Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 68

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upload

Moved from WP:AN#Upload? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Just wondering if Administrators can upload pictures. I have one that I would like to put on an article, and because it is a Non-free promotional it is not allowed on Commons. I was wondering how I could get it here. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can upload pictures, but anything uploaded will be deleted because of our policy of only using free images. Majorly talk 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can upload to simple? I thought it was only the syops. Darn. Ok thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) You'll need to change community consensus. The last time this was discussed (a month or two ago), no consensus was reached to allow fair-use images. I suggest you do a search of Wikipedia:Simple talk archives to see the various thoughts on the matter in detail. In short, allowing fair-use images would help readers identify the subject of articles easier, but it would also increase the workload of admins and increase legal liability for the project (we believe, I don't think we ever got a definitive answer from WMF legal dept.) EhJJTALK 12:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it would increase admin workload but that can always be solved by trying to attract more EN editors and admins to come help out.

I can't see their being to much legal strain as most other Wikipedias do allow Non-Free logos ect. without to much trouble. Thanks for your help!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes no sense as it goes against the basic premise of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Soup Dish (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit, just not upload directly. Best to use Commons, since there, all licensing issues can be handled by that project. I encourage uploading and using commons, as opposed to uploading to local projects anyway. This permits all projects to use the image. I can be persuaded otherwise by strident and thought out arguements to the contrary. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lke using commons as well but Commons does not accept Non-free images such as logos where as locally these images are accepted.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is sort of what he is getting at, we don't allow non-free images here either which negates the point of having local uploads. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which raises the question why don't we accept non-free images? If other Wikipedias can why can't we?--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a hassle.  :) Take the English Wikipedia for example, they have the resourses to handle these issues as they arise. Organizations will complain... via OTRS likely... we don't have a specific project queue. I think I might be the only one here who does OTRS, and I've not had to edit here for OTRS... due in part that we don't have nonfree images. They also have many admins... we don't. One I posit, we are either unable or unwilling to handle in increased workload. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't see us having a Fair Use policy as necessitating some massive OTRS work. It is more work than for free imagery, but I don't think quite to the degree you're picturing. (though I should point out that my position is based on the fact that I've never had to do any OTRS work for Fair Use stuff, though I haven't touched my OTRS account in several months now) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso: You can upload ogg files locally, so there is a point to have local upload. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree that this would create more work, but as of now we are a rather slow moving Wiki. I can't imagine that we will have very many people uploading images so I think the extra work would be minimal. Also as we are slow moving it would be easy to delete images that do not comply rather quickly as a user will most likely see it in the New Changes section and tag it for deletion.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, but if we allow non-free images, we need an OTRS. Have we some users, who would be volunteers for this work, especially for simple? Otherwise, it could be the result that we delete houndreds of thousands of images. And if we allow one kind of images, so we have to allow all images. Just my thoughts, but I could live with this extra work. Barras (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that what "complies" is very convoluted and even english wikipedia with its much larger editor base can't seem to keep up with what is actually ok and what is not. A wiki with only 30 or so active editors has no chance at all to keep current with the constantly moving target. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think EN is almost to big for itself. EN has so many editors, all wanting something different from the encyclopedia that consensus on anything is hard to achieve. SE as a small editor base doesn't have this problem and I think this "target" will be easier to hit.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The target I am talking about is the regulations regarding fairuse, they aren't static. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to allow fair use

Fair use images may allow better illustration of certain subjects. Is there any reason we should not allow it, other than above? And are we willing to craft a short policy in image use? There is nothing forbidding it as a foundation issue. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support uploading of fair use images. While it might cause some extra stress on the admins, it is necessary for the project. For example, if the cover of a book is copyrighted, then we cannot display the cover on the article which is not good for an encyclopedia. Pmlinediter  Talk 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we be talking about this on Simple talk? - I think many people who read Simple talk do not read this page as well. In other words: If you want the community as a whole to take a decision, put it on Simple Talk. --Eptalon (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few subjects that require fair use, there should almost always be a free alternative, examples such as album covers or logos etc, are not really necessary to help understand the subject. While they are definately nice to have I don't think they are necessary to have. Pmlinediter used a perfect example of a book cover, there is no reason at all to have a picture of the book cover in an article, especially since book covers vary from year to year, country to county, having a picture of the cover does not help the reader in any way. -Djsasso (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need "fair use" images. This is a free encyclopedia, not a "mostly free with some copyrighted bits in it" encyclopedia. Majorly talk 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep bringing this up? Because they need to use Fair use images! If this wasn't something that editors needed then editors would not keep fighting for it. As admins you are all being selfish. The encyclopedia is suffering because you don't want extra work. That is kind of sad as most editors are admins, and we only get around 150 edits an hour.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a bit more practical here. Can you give a link to the image you wanted to use as Fair Use and the article you'd like to add it to? Soup Dish (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be found here and the article is John Paul Jones.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a free image of him, he's still alive and I can't see the justification. Just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, but these debates could start over every image added under fair use Soup Dish (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah, that's not really a good argument for allowing Fair Use here. I think Fair Use isn't a bad idea (especially for concepts that are nearly impossible to properly show in Free Use fashion, such as fictional characters like Darth Vader), but that's a poor example. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also this one for the John Bonham article.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no one needs to use a copyrighted image. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia - how can it possibly be free if we allow a copyrighted image to be uploaded. The two ideas simply don't work together. Either we are free or not. Majorly talk 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is where you lose me. All the other version of Wikipedia that allow Fair use images are free. I fail to see how these images have made them any less free.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're taking someone elses work that is copyrighted. What is difficult to understand about that? Majorly talk 20:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia is still free no matter what picture you use.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)WP:WANE. Ok, not written yet, but it basically means "We Are Not EN" - or any other wiki for that matter. Just because some wikis do it, doesn't mean that we should. Of course, this doesn't always apply, but in the case I think it does. (So much for not getting involved...). Goblin 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
@gordonrox, how is it still free? A person then cannot come and use any page for any purpose - they must go and check that everything on it is free use. Goblin 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
You can still access all the information on the encyclopedia no matter the image. What do we want for Wikipedia? A website that you can come and copy and paste everything you wish and call it your own work, or a good reliable encyclopedia that you can get info from and trust. I lean more towards writing the best encyclopedia possible.

