Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Simple talk
Shortcut
This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.

You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages.

You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.

Are you in the right place?

Copyedit/prose review of Wheeling Tunnel

Could someone(s) please take a look at Wheeling Tunnel and leave some comments on the talk page in regards to copyediting and rewriting? I'd ask at GA, but I know it's not up to GA standards yet with the redlinks. I'd like to get the prose up to GA level while gradually adding the redlinks. Thanks, Only (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly give a review. Regards, Albacore (talk · changes) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who did the En Wikipedia GA review of the article, I will also take a look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any input? I've done all the comments from others so far. If not, I'll start working on redlinks eventually. Only (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with no more input, I've placed it at WP:PGA if anyone would care to comment. Only (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle talk page warnings

Does anyone know why Twinkle's talk page warning system isn't working? Goodvac (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the result of the recent software "improvement". Previous experience shows that it takes a few weeks for the devs to sort the bugs out. In the meantime, Twinkle simply isn't working as it should. Orashmatash 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Your quotes around "improvement" convey exactly my thoughts. It's frustrating that the developers roll out new software with bugs that bork functionality. It makes me wonder if they ever test it. Goodvac (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is working only to make changes on existent pages (i.e. not being able to create a page when attempting to send a message).” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 23:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to know, thanks. Goodvac (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The devs do test their software, but obviously not with Twinkle, since it always seems to break when the software is updated. The dev's testing ground is here, but there's not much you can do there unless you're testing code, but it's a good way of finding out what the latest software update will look like. Orashmatash 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they test that it works, but they don't test if it messes up user scripts. I'll keep that site in mind. Goodvac (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle has always been a not officially supported script at simple because it was mostly just copy pasted here from en (but we don't have all the same templates etc it uses that they do) with some tweeks by an editor who has gone mostly inactive. So any time any changes are made it breaks here and the only one here who knows enough about twinkle to fix it is not active. Not all the functionality has ever been brought over either. So to sum it up its a "As-is" script unless someone takes the time to figure out its complexities to "fix" it again. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To update Twinkle, you only need to know how to program in JavaScript. I'm sure there's another editor on this wiki who knows JavaScript other than EhJJ. Orashmatash 18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one (me). Is this the problem with not being able to create talk pages with warnings? πr2 (talk • changes) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem, you can add warnings if the talk page already exists. But it can no longer create a new page automatically.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Fixed it. Tell EhJJ. User:PiRSquared17/testwarn.js. πr2 (talk • changes) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not working for me. Talk page opens, edit warning box opens, says it is creating a message, but then nothing. Peterdownunder (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you import the User:PiRSquared17/test.js ? and disable normal twinkle ? If so, all I can say is that it works on Safari with no errors now. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And clear the cache. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am using FireFox now and it is working. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else test it? The skin.js page should look like User:PiRSquared17/vector.js. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its working! Excellent work PiRSquared17. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :). I'm always glad to help with technical problems. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Note: DJSasso added my correction to EhJJ's Twinkle. πr2 (talk • changes) 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonayo's recent copy-paste spree

User:AJona1992 created a whole string of new articles recently by copying and pasting from En, but with a twist. Rather than the current articles, the copies are of old versions of the articles. At first glance, they appear simplified, or at least shorter, if you click the En interwiki link. However, following the historical link on the associated Talk page revelas them to be pure copy pastes without simplification. I started tagging them QD|A3 one by one, but there are a bunch of them on New Pages. The language is surely not simplified in vocabulary or sentence structure. Something as factual as List of music arrangers isn't bad, but I think all the rest need to go.

are pure copy-pastes.

