversighted edits are still viewable and restorable by those with the oversight bit. It's only really useful to suppress log entries. fr33kman ^talk 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not to 100% sure, but I think our current oversight tool can't restore oversighted stuff. The newer version (in develop) can do it, but isn't enabled at the moment. Best Barras (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, oversight (real oversight) is a one-way trip. Usually, when we talk about oversight on enwiki, we're actually talking about suppression. Still, it's a severe limiting of access to sensitive information; that's why there's the age requirement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, oversight is better then deleting. That is a better way and only a very few people can see personal, etc. information and not all admins. Barras (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is not only the reason to hide article version. I remember that there were some accounts created by a vandal IP, which were related to Razorflame. They are renamed I think. So there is an entry in the rename log. Oversighters can not only hide article version they also can hide usernames. This is better then rename users.

The other thing I don't understand: I read here somewhere that we spend our time only in discussions rather then working on other stuff. The opposer reasons are mostly (simplified): not enough discussion about this tool. Do we need for all new improvements a 100 kb discussion? I think no. I understand when an user say I am not long enough here or an admin here. That is a reason. Not enough discussion is a stupid reason to oppose an RfO or any other Rfx's in my opinion. And as mentioned above: M7 can do oversight stuff on simple. I disagree. Stewards shouldn't use their tool on projects where they are active. Just my thoughts. Barras (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not enough discussion is a stupid reason to oppose an RfO" You know Barras, I actually find that statement offensive. fr33kman ^talk 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that stewards are bound by the "don't be a steward on your home projects" rule when it comes to oversight, by virtue of the fact that content that is oversight-able needs to be addressed quickly and efficiently, regardless of who by (versus userright changes, which are decidedly non-critical except when dealing with a rogue sysop account). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just for historical reference, there was a previous discussion cited here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think this should be stopped to prevent further ado and discussed until there's a consensus that such a process could survive without being mechanically driven, doomed from the beginning. -- Mentifisto 01:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)