If we can upload these images it will make the encyclopedia articles better. I find it sad that we are not making Wikipedia better just because we don't want to do more work, or that we are affraid to be simmilar to EN. We are not EN, but look at how greater fair use images have made the articles at EN.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't personally care less about the workload. Or to be fair what I said above. The main point is exactly what Majorly and others have said. We are a free encyclopedia. As far as i'm concerned, case closed. Goblin 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Which is also sad. We are unwilling to change, even for the benefit of the encyclopedia.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how i'm unwilling to change? I'm very much open to change. But not change that goes against the very ethos of the wiki and what the WMF are after: a free encyclopedia. Goblin 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
The MWF has changed. I feel medival as we are one of the only Wikipedia's to not allow these images. And we wonder why our Wikipedia is looked down upon as the garbage dump for EN.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually lots of other places don't allow fair-use fr33kman talk 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
enWP is the flagship project for WMF and they allow fair-use. As such I see fair-use as being very much within the scope of what WMF does. WMF allows each project to decide this issue for themselves; that also indicates that they don't have an issue with it one way or the other! enWP is vastly more copied and used by others (for all pusposes) and they do fair-use. As stated, it's up to the person copying, not the one being copied to comply with the law. fr33kman talk 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My views, as the last guy to propose this

Firstly; the link to the last dicsussion is here

  • A) The legal issue was solved full-stop; the WMF lawyer said it was not a problem.
  • B) The reason it keeps coming up is because it has a lot of support and editors want to use it.
  • C) The encyclopedia would still be free, it'd be up to the copier to ensure that they don't copy fiar-use images or that they have their own fair-use justification. They currently have to avoid copying images anyway, such as WMF logos.
  • D) Need for fair-use exists; TV shows, OS screen captures, Book covers, Films, non simple geometric logos, sports teams, etc., all need fair-use images to fully illustrate the article. Remember that we are here for people who have less English language skills than they do at enWP. A picture speaks a thousand words!
  • E) Given the number of active editors, the number of potential image uploads, and restricting to named editors only, the admin overhead would be low. In fact since our admin:editor ratio is well over 50% it'd be a doddle to admin (unlike enWP).
  • F) As I said before; we can give it a trial period and see how it goes. Limit it's use to a set number of articles and then review it as a community.
  • G) Fear is a poor reason not to improve the articles.

Thanks for listening; again :) fr33kman talk 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"And we wonder why our Wikipedia is looked down upon as the garbage dump for EN." lol - sorry, that has nothing to do with fair-use images at all. I can see this argument between essentially most of the community and one person arguing on the strangest grounds for their inclusion. If you have a real reason for fair-use to be included, state it. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a total joke statement. Nobody "looks down" on the Spanish Wikipedia, which also has no Fair Use policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some support you are correct freekman, but clearly there is not consensus to allow them or we would have by now. I think people are just to used to seeing pictures with everything these days. There is clearly no need for them except in rare situations (ie Darth Vader). Almost all of point D , I don't think is true, you don't need almost any of those things to fully illustrate their respective articles. -Djsasso (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Star Wars is culterally important to many nations. :) An image of Darth Vadar illustrates with a single glance that which would be practically impossible with text. fr33kman talk 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Guys, I don't get this at all. We are always talking about how this Wikipedia needs improvement. Images, especially for those just learning English are fundamental, and here we have a chance to add more picture to the encyclopedia and all you are worried about is keeping to an old WMF philosophy and a fear of work. During my time here the encyclopedia has not really improved. Running DYK and the Wikipedia signpost is all great but that is not what Wikipedia is about. We are trying to write articles in simple English and it is just no happening. As I was learning French I often turned to Images of what I was learning about for guidance. We have decent articles but with no educational aids. What I said above I should not have, I was writing upset. I would love to have a trail period as suggested above.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images do help in learning a language or in explaining difficult concepts. Although it is not vital to the mission of this WP, comic book characters, film characters and TV characters need fair-use images to sometimes help explain the character. Wonder Woman needs a fair-use image to see her Golden Lasso, Golden bracelets and costume; which are all part of her powers. Book covers help illustrate the book (Hitchikers Guide ..) for example is better with an image of the book cover with its (original) "Don't Panic" sign. Operating system screenshots are also needed to help comprehension and these must be fair-use. fr33kman talk 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is how you know we are always talking about how this Wikipedia needs improvement if you have only been editing here 2 weeks. Makes me wonder what account you were editing under prior... -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think allowing fair-use images goes against the idea of a free encyclopedia any more than using any other image on commons. The fact is, aside from public domain images, many of the images we use on many of our articles ARE copyrighted. We are using them under a licence (such as CC). Furthermore, the text content of Wikipedia is not public domain, it is owned by their contributors, released under GFDL or CC licence (or... get this... often contains fair use text. Wikiquote is a prime example of this!) I think many have the wrong idea of this Wikipedia being "free". The purpose of this project is to allow the "sum of all knowledge" to be freely accessible. There are times when an image is indispensable and when the only option is a fair-use image (Darth Vader being a good example). I think we should at least give this a try, because it's a good idea! EhJJTALK 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Every time a user adds a quotation, it's fair-use. What's the difference between the bytes in an image or the bytes in text if they are both fair use? Do we have a prejudice against images, lol? I also support, but then everyone knows that already :) Why can't we just give it a go for two months and review it again then? fr33kman talk 21:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policy

This...