In addition to these and the ones I tagged directly, there may be more, but that's all I can check right now. Anyone else care to clean up after Jonayo? Waste of time and very disruptive editing. Gotanda (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that these should be all QD'd. I have read your comments and agree with you that these older versions are outdated and possibly inaccurate. And copy paste sprees are disruptive. If you have to import or copy/paste then it needs to be one at a time, and they need to be worked on to get them to meet our standards immediately. And admins on SEWP do not like disruptive editors.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, there is nothing wrong with using an earlier version of En Wikipedia rather than the latest version for attribution. The basic idea is that each editor takes responsibility for his/her contributions to this wiki. What document is used as a starting point is a matter of personal judgment. Attribution is a legal requirement to comply with En Wikipedia's copyright license. Once the starting point is selected, it is up to the editor to 1) simplify the text, 2) verify its current accuracy, 3) provide sources to make the article verifiable. An article could fail on a number of fronts, but using a less than lastest version of En Wikipedia does not seem to me to be the relevant factor. Attribution should be honest -- if an editor did not work with the latest version as the starting point, he should not list the latest version. However, English Wikipedia of 2005 was a very different place - articles were more simple and there were fewer footnotes. So, an editor using a 2005 article as a starting point has a different set of tasks that comes with working from an older starting point. Racepacket (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guitar solo is no longer a copy and paste of either the 2005 or the 2011 version of En Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Racepacket, you're missing the point. Goblin 09:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
In fairness to Ajona1992, he has properly attributed the articles. The issue here is mass/copy pasting and leaving it for others to have to fix. And thanks to Racepacket for beginning that task.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were done in WP:AGF because of these statements "These articles are based on (or exact copies of) articles from a different language Wikipedia." so I don't see the problem with copying and pasting (from a different version) articles. Also this Category:En copy-pastes. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is doing so many so fast without actually simplifying them. As mentioned above the fact its an earlier version or the attribution isn't the issue...its the not simplifying that he is commenting on. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the problem if its an earlier version. I did, however, when I had made the Frankie J article I did not realize that it was a hoax, however I cleaned it up after the issue caught my eyes. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well a little like your recent ventures at WP:PGA and WP:PVGA, please take one step at a time. If you copy one article over, make sure it's in a decent state, i.e. check the red links, check the categories etc. Don't do a whole bunch then worry about it later, that's disruptive. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that all of his transwikied articles should be deleted. Old version or not, they are still transwikied, and what's more, they will probably be out of date as well, seeing as they're old versions of EN articles. Orashmatash 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the rules of Template:Enwp based (and Category:En copy-pastes) does not state I can not copy-paste (old versions) of enWP. Above all you want them deleted to illustrate a WP:POINT. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The doc of ENWP Based are instructions on when and how to use the template, and are by no means rules, so you shouldn't treat them as such. Also, we are not trying to demonstrate a point; merely saying that you can't keep copy-pasting articles from EN without simplifying them first. Orashmatash 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that, I meant the written content of the categories. Secondly, I did not say "everyone" as it was a reply to you. You're trying to make a WP:POINT by stating that "I personally think that all of his transwikied articles should be deleted" even though User:Racepacket had simplified the articles in question. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our rules do say articles can't just be copied over and left without simplification. So old version or new without simplification they can all be deleted. (except of course the ones racepacket has simplified.) To me what it looks like is you tried to slip by old versions so people wouldn't realize you had identical unsimplified copies. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had stated "the written content of those categories" not rules of Simple. Secondly, I choose old versions that were more simpler then the current version. The only article that slipped was Frankie J and the "Music of..." articles. The others, were modified somewhat or were already simplified already. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are quite a few here that weren't changed at all. That is enough for me to say you need to stop doing it and take one article at a time and fix it properly so you don't waste your time and that of other editors here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about biography of a living person, technology or international relations change quickly with changed facts. However, articles about music or geography do not change very much over time. We have to trust the editor to know when to use the latest version and when it is good to use an earlier version as the starting point. I did not change Music of the United States because Ajona1992 had put the {{wait}} tag on it. I hope that he and other editors will look over my changes, because I am not an expert on music. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Racepacket for rescuing the articles you simplified. I only had place the wait template because of this discussion. @Djsasso, well I'll stop the coping and pasting and will just stick with the way I create articles here. But I think the written content in those categories needs to be re-written to other new users won't make the same mistake I made the in the future. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Went to Patrol new pages this morning over my first cup of coffee, and... There are more. This time Jonayo managed to shorten the articles and try to simplify them a bit, but they are still a mess. Also, no attribution this time around. See National Cleavage Day (really?) and Chauchilla Cemetery. This is getting ridiculous. Any way of stopping this? Gotanda (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not copied and paste those two articles from enWP. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, they are your own work that just happens to be substantially the same as the text and references on En. It's all a coincidence? Come on. Doesn't pass the sniff test. More disruptive editing and disruptive protests at this point. Gotanda (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It gets even better. I decided to have a look back a day earlier. Compare Little_Havana,_Miami with one of the earliest revision on En here. Plenty of heavy lifting. I'd be willing to bet the dozen or so quick new articles that follow in Jonayo's history follow the same pattern. I'd much rather spend a bit of free time I have today writing something than trying to block this flood of incoming copy pastes that add little to the wiki and do in fact cause problems. I wonder how long he's been doing this? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had placed this on the talk page of Latin music:

