Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Using your same user name throughout Wikipedia[change | change source]

I use the same Wikipedia user name throughout Wikipedia, e.g. for Dutch, English, German pages. Now i tried to make an account with the same user name for the Simple English Wikipedia and it says it conflicts with a user name that is used on another Wiki. Can this policy be changed?

Best regards,

Han

If you own the SUL for that name and login on one of those wikis and come to this page, an account should be created automatically for you. If one isn't then that means someone else owns the global account for that nickname. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't even know that a SUL (Single User Login) for one user name on all Wikipedia projects existed. I merged my accounts and it worked like a charm. Didn't even know I had already five different accounts. Glad the Single User Login is default now for all new accounts made.

Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Han

Jgamleus (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits on South Pole[change | change source]

An editor, User:Alex.panther87, has been adding problem information to South Pole. The paragraph added is:

  • Not all correct -- it states that years go by without sunrises or sunsets at the south pole
  • Not understandable -- there is one incomplete sentence and another sentence that doesn't make sense
  • Not really about the south pole anyway -- most of it is general info about Antarctica, the midnight sun phenomenon, and the Arctic and Antarctic circles

That last item is why I didn't try to fix the text -- IMO, it doesn't really fit very well into the article. I tried leaving a message about it on the editor's talk page, but that didn't seem to have any effect so I ended up leaving an actual warning. Could someone else watch the article for a bit so that it isn't just me trying to fix this? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll put the page on my watchlist, and I'll watch for that username and article in #cvn-simplewikis. :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 10:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

heart attack vs myocardial infarction[change | change source]

I think the term myocardial infarction might be technical for some readers. Couldn't you replace the term with heart attack so the article can be less technical? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved it over. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved it back. If you think it should be changed, please have a wider discussion first. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
People use heart attack to talk about more than one thing. There are health problems that cause the heart to stop in other ways. People call these problems "heart attacks". But, people only say myocardial infarction when they mean this particular heart-stopping problem.
This is why editors might choose the complicated name. However, the simpler name is easier to read. (I don't care which name is used.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to make "heart attack" a disambiguation page. Many people call a "myocardial infarction" an "MI." Would it be better to use that name? StevenJ81 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The primary meaning of "heart attack" is myocardial infarction, so "heart attack" should redirect there. We could have Heart attack (disambiguation) if we have other meanings for it. If you're suggesting we use the term "MI" instead of "myocardial infarction", that can be done in individual articles (after using the full term once), but it shouldn't be the page name: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations for the guideline on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, just FYI, the heart doesn't necessarily stop during an MI. That is cardiac arrest, a separate thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and that was one reason why I think "heart attack" is a better term for us, because it is not really ambiguous. Whereas an infarct, medically speaking, is a small area of dead tissue caused by an inadequate blood supply. But "myocardial infarction" is so much more impressive! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Mac, I'm not following your thinking here. Why does the heart not necessarily stopping during an MI make "heart attack" a better article title? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Time to reevaluate DYK?[change | change source]

The DYK template on the front page hasn't been updated in 2 months now. There are 3 hooks in the queue right now, and none have been added to the queue since January 15. The DYK process has been going through a lot of long lulls, and I think it might be time to think if it's worth keeping as part of our front page. Only (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally really like DYK and don't know what to put in replace of that. I think it's worth keeping if a few editors can get back actively into it. There's no real harm of updating the DYK template every 1-2 months. Eurodyne (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We have been here before. The one thing we don't want on the front page is poorly organised DYKs, with language problems and/or inadequate sources. Therefore the system depends on having at least one experienced and competent editor to supervise it. Over the last year or so Goblin has done the supervising, and it has done well. Things happen in real life which mean we sometimes lack a key person in one of our areas of activity. Then, with DYK, it goes into a lull. We can live with that, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My issue is that we just accept this as norm. We accept that we're going to have long lulls at times at DYK. I'm not sure why we should accept it. The desire of the system is to have it updated more than once every couple of months. It's inconsistent that some spans we're updating every week then suddenly nothing for months. As a viewer or casual reader of our front page, you might get the impression that we've stopped caring/editing if you're seeing the same hooks for a couple of months. Only (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Or it might encourage them to help out? Wikipedia has no deadline and being that we are a very small wiki, there are going to be things like this that spring up. Some wikis, with usership higher than ours, don't update their front page at all for months at a time. -DJSasso (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the holding area and need someone to move one of my approved hooks, "Macadamia nut" into the holding area as well. Let me know what you think. Eurodyne (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikipedia.org: (all) Edit pages[change | change source]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

PGA and PVGA[change | change source]

I've got a few articles awaiting review there. I'd appreciate it if someone could especially attend to the PVGA and possibly promote it. If anyone would like to help me "peer review" the GA, leave me a note on my talk page. Eurodyne (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2015)[change | change source]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator page.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[change | change source]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge!

(Sorry for the English - please translate this message!) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban[change | change source]

Hi all,

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, which means we need to re-consider the community ban placed against him. The original discussion can be found here. The last discussion about this can be found here. -Barras talk 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - As before, there seems to be no expression of understanding the block. The user's only rationale for unblocking is "because it's been a long time." Only (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose apparently the same reason I have used over the last three and a half years still apply. Support continued ban; it's not like his absence has harmed any articles, either. I also propose further refusal of appeal(s) for another extended duration, but I will leave the closing administrator to think of a duration he deems fit. Chenzw  Talk  12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only and Chenzw pretty much sum it up. He still does not seem to get why he was banned. I would agree with Chenzw's proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)