...may be of some interest to people. Feel free to check it out. ^_^ Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I don't really think it's needed. Why pick on crats? Will admins be next? What about named editors, anons? It's a bit Big Brother-ish for my taste; but that's just my opinion. fr33kman talk 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good for people looking for help.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's harmless, not "picking" on them. It reveals interesting things about which crat to contact if you need help in a specific area, and has a pretty good history of "bureaucracy" on SEWP.  :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explained like that, I've no problem with it then. Thanks for explaining why. :) fr33kman talk 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, anytime. I'd like to know if anyone has the dates when the early bureaucrats (i.e. Netoholic, SimonMayer, Angela) where given the flag. Thanks in advance.
BTW Fr33kman, you need to come on IRC again sometimes. ;) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be there soon; I've had to reformat my laptop and forgot to put an IRC client on it. /me wanders off to download.com fr33kman talk 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more big brother-ish than Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It's just a collection of publicly available information, albeit of a small number of people. Nothing insidious. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of that page either really; even though I'm in the top 40. In my experience such things can lead to elitism; but, again, it's just my opinion. Either way, it's been explained as having a different purpose so I'm cool with its existence. :) fr33kman talk 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fine idea to me. — RyanCross (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Some interesting stats, as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An auto-generated stat for admins can be found here. Barras (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non free content

There is proposed polciy at Wikipedia:Non-free_content. Please discuss, on that talk page over there. Thank you for taking a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid readers

Sometimes I read scientific articles on the Simple Wikipedia, and i am shocked at the use of language. They contain sentences like "An atom is about 1×10−12 m or 1 / 1,000,000,000,000 meters. So they are very very small." and "Very tiny black holes would die and turn into energy before they could hurt people." Many scientific articles are like that. Is it just me, or do some authors not see the difference between simple language and simple explanations. Apparently, they are aiming for really retarded people (and children under 10 years of age), rather than at a general Wikipedia audience (including interested laymen, students and even specialists) who simply have problems reading the English Wikipedia article, not because of their mental state but because of their knowledge of the English language. --80.101.100.53 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how you contradict yourself by saying "Stupid Readers" and then "Not because of their mental state".

Anywho, in regards to the problem, Be bold and try to help fix it.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are addressing a valid concern here. The scientific community knows that 10-12 means 1 divided by a 1 followed by 12 zeroes; many people, especially some of the crowd we are supposedly aiming for does not; in that context it is good that 10-12 is explained; as to the very very small, first of all small is also a matter of comparison, and secondly, such statements are very unscientific. I think it is important to fix such articles, we do not write for retards, after all. Some time ago I awarded a barnstar to a little girl who tried to understand what an algorithm is. In the article I use the task of sorting playing cards in different ways to illustrate different sorting algorithms. I later learned that girl was about eight years old. What I had done is I put the different algorithms, like heapsort or quicksort into step-by-step instructions on how to sort a deck of cards; I never tried sorting the deck of cards that way. After the article had been up for years, that editor was the first to actually try the algorithms. She found a mistake I had made in describing one of the algorithms. I awarded her a barnstar, for other people with probably a better education had taken these descriptions for granted, they had not tried. But I am probably ranting here. Get me a list of such badly written articles about science and I will try to fix them. Another note: If you contribute here regularly, consider creating an account. --Eptalon (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The readers and editors are not stupid, they're simply using small, basic words aimed to help people who DON'T speak English as their first language, or are learning. It might be too "simple and stupid" for you but it's understandable for people who aren't native English speakers. I know sometimes it can get too unencyclopedic like using "really really really small" (and statements like these you can change yourself) but nope, I don't think the readers are "stupid." If you'd like a more complex explanation you can go to En. :) --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the greatest things are simple. Long demagogy/articles are not native to our differential thinking patterns, but its very fun way of wasting time for people, which want to show how advanced they are at some of themes/questions :) That’s why I prefer to read OLD "inaccurate" revisions of some articles - they are really more useful. 91.76.135.157 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of simple is to use simple words and language to explain everything. If you are dissatisfied with Simple, head over to enWP. Pmlineditor 10:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple words and language. Sometimes it’s better to read simple english for me, instead of reading article at my native language. I don’t want to spend a lot of time just to understand some term. The rule is - don’t make simple things complicated, even if you know thousand of ways how. That’s why "very very small" is not stupid. 91.76.228.221 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Simple English is great idea. This is because it allows younger people to visit wikipedia and understand the information they are looking for. Also, if you don't understand something on English wikipedia, then you can look on simple english for a clearer meaning. If you are shocked by the language, why don't you use English Wikipedia? Or why don't you edit the page to put in better language? Kingalex1st (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School projects

I'm wondering what we can do as a community to actually help school projects in their aims? This teacher seems quite dedicated and I'm wondering what we can do to help? Mini-adoption of students? Wikicode lessons? Thoughts? :-) fr33kman talk 03:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains why all those similarly-named users have been messing around in someone else's userspace. I do have a thought, though - there seem to be several pages in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespace that we (for whatever reason) haven't simplified and copied here from EN. Since doing that for all the pages would be a monumental task, perhaps create {{soft redirect}}s to these pages' EN versions until such time as they are converted here? This could be done for every page in the Help: namespace we don't have (I wonder if AWB could do it?), though some discretion would be needed for pages in the Wikipedia: space. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleWP for offline use?

Hello all,

we will soon reach 60.000 articles, and I could imagine that we provide some of this wikipedia content offline (read: on a CD or DVD image), possibly using OpenZIM. I know that most of our articles here are probably not good enough to showcase, so if we do this, I would suggest selecting between 5.000 and 10.000 articles to put on the CD or DVD (depending on how big the image/dump will be). A dump/image of German Wikipedia is currently available at Linuxtag 2009.