"Although it is not forbidden in our guidelines, I think it extraordinary to copy over such an out-of-date page [18 June 2003]. On English WP most articles were sub-standard at that stage. Virtually all have since been improved. Also, the changes made here are minor, leaving us with a weak page when we might have had a much better one. I think it bizarre that a contributor who frequently appears on our central pages did not ask for opinions before he went forward with his plan. Now, it may simplest to delete the page and start again. Having the page in this state is likely to deter other editors". Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, "heavy lifting" means hard work. I am not sure that is what was intended above. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction

I have placed AJona1992 on an editing restriction. This is for a period of two months minimum. Regards, fr33kman 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposals

I am still a relative novice here, and can't find the instructions for proposing a page merger. I have discovered that in March 2011 User:Mattisse created UNESCO World Heritage Sites but that in June 2006 User:Bhadani created World Heritage Site. The scope and content are very similar. It seems to me that the title should be singular, not plural. Please help and advise. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already fixed this before reading this discussion. Now World Heritage Site is the root article and UNESCO World Heritage Sites a redirect. The later article had added nothing of note, and in any event the original was a simpler, shorter title. Macdonald-ross (talk)
I think we discovered the problem at about the same time. Thank you for your fix. I will use {{Merge}} next time. Racepacket (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome bot

Hi guys. I was just thinking, if someone had the time and dedication, maybe they could write a Welcome bot. Allow me to explain - on Wikimedia Commons, they have a bot that automatically welcomes new users. You see, I was tagging a page for QD, and the IP editor who created it didn't have a talk page, so Twinkle couldn't tell them that their page had been selected for QD. I thought that it would be a lot easier if a bot welcomed all new users automatically, IP's included. Would that even be possible? Just a thought. Thanks, Orashmatash 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome bots a very frowned on here. It has been brought up a few times and almost unanimously shut down. A bot welcoming you doesn't make you feel welcome and often accomplishes the opposite and pisses you off that a cold bot welcomed you instead of a warm human. Very many people get upset at auto welcomes. I know I hate it when bots welcome me on other wikis because it just creates spam for me. For that matter you shouldn't actually be welcoming IPs at all really since they are shared unlike specific accounts.-DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see... Well, come to think of it, I don't really like being auto-welcomed either... Okay, no welcome bots. Thanks! --Orashmatash 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no need. Welcome people personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This weekend's editing challenge - come and help

What do a British actor Peter Postlethwaite, a Nobel Prize winner Simon van der Meer, an American singer and songwriter Phoebe Snow, a Kenyan marathon runner Samuel Wanjiru and a Nazi war criminal Sándor Képíró have in common? The answer is, of course, very easy. All died during 2011 and none of them have an article! This weekend I invite you in joining me in a huge bio-stub creation project. I want you to help create a 4-5 line bio stub for everyone listed on the Deaths in 2011 page. There is a huge range of people to choose from, so take your pick. The hard work is done as I have already added a reference to a news report on each person. You just need to read it and create the stub, add the references, maybe find some further info, look for an image, use the BD template, give them a category, and it is done. To avoid edit conflicts, create your page, add an Inuse tag, and save it straight away. Editors looking at the Deaths in 2011 page will know that blue linked articles have a page or are being worked on, and so can move to the next interesting red linked person. With 242 names there is a lot of choice. Look forward to seeing your work in the Recent Changes.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I have no problem with helping you with that. I'll add it to my to-do list. Orashmatash 07:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, positive idea. Gotanda (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of all of the hockey players who died in the plane crash. Might as well take care of them since that is what I normally edit anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created two of the Australians not yet created, but I don't think I'm ready to work on Simple while it is so "empty" -- i.e. I'm not sure which references are missing because they're not "simple" and when they're just missing, though I assume it is mostly the latter. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At halfway through the weekend we have 28 new articles so far, only 214 to go!Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wait a minute! Here in the States the weekend is just starting! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XD I know! DJDunsie (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Thanks to everyone who took part in this project, which was announced with no warning or preparation time. Over the weekend there were 48 new articles on biography created. Some were short bio-stubs, but many were more extended. This involved 15 editors and one IP. Sadly during the same period, another 7 names were added to the Deaths in 2011 page, so there is still plenty to do. But thanks to everyone who took part, Peterdownunder (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun; do another one! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise Peter, I only created one and it wasn't even a stub. I didn't have much time on my hands last weekend, so again, I apologise. If you do another one, I'd be more than happy to help. Cheers, –Orashmatash 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template categories

As some of you know, I am currently working on categorizing templates. I could use some input from folks who have been around here a while and have seen how the categories get used.

Templates are currently categorized in two major ways:

  1. By subject matter: countries, science, politicians, etc., a lot like the regular article categories
  2. By what kind of template it is: infobox and navigational box (aka "navbox") are the most common, and there are a few others

My question for y'all is: Do we need that second type of category? I don't think I would personally look for a template based on what kind of template it was; I'd look based on what it was about. I can work with both kinds of categories, but it greatly complicates things, so I'd like your input to be sure it's wanted. I'm up for maintaining that structure when I work on the 2000+ uncategorized templates; I just want to be sure I need to. Thanks in advance for your input. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do both still. I often go looking for templates that are a specific type. In fact I probably do that more than by subject matter. I would actually more likely cut the first one. Was sort of surprised when I saw someone categorizing by subject matter. So I think that highlights that different people use them differently. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the input. I will keep both. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Mark this page as patrolled" mean in practice?

Like many people, after the recent call to patrol new pages, I went work on that. In most cases it is pretty clear. However, sometimes things slip through, and other times I'm just not sure what to do. A recent case in point is Separatist_movements_(India) it has been lingering in the queue with nobody willing to talke the plunge and mark it. New pages created since then have been marked, so I am guessing others editors may be wondering too. The En page and most of the parallel pages the articles links to are all templated up on En with NPOV, cite needed, etc. I'm tempted to mark it as patrolled to clear the queue, but does ticking the box mean I think the article is "OK" (whatever that means). Anyone else have any thoughts? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, marking a page as okay means that the editor has agreed that it meets our basic minimum standards. fr33kman 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going by the practice on enwiki as I understand it. Specifically, I look at the article to be sure it looks like an encyclopedia article -- not obvious vandalism, has actual content, etc. It can be deficient as far as not being wikified, not having references, etc.: if the only problem is those kinds of issues, I tag it as needed and mark it patrolled. I would not mark one patrolled just to get it off the list; if I mark an article patrolled, I have taken responsibility for it not being junk. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I went ahead and marked it patrolled, but also tagged it complex, wikify, and neutral. I'd say the article really is a mess, but there may be something salvageable there. Hard to see where to begin though. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has to be seen in the light of our particular needs. Much is wrong about this page, and correct action would probably be to propose the page in question for deletion. The placing of 'complex' and 'POV' tags on pages solves no problems. Pages that look to be in real trouble should be proposed for deletion, then others can decide on their potential value to the wiki. Otherwise the pages will lie there for years, putting readers off. This is the kind of topic that needs to be written from scratch; simplifying or copying the dreadful enWP article is not the way to go. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Zwijndrecht" to "Zwijndrecht, Belgium"