What do you think about such a proposal? --Eptalon (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. We cannot showcase 1/2/3 line stubs. We need sufficiently long articles if we want to do this. But I've no clue whether we have 5k/10k articles to showcase on the CD/DVD. Regards, Pmlineditor 09:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I like the idea, though we'd have to choose (and check) 5k/10k articles. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 09:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought it would actually be a great thing, as we might discover potential GAs etc... Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least start with reviewing all of the GAs and VGAs. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 12:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be a lot of work. We'd need to establish criteria for inclusion. I'd be against including anything that was not factually correct. fr33kman talk 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7

Hi, I just installed the windows 7 OS and I'm having trouble viewing wikipedia. The text is tiny and I can't read it properly. Other websites haven't been affected. Can anyone help? --Tb240904 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check: Windows 7 (in a virtual environment) seems to have smaller fonts by default; With Firefox you can change the font size with CTRL and + or - (CTRL-0 resets). Another thing is to check your settings in ("my settings"). --Eptalon (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localization of new CC&GFDL notices

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning
By clicking the "Publish changes" button, you agree to forever release your changes under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 4.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License. You agree that a hyperlink or URL to this page is enough credit from people that reuse it. If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here. If you did not write this yourself, it must be available under terms that comply with our Terms of Use.
MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary
If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here. If you did not write this yourself, it must be available under terms consistent with the Terms of Use, and you agree to follow any relevant licensing requirements.
MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright
Text is available under the <a href="//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a> and the <a href="//simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License">GFDL</a>; additional terms may apply. See <a href="//foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Terms_of_Use">Terms of Use</a> for details.

Hopefully you've all noticed the new copyright notices. Unfortunately, the language in them is not at all simple. Despite checking all pages in the MediaWiki namespace, I was unable to find the one that says:

Removed in favour of transcluded copies, above.

I'm looking for a) help finding this page, and b) suggestions on new wording. EhJJTALK 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. See also MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright and MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary, which probably need to be localized/simplified as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I made a first pass at simplifying coprightwarning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EVula, I just found them, too. We should also consider whether we want to use the standard Terms of Use (at meta) or make our own per the guideline at meta:Licensing update/Implementation. EhJJTALK 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend we make our own. fr33kman talk 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about wording such as "By saving your changes you are agreeing to allow anyone to use your work and are doing so under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and under the GFDL. You agree to allow people who re-use your work to give you credit for that work, as a minimum, in the form of a web link to the page you are making these changes to. See the full Terms of Use for more information." fr33kman talk 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of closure of Simple Wikibooks

A proposal to close Simple Wikibooks has been started today here. Maybe a general announcement in this site could provide a richer discussion or alert people interested in the project who may be unaware of it. Regards --83.37.231.113 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

The article (4953) 1990 MU has been deleted with the reason "result of a deletion discussion". However, I cannot locate the discussion (it would be good if a link had been put in the log entry). I would expect to find it at Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/(4953) 1990 MU but there is nothing there. I am not trying to get this re-instated, just curious: it was my article on en-wiki but I had nothing to do with posting it here. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong

There is something wrong with the Rome article, as it still says "not yet written" on the red link things. 78.149.71.197 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how a Wiki works. Links to articles not yet written appear red and can be created. The rough idea is to link to unwritten articles when creating one would be a benefit to the project. Soup Dish (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, of course. What I'm talking about is that the text has changed to "not yet started" and the Rome article says the old "not yet written". 78.150.149.82 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its cleared up now. 78.150.149.82 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?

... that there is a discussion about the processes and procedures regarding WP:DYK taking place here? The whole community is welcome to take part; most especially those who are on the DYK team. Cheers! fr33kman talk 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOTW

I've done another Translation of the Week (Operation Ichi-Go if people want to double-check it). Can I take this opportunity to encourage others to take part in TOTW? It only takes a little bit of time to do. This week's only took me 61 minutes and that included cooking dinner and watching the Jays v Yankees game. :-) Cheers! fr33kman talk 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. Also, you inspired me to go do one right now. Happy translating! hmwithτ 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I'm glad you feel inspired to help. TOTW is a good way to build up articles in the wiki and they're fun to do! fr33kman talk 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

I would ask the community to weigh in on a proposed WP:ABUSE project / local oversightship. In particular, how should repeat vandals and serious vandalism / personal attacks be dealt with? The discussion is at WP:AN#Empty threats?. Thanks! EhJJTALK 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire community is requested to join the discussion. fr33kman talk 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ...

... that the easiest way of finding good hooks is by visiting this page, selecting an article and looking for referenced information? I use it all the time to find hooks and am rarely disappointed. fr33kman talk 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about ...

Starting a GA/VGA of the month project? We could choose a single article to try and promote to GA or VGA per month? This occured to me when I saw Mosque when looking for DYK hooks. Comments? fr33kman talk 04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular article had already been proposed once (don't ask me for which of the two, I think VGA though). One option would be to get one new article per category, per month (one new VGA, one new GA); of course it helps if the candidates proposed are "almost there". But we currently have summer, at least where I am. This means there are fewer active editors around. --Eptalon (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea :). Though one GA and 1 VGA/month seems not much, maybe make it one/fortnight and include the selected article no Simple News as I believe everyone subscribes to it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great idea. Pmlineditor 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking with one per month was that it would be a group project and I didn't want it to impact greatly on what people are doing elsewhere on the project. I'm fine with one every fortnight (two weeks) if it can be sustained. fr33kman talk 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realy don't mind; I'm ready to give some time to do one/fortnight (that's oneGA and one VGA) but it depends on the other people willing to help. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Obviously as the proposer I'm willing to work on it as a regular user. I just want us to make sure it's not going to be stop-start, stop-start and will be a stable project. We'd also need to set up the infrastructure such as project page, nominations, talk page etc. Also, I know that we normally put projects into userspace (which is a mistake IMO) but I think that something like this should be in WP-space. :) fr33kman talk 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely sounds like something good, and I too am willing to work on it. I can't do much in the way of actual reviews, but article writing, wiki-gnoming and fixing other people's reviews is certainly something I can do, so i'd be very much interested. Goblin 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Step Up