The current article Zwijndrecht is about the Zwijndrecht in Belgium, and since I just created a stub about Zwijndrecht, Netherlands, I wondered if someone would please move Zwijndrecht to Zwijndrecht, Belgium? Then, please turn Zwijndrecht into a redirect to Zwijndrecht (disambiguation). (I copied this approach from Frankfurt) -- Thank you! Bicycle bell (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article, and updated all links to Zwijndrecht to point to the new page. I have not changed Zwijndrecht to redirect to the dab page, however, because the standard is to have Foo (disambiguation) redirect to Foo, not the other way around. You should now be able to change Zwijndrecht to a dab page, and change Zwijndrecht (disambiguation) to redirect there.
For future reference, when there are only two meanings for a term, it's simpler to use hatnotes on each of the pages instead of creating a dab page. You would put a hatnote on each page referring to the other. Let me know if you'd like more information on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, it's looking great. :-) I did not realize that the standard was to have "Foo" as the main dab page to which "Foo (dab)" then simply redirects, instead of the other way around, since I just happened to stumble across the Frankfurt example. Good thing to know.
And in the case of Zwijndrecht, I think a dab page is the only way to go, because I don't believe that any of the two Zwijndrechts has more right than the other one to be "the main Zwijndrecht" (i.e. without country specification in the title), so the current solution works for me. Thanks again! -- Bicycle bell (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors (WP:SCE)

Arguments in favor of the project

Since WP:PR was no longer active and was nominated for removal/deletion, a lot of resources because of the results of the consensus was taken away for non-native English speakers, ESOL, children and adults learning English. If someone who isn't that good at writing articles in Simple English or simplifying advanced English, like myself for an example, may have a hard time trying to figure out minor mistakes/errors in sentences that we (or the person who wrote the article) believe is correct, until proven wrong. Projects such as WP:PGA/WP:VGA, which highlights/promote and recognize excellence in content, is like a battleship with users who are non-native English speakers and children alike. Reasons why, (1) users who participate in reviewing articles against the criteria, tend to be somewhat aggressive in reviewing articles that are in obvious shape of a premature nomination. Users, particularly children and users who has disabilities, will take the judgments to the heart and can even make them feel ashamed of themselves and their works they had created. (2) Users who has MDD, Autism (or any form of Autism such as Asperger syndrome) will eventually give up on articles that were demoted at nominations, during their first few times; if they were told that their articles still needs improvements and are no where near GA status. (3) Other users who are non-native, will fight the argument. Users who has Anger issues and Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder just to name a few, will believe that their point is in fact valid even if rules state otherwise. These pointers can be stop by warnings and even a block, however, why should their disorders be the the blame of their actions that are sometimes uncontrollable? So I decided to think about a way that could help users who suffer these disorders and the new users who who will join Simple English Wikipedia. This project can also help users who are native English speakers who would like a second opinion on their articles.

What will the project be for and how can it be helpful to Simple?

As what I had presented above, the project can help users who are children or has disabilities and developmental/mood disorders (or even all users) get a copy-edit (c/e) of their article(s) performed by native English speakers who can assist with simplifying. With this tool, their articles can have a momentous advantage at passing WP:PGA/WP:PVG. The results of their accomplishment(s) would/can help build a sense of happiness and other positive moods. The promotion of their articles will, not only, give them inspiration into creating/expanding more articles, it can lower bad tension being built from them and can also make them feel better of themselves because they had accomplish a mile stone and could help push them into achieving even larger goals. The project is nothing like what WP:PR was. Users simply request that an article should be copy-edit and simplify. An experienced user will perform the c/e and simplification as requested.

Who will perform the simplifying and copy-editing?