Since TRM's been inactive as of late, we desperately need a good reviewer at P(V)GA. I think that without his detailed reviews, the quality of the articles at P(V)GA might be headed south. Does anyone here have lots of experience in this area and the time to prepare detailed article reviews? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a detailed review on Jupiter, but I don't know if this good enough. And the problem is that I can only check the format and correctness of the content. Barras (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can check for language and simplicity. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we can get TRM to write us a set of guidelines for how to review an article? A mini course if you will. fr33kman talk 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's that hard to do, and that it simply needs dedication and being very rigourous. To use an example i've worked on, Crich Tramway Village, I think it's regarded as one of the "best" articles on the wiki, shown by the large support and the premature promotions/movements etc. This was achieved through a hard slog and a line-by-line peer review that can be seen here. I'll try and find the exact revision that relates to as well at some stage. So I don't think it's all that hard, but it just needs dedication, and yes, a set of guidelines might be useful. Regards, Goblin 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

New editors

Recently I invited editors at the enWP Professional Wrestling project to drop by and help in editing the articles on professional wrestling here on simpleWP. An editor responded positively and we now have a new editor who has said he'll be working on the articles and has already done some edits. I was therefore thinking that this might be a good way to get articles worked on by people interested in those topics. Such an article that could be helped in this manner is Irish Republican Army since it has been the subject of repeated complaints that it is nonsense. What do people think about inviting enWP project editors to help with articles here? fr33kman talk 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine. However, there should be (is there already one?) a page explaining the differences in the projects. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great idea!! It could contain tips on how to write simply etc. I know its alredy covered in Help:Contents but a page specifically for enWP editors would be awesome!! fr33kman talk 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, such a page should exist. BTW, I also invited User:Airplaneman who edits here occasionally. Pmlineditor 07:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If case any one is interested in inviting former (good) editors to come back to simpleWP, I created a template that can be copied and pasted to their user talk page on any other WMF project. It is located at User:Fr33kman/PleaseComeBack. fr33kman talk 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account Creation Bug filed

All,

Just letting you know that I have filed a bug (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19659) on account creation/antispoof following an account being created that impersonated me.

Regards,

Goblin 09:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

The antispoof filters are notoriously bad, I wouldn't rest too much hope on that bug. --Chris 11:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; otherwise PMDrive's impersonator couldn't have been created. Pmlineditor 11:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New editors

Recently I invited editors at the enWP Professional Wrestling project to drop by and help in editing the articles on professional wrestling here on simpleWP. An editor responded positively and we now have a new editor who has said he'll be working on the articles and has already done some edits. I was therefore thinking that this might be a good way to get articles worked on by people interested in those topics. Such an article that could be helped in this manner is Irish Republican Army since it has been the subject of repeated complaints that it is nonsense. What do people think about inviting enWP project editors to help with articles here? fr33kman talk 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine. However, there should be (is there already one?) a page explaining the differences in the projects. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great idea!! It could contain tips on how to write simply etc. I know its alredy covered in Help:Contents but a page specifically for enWP editors would be awesome!! fr33kman talk 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, such a page should exist. BTW, I also invited User:Airplaneman who edits here occasionally. Pmlineditor 07:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If case any one is interested in inviting former (good) editors to come back to simpleWP, I created a template that can be copied and pasted to their user talk page on any other WMF project. It is located at User:Fr33kman/PleaseComeBack. fr33kman talk 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account Creation Bug filed

All,

Just letting you know that I have filed a bug (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19659) on account creation/antispoof following an account being created that impersonated me.

Regards,

Goblin 09:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

The antispoof filters are notoriously bad, I wouldn't rest too much hope on that bug. --Chris 11:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; otherwise PMDrive's impersonator couldn't have been created. Pmlineditor 11:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article demotion

Hi all. Please note that on PAD is one of our very good articles up for discussion. Please leave some comments there or better, help to improve the article. Thanks Barras (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots

Hello gang,

Just a thought, perhaps this list could be trimmed/updated, and inactive bots be removed/have their flags removed? Certainly quite a few tasks are obsolete on some bots. Thoughts?

Goblin 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]

I have actually been preparing a list for the crats already to do this. Just didn't want to throw them up individually to overwhelm the crats. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that's why I brought it here :). So that the community could decide if they wanted it or not, and so that we could mass sort it out. Great minds think alike, eh? Goblin 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Technically removing of bot flags are up to the crats but community decisions are cool too, I doubt anyone would have any issues with removing the flags of some of these bots since some of them haven't edited in over 2 years. :) -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provide me with a list, someone double check it, and I will perform my crat-hat duties! Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings

I am removing the {{spoiler}} template since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not something like IMDB. Please voice your opinions on this. Pmlineditor 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. There was a discussion and I think in the end we decided to keep them. Please get consensus before doing this. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for the removal. Keeping them beggars belief and undermines the point of an encyclopedia.  GARDEN  10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start a new RfD, if you want. Barras (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll manually remove them if consensus is reached to remove and then perhaps RfD. Pmlineditor 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First the RfD, then (if consensus) remove then and the last step is delete the template. Barras (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Pmlineditor 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them on. Definitely. -Djsasso (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why hide information people want to see? I think another RFD is appropriate, but hope people will come up with better arguments than "Keep them on. Definitely"... Majorly talk 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you went to the Rfd you would see the better argument. I don't actually support the hiding of information, just the alert at the top of the section. -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone be surprised to see the contents of the plot anyway? It's an encyclopedia article, that's supposed to say everything about it. Majorly talk 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect to see anything about the plot in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not for summarizing other books. -Djsasso (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the encyclopedia isn't doing what it's supposed to do - provide information. Information about the book includes the plot, which is arguably the most important part it. If the plot is just left off, or hidden under ugly spoiler warnings, then the encyclopedia isn't doing a good job. Majorly talk 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Majorly. Spoiler warnings are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoblinBot4

Hi all,

Just to give some updates about this bot, it is now running on the Toolserver, and so if it needs to be blocked for any reason (and the same goes for the rest of the GoblinBots) please ensure autoblock etc is turned off.