Helpful users who are proud to help out others are the right editors for this job. As well as, native English speakers who can spot even the littlest mistakes and errors on articles that others cannot. Everyone can simplify an article (ie., equivalent --> the same). However, users who are not native English speakers, children, ESOL and adults learning English don't have the ability to transform big words into small or simpler ones. Copy-editing (ie., the clothes cannot fit me ---> the clothes did not fit me) is more difficult to perform. Even if someone believes their article(s) will pass at projects aimed for, their article can be demoted if there is an outstanding number of problems presented in their article(s). C/E-ing can help users understand the problems or mistakes they had made and can help them to not perform those mistakes/problems again in the future.

Conclusion

The WP:SCE project can help anybody and everybody alike to help their article(s) pass at projects aimed at. They can simply request one (or a maximum that should be discussed if this project is created) article(s) on the nominations page and a advanced user can help with simplifying and c/e-ing the article. Users who are children, non-native, ESOL, has disabilities and/or developmental/mood disorders can find this tool extremely helpful. This project can help fill in the missing hole of WP:PR. Also at WP:PGA/WP:PVG, articles nominated will pass the requirements and will lower premature article(s) from being nominated. Also, because of the 3-week rule, users can spend their time with improving the article at WP:SCE. BTW, sorry for this BIG argument in favor of WP:SCE, just wanted everyone to understand the purpose and reasoning behind this proposal. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the project

  1. As nom. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It will get the first authors of articles and the later copy editors to work together in a spirit of cooperation. Racepacket (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Co-operation and collaboration have worked informally for years, and that is actually how most things get done here. User A writes article, and asks User B on his/her talk page to copy edit it. User B does so, and leaves other comments, then User A fixes those comments. When User B is happy, User A then normally nominates the articles with users B, C and D adding further comments then supporting or opposing, and so on. Does this sound familiar? Completely unneeded extra bureaucracy! Goblin 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]
    I understand the point made by Bluegoblin7. However, I see that there are people who get angry about others editing "their" article. There are people who welcome others. Bluegoblin7 assumes that everyone is in the second group. This plan would help volunteers tell the difference between the two types of editors. It provides a way to invite in other editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The free encyclopedia that anyone can change" is one of our mottos, so the article doesn't really "belong" to anyone. I haven't seen anyone get angry at people editing the article that they created. Diff? –Orashmatash 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the project