Also, if anyone is noticing new vandalism patterns not currently covered by the Bot, please come and suggest them as "improvements" on our JIRA bug tracker at http://jira.yourwiki.net:8080/browse/AVB.

Finally, the source code is now also available to browse and download via SVN - packaged releases are not yet available. The link is http://sourceforge.net/projects/antivandalbot/.

Comments, thoughts, bugs etc all welcome at JIRA.

Regards,

Goblin 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Tool fixes

Hello all,

Just wondering if anyone has any fixes for Twinkle, Vandal warner and other javascripty things (such as collapsible boxes) to go with the Vector skin - none of those work with what is otherwise a brilliant skin, and so i'm being forced to use Crap-o-book.

Help appreciated :)

Regards,

Goblin 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

I don't know what browser you use, but if you use firefox you should download either the greasemonkey (what I use) or stylish add-ons. They allow you to download user scripts and user styles for popular pages. And there are a million of them for wikipedia. They allow you to continue using the crap-o-book theme as you call it so that all things like twinkle etc still work, but they modify the pages to look completely different than monobook. userstyles.org and userscripts.org are two of the many sites you can download the scripts/styles from. -Djsasso (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I use Firefox (on Mac though?), and the crap-o-book is more an in-joke than anything else ;) It beats Wikia's Monaco, put it that way. Thanks for the tips. Goblin 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
I would assume they still work for mac, I am not sure. I have never used stylish before I am actually just testing it out today but I have been using greasemonkey for about 6 months. Its really great for adding functionality to a number of websites I use. -Djsasso (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community processes: Urgent call

Hello all,

I appreciate that it is now the summer and that everyone (well, except maybe me and one or two others) has much better things to do, but if I could possibly point you all in the direction of:

Most of these process are, unfortunately, getting to the activity levels that they had near the start of the year, with little or no input from people who aren't nominators. If I could just ask everyone to nominate or review a DYK hook or review an article at the rest of the processes it would be very much appreciated. Remember, if we can increase the amount of quality content on our wiki, then we will (hopefully) be able to lose the title of being a "useless" wiki, and we can try and attract editors more from other wikis, such as EN.

Kind regards,

Goblin 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

See also

Resolved.

Does anyone else think that it should changed to something like Also see or Other pages, as they would be simpler? Exert 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages sounds simpler. :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, other pages. fr33kman talk 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages works well. But, before anyone starts mass changing anything, can I make some suggestions:
  • I'm happy to go and run GoblinBot2 on a slow interval to work through pages
  • We just make a notice on our MoS or whatever, saying that this is the new name for it. People then just update it as and when they see it, and there is no need to make mass changes, also putting excess strain on the server and job queue (yes, I monitor it and try to keep it at or around zero!).
I personally favour the latter option, and also think that the same should go with External links --> Other websites, as some people mass change those... Anyway, let me know if it's decided if you want a bot running. (And I say slow speed because you realise it's a massive job so would flood out the IRC feeds and probably have the toolserver people shout at me). Goblin 17:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
I think the second option sounds the best idea too. hmwithτ 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like "other pages" better as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll ask BG7 to have one of his bots start doing that. Exert 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages works for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages should be fine. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this request from Exert, there should be a bot running within the hour. If it floods too much (and it shouldn't) just block it. Likewise, if it messes up, block it. Please let me know though, and don't use autoblock etc as you'll stop GB4 and other Toolserver bots. Regards, Goblin 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
botflag? --Barras (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, GB2 has a bot flag. Goblin 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]
So it can't flood the recent changes. Shouldn't be a problem with botflag. Barras (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot now running. Goblin 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
... No, but it can flood the IRC RC so it's running every 30 seconds. I know what I am doing... Goblin 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Other pages makes perfect sense. No concerns. — RyanCross (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the bot is  Done, but due to the toolserver currently being down I can't double check. When it's back up i'll confirm. Cheers, Goblin 10:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
I can now confirm that the bot is  Done and it also did a check for External links --> Other websites whilst it was at it. Every article space page in the wiki now has neither External links nor See also, unless they were created since I ran the bot ;). Regards, Goblin 09:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Actually, I just did a quick check, and there are indeed thousands of articles with ==See also== or == See also == . –Juliancolton | Talk 22:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bot flag granted to User:JCbot for finishing things up. Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be  Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Bot flag removed from User:JCbot; existing flagged bot User:NonvocalScreamAuto is now performing more replacements. Chenzw  Talk  04:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure how my bot missed those... –Juliancolton | Talk 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Chanops

Resolved.

As much as I hate to bring IRC/Off wiki matters on wiki, it needs to be done as otherwise we don't seem to make any progress whatsoever.

We need more chanops in #wikipedia-simple who aren't Majorly/PeterSymonds/Werdan7. There have been multiple instances of channel trolling and abuse recently and there have been no ops around to sort things out. Despite words on IRC by multiple users there has been no change, so I am bringing it here to make it more known and perhaps apply a little peer pressure.

Thoughts?

Goblin 11:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

AFAIK, there is, for example, an unofficial policy on the Czech Wikipedia IRC channel saying that each admin should become a channel operator. Whereas I don't think this is necessary, I'd probably suggest that another 2-3 mature-enough and regular channel users become ops. Any volunteers? -- Mercy (☎|✍) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer (as I have done in the past) as I am regularly on IRC, run several IRC bots yadda yadda yadda. Goblin 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
I would also help. Barras (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for every admin to be an op. Actually, I'd trust anyone with rollback to be an op. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so at the very least the channel should have the capability to manage itself adequately, without the need to involve freenode staff every time. -- Mentifisto 11:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this comment by Kennedy fr33kman talk 14:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In no way should this be talked about on-wiki. Just like decisions about the wiki should not be made on IRC. The two are not linked. You want more channel ops in that channel talk about it in that channel to the people who are ops. -Djsasso (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns D, but I also think that IRC is a process that while not officially linked to the onwiki community, it is in some fashion endorsed by it; or at least much of it. For example WP:IRC seems to encourage users towards IRC for vandalism monitoring and to find an admin in a hurry. I have no problems with discussing it on IRC, but I also have no issues discussing it onwiki either. It does make the process more transparant for those who don't use or dislike the use of IRC. fr33kman talk 14:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that this is a very much off-wiki issue, however as I mentioned several users have asked for Ops in the channel but nothing has been done about it. After today's trolling when there were no freenode staffers nor chanops around to come and fix it, I felt something needed to be said. Yes, this is very much a last resort - others have wanted it to come on-wiki in the past, but I told them not too. So yes, I do think that this should be seperated, but alas the users involved seem unwilling to talk. Goblin 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
The main point I am making is that the channel does not belong to the wiki community, it belongs to whomever registered it. So to be honest we have no say in who they make ops, they have no obligation to us as a community to do what we want. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it comes under the WMF's Freenode GCs. If it is found that consensus is there for there to be further chanops, and the current operators resist or object, we can simply go direct to the GCs who will take control of the channel and do it for us. So yes, it is an on-wiki issue. Goblin 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Actually the GCs specifically say they do not step into such situations. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've just been looking into all of this, and a) if they don't then they're not fulfilling the GC role, and b) they do. Goblin 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Well believe what you want but this should not be discussed on-wiki even as a last resort. If you want it discussed make it a topic in the channel rather than just mentioning it here and there and expecting people to respond. Its this exact blurring of lines between the two which is why IRC use is bad. The wiki and irc are two completely separate entities and should be treated as such. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned this to me, as far as I can recall, and I am one of the people who can make new ops. I'm happy to make new ops as we need them, certainly. I don't have a problem with this being discussed on the wiki, but I disagree that every admin should be one. Some admins barely use IRC as it is, or aren't familiar enough with how it works. Majorly talk 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly has given IRC Ops to Chenzw, Fr33kman and Juliancolton. Hopefully this will do. Goblin 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

I'd be glad to help, although it seems we've filled our quota. Shappy talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help as well. -- Tdxiang 06:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've proposed a section removal at Wikipedia_talk:RecentChanges#Most_wanted. Please comment there! Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News Final Call

Evening all,

Final call for tomorrow's edition of Simple News if anyone has anything. Please add it to the correct Newsroom and it will be added into the next edition tomorrow, with delivery due to be done tomorrow evening (all times UTC).

Any questions, queries or comments, let me know.

Regards,

Goblin 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Further simplification of Sidebar

Hi all, just would like to draw your attention to my proposal on simplifying buttons like "recent changes" and "random page". Do comment. Thanks.-- Tdxiang 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most wanted pages..

Hello,

I was bold and filled the list of most wanted pages to make a total of 10 pages. I tried to distribute the subjects a little. In my opinion, for most-wanted creation to work, we must try to cover as many subjects as possible.

Anyway, all I wanted to say is: if you create such an entry, please replace the entry in the recent changes box with another. A new db analysis is in the works, the most wanted article listing should soon change.

Anyway, have fun. --Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question??

I have been in a dialogue via e-mail with a user banned here and cross-wiki, and he is genuinely remorseful for his actions. Apparently he does want a second chance, and he's told me which accounts were his, and which weren't - he's also admitted to meatpuppetry too (like some certain en.wiki users). I think you probably know who I'm referring to, and although some of you may not like him, he has made some good contributions on en.wiki. However, since an admin on a non-WMF wiki has given him his own personal sandbox wiki, he has promised to do any vandalism/nonsense there and behave on WMF. This banned user does have mental health issues though, from what he's told me. Anyway, I'll leave it to you to discuss. --Whilyach (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should tell use, which user you mean. CM16 or Aleksa Lukic? --Barras (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the only two banned users. Majorly talk 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this banned user can ask for themselves to be unbanned here. You are an unknown user account here who has very little edits and admits on your userpage that you are a single purpose account. Whomever this "other" user is, I'm sure they have at least one account that has either talkpage or email access so they can ask themselves! This "dialogue" only raises my RADAR frankly. fr33kman talk 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account as a single purpose account. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent call. I was considering it myself. This smacks very much of the guy who walks into the psychiatrists office and says "Doc, I've got this friend...." I think this person IS the banned user! fr33kman talk 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an RFCU should be filed? Shappy talk 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, they were inconclusive. Exert 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

japanese class project

How is this not implying ownership? Instead, we should encourage the students to create the article in their user space and we can offer suggestions on it and when the project is over (or they have finished editing) they can create the article. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It implies ownership no more than {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} do. This class project are the only ones who are editing these articles and we can probably expect about two dozen articles from this particular teacher's students in the coming weeks and months. I understand your point and to some degree agree with it, but I feel more latitude should be given in these cases. The template does not forbid you from editing the article, it merely asks that you use the talk page for suggestions. You are under no obligation to heed this advice and are actually free to improve the article directly if you can and feel like it. fr33kman talk 02:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
underconstruction redirects to inuse, but I think it's a little different. If I created an article, could I put a template saying <Griffinofwales has created this article. Please do not edit it, but feel free to leave comments at the talk page>? I wouldn't get away with it at enWP. When I read WP:OWN (en.wp's version, not this one), I thought this was what it was supposed to stop. I don't see why the students cannot use Special:MyPage (I thought that was why it was there). Griffinofwales (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not en, and have a very different mission. One which includes these types of class projects. You need to wrap your head around the fact we are not en. Yes we do have some things like en, but we also have very many things completely different than en. -Djsasso (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) Yes, that is true. But let me quote from the Examples of Owning Articles section of WP:OWN (here at simple), An editor may say that changes must be reviewed by him or her before they can be added to the article. While the template doesn't use must, what would happen if I went to every single one of the articles and extensively copy edited them and added content? What would you do? Give me a warning? The students would fail their exam, but Wikipedia would have several copy edited articles with content added by me (hypothetical, I have no intention of editing the articles, but other users might). School projects are great, but what I'm saying is that the articles should be kept off article space until the students are finished editing, then they can move it to article space. It seems like a better solution for both parties. The students get their article in Wikipedia, and we provide helpful advice, and since it's in their user space, they can stop anyone from editing it. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'd defend your right to edit the article!! We let them add that as a courtesy, not a right. Normal rules still apply but we give them leeway because we know they are learning English (one of our core goals here). They are not taking an exam. TEFL in Japan is not an exam based course. It is merely practical. As a CELTA certified teacher who used to teach TEFL in Tokyo, I know this to be true. fr33kman talk 04:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I rest my case (but I still think they should use Special:MyPage). Good Night (where I am anyways), I might get back tomorrow if I'm not too busy in real life and at enWP. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the pages this group were working on are NOT in the main space, but will be moved there shortly. There were several pages that the group wanted to write which already existed as stubs or short articles, so these are in the main space. The notice is there to let other users know what is happening to the pages and that they are being worked on over time. It would seem easy as an editor to work on any of the other 55,000 pages and let them finish their project. Once the project is over, I would encourage experienced editors to do some thorough copyediting on them, I certainly will be. The value of this project will be the inclusion of about 20 detailed articles on Japanese culture that didn't exist before. Which need to support, not hinder, article creation.Peterdownunder (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local oversight

Hello all!

Recently quite a few oversight requests have been made and they were carried out by stewards to remove edits made by vandals and bad editors who added information of a personally identifiable nature or of a libelous nature to our project. The amount of oversight actions increased recently not due to the number of such edits occurring, but because some admins (myself included) have decided to actually have such edits removed from anyone's view. Considering that attack pages against identifiable people, and libelous information gets regullarly added to our project, I think we should reconsider electing two or more local oversighters. Indeed on IRC (which is the official way of requesting oversight per WMF) the stewards themselves have indicated that we may be better served by electing local oversighters. Up till now, admins have simply deleted such edits, but that is not the proper way of dealing with them. We are supposed to fully remove them from being able to be accessed by anyone, including admins. As such, I'd like to propose (as one of the people who opposed last time) that we reconsider the election of local oversighters. These admins should be very well trusted and respected people and they must be people who are able and willing to identify themselves to WMF. Recently at least a dozen such actions have been taken, and many more could be taken based on a review of the deletion logs. Discussion has been held recently on WP:AN and there seems to be support there for such an election. As such, kindly read meta:Oversight and decide whether or not you think we need to have our own oversighters locally.

Thank you very much fr33kman talk 06:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Let's not discuss who should be elected at this point, but merely whether we think we should persue the idea. Elections can come later on in the process if we find we want to go forwards.

Discussion

As I noted elsewhere, I have been persuaded. Majorly talk 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A general note: I think we should wait with elections until end of August, because atm is summer and some editors aren't regular online in this time. We should wait, because we need at least 25 voters. Barras (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also opposed this idea last time but I did some digging and both the nature of vileness of some of the posts has forced me to reconsider. I think it's time for a rethink. I agree with Barras that we shouldn't rush it as firstly, it'd be unfair to those who are on holidays who might wish to put forth their names and secondly, because we need sufficient numbers of people supporting the, at a minimum, two candidates who stand for election. fr33kman talk 17:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My further thoughts: We should start (e.g. September 1, after the summer(holidays)) to look for volunteers to sign somewhere and wait for at least two weeks. All have to write their own nomination, that no-one has better or worse chances, because of others nominations. All RfOs have to start at the same time, that all is fair. The duration of the voting should be two weeks. So we have better chances that all users can vote. Before the election starts, we should think about the number of elected people. I think we should only have 3 oversighters. If we have a number of how many users will be elected (e.g. 3) and 5 candidates have the consensus and trust of the coummunity, that only the 3 with the most votes or most supports get the tools. Just my point. Barras (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that local oversighters would be good here, now that it has reached its current size. hmwithτ 23:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c) At this point it's probably redundant for me to agree that we should have some oversighters here. I also agree with Shappy's proposal that we have (at least at first) three oversighters. However, if we are going elect a fixed number, the elections should be in a "group" election rather than in the standard RfX election format - to avoid "drive-by" voters who, say, stop by when three requests are active but before the fourth and fifth are active. If such a voter would have voted "yes" for all, the first three would have an unfair advantage. If done as a group election (example: the Foundation's Board elections), however, such problems would be avoided. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been persuaded that it's needed and a good idea, and we should probably make more use of it. I saw an article today with an email address in the header that can go and be oversighted (can't remember the name and cba to look ;). Though I agree this needs to be very thought out and carefully done, and we should localise policy before even thinking about elections (this would be a good idea anyway imo). Regards, Goblin 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chennywoos![reply]
  • I came to re-think of it, given the levels of activity listed below we should get local people with the respective flag. Given that we need to get at least two people with the flag, I suggest we start with at least four candidates. I am not sure whether there are rules as to percentages needed (there probably are), but given the delicate nature, I would suggest a high percentage of support, similar to those required for bureaucrat or checkuser; I would also suggest that we limit the possibility for hat-collection, that is look for suitable candidates in the admin crowd before turning towards bureaucrats or checkusers as candidates. --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data

I asked Kylu, a steward to look at our logs and give me data. Here is the oversight data:

suppression (2009)

3 in march
25 in april
1 in may
1 in june
13 in july



oversight

3 in may 07
6 in march 08
1 in apr 08
6 in october 08
3 in november 08
5 in march 09
 Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_68&oldid=8875422"