  1. For the same reason I thought we should merge Peer Review...we don't have the number of editors necessary for all these side projects which end up causing people to spend more time administering projects than actually fixing articles. And more likely than not this discussion will be further proof of it as we waste time arguing about it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well how does your argument pass the ethos of the reason Simple English Wikipedia was created? There is more advanced users then non native ones here. I believe this is a helpful project that can be very active if its given the chance. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quiet easily....We were created to have simple english. That there are more advanced users and less advanced users doesn't change anything. Our goal is to have as much notable content in simple english as possible. With the number of editors we have that means streamlining processes and cutting out as much unnecessary junk as possible. Just because our articles are in simple english doesn't actually mean the editors should be non-native speakers. In fact there is a great argument that people who don't know english well shouldn't actually be editing simple.wiki because it is extremely hard to write simple english for even native speakers. Much harder than writing normal english. So whether or not an editor is native or not is of lesser concern than us getting as much good content as possible. Thus time wasted is content lost. We have based on the stats page that is I forget the link to at the moment (no not the one you can go to in the toolbox) is 19 active editors.... Of those very few are probably interested in copy editing other peoples articles. It becomes obvious very quickly that these processes eat up what little editor time we have. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I believe this project would be even more active then WP:PGA/WP:PVG projects combined. We should have more helpful projects then none at all. The only "side projects" would only be this one, if created. WP:PR is long gone but with this project, users can benefit with it. I believe that its better to have articles that are extremely well written (encyclopedia) then stub articles that are not comprehensive at all. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This won't work. As Djsasso said, we do not have the editors to support this kind of thing, and like Peer Review, it will crash and burn. Talk pages are better for this kind of thing. Sorry, Orashmatash 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Talk pages is not a suitable way for users to get help. They don't even know if that user will even help them, why should they waste their time asking? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages are a more than suitable place to get help. As long as you don't ask an inactive user, then you will get help, so if an editor asks another editor to copy-edit their article, then I can't see any problems. Orashmatash 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't get help if that user is busy in RL, not a helpful user or does not know the basic rules of WP:RULES and other guidelines. C'mon people have a heart. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask one of these lovely people. They're always active, and you can check the table whenever you want a c-e. Thanks, Orashmatash 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this even assailable to users who has disabilities or even new users? I just found out about it when you replied to this message. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter, again, talk pages are probably more suited to this, rather than recreating what is basically another Peer Review, but this one can be used to make content better, which is essentially what PR was already doing (telling editors what can improve their articles). In my opinion, just a slightly improved version of Peer Review, with a few extra features chucked in. Still no. Sorry, Orashma tash 20:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages are not really suitable, the consensus was to ask on WP:ST for peer reviews. Secondly, WP:PR was only for reviewing not improving content, simplifying and helping users who has disabilities. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not changing my mind on this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we need it, really. So No. Orashmatash 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's ok with me :) I respect your reasons on why. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. for the sole reason that, after reading through your arguments, I still have no idea exactly what you're proposing. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The project is to help users get a copy-edit and simplification of their article for projects they are aiming at. This project can help users who are limited in English, ESOL, children, users who have disabilities and disorders alike. All users are also welcomed to nominate their own articles as well. Hope this helped, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. So... because PR is closed we're going to call it something else and assume it's going to work? No. Normandy (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this project is nothing like PR. Please read the arguments in favor of the project to have a better understanding on the proposal. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it. I still don't really understand it. I guess you are trying to get a project where people will ask you to review their edits fixing mistakes and cleaning up articles... like what we do already but putting some red tape around it. It's like another PR, which didn't work, therefore this won't either. I know I wouldn't be helping there as I didn't do it much at PR either. So far you have one person in support of this; you. Are you going to do this yourself? Its happened before that people start projects and they fail soon after. Hell, I actually did one not too different to this, (this one, and it failed. It was basically people in a "team" choose an article and work on it until its a good article. It failed. Because as soon as an article is chosen that we don't have an interest in then we won't help. It won't work. Its a waste of time, effort and resources. Sorry, try doing it without the bureaucracy and see what happens... Normandy (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have no clue why we're voting here, but apparently, we are. So, count my "vote" as oppose. If people want to put themselves into a category of "Wikipedians who are willing to copyedit" then more power to them. However, I think a "project" is pointless. Only (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have no interest in this proposed project. I vote no. Patrick0Moran (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with Orashmatash. Talk pages are very useful for coordinating article improvements. DJDunsie (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Heh. No. Goblin 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Comments about the project

  • I do not have accurate figures, but at the moment SimpleWP is "run" by between 20 and 30 named editors, who regularly contribute. When WP:PR was still there, we had very few pages sit there for a long time. Little was being done to improve the pages, and most editors I know ended up "knowing" that listing an article there would not lead to its improvment. SO, closing down WP:PR was only a logical step (there was little opposition, if I recall). The project proposed above has similar goals, and will probably fail in similar ways, if it gets through. "Another" approach I see is listing an article that needs improving at simple talk. Specific questions on what to improve can be handled on the article talk page (that's what it is for, after all). When we see that the "requests for improvement" at WP:ST come so often that they are disrupting, we can create a "subpage", or "project page"; not now. One of the problems of this wiki is that structures need to be found that are lightweight. Of the time spent on wiki, most should be in the area of improving content or creating new content, least should be used for various forms of "administration" (note that page patrolling/finding articles for deletion is also administration). In this context, I see the proposal above as a good one; but the "administrative cost" it brings us as too high; we should therefore seek to get its benefits, but without the drawbacks. --Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well myself and User:Orashmatash were active at WP:PR the last weeks of it being on here. However, I do agree with you. I had tried asking for users on WP:ST for a review of some of my articles and it has been good so far, but on average only one user comments on my request for a PR from them. This project can help everyone, not only users who has disabilities, even though the target is to help users who has a hard time understanding English, let alone writing a good article. I think, if this project is created, that we should seek someone who is actively online and willing to help out to be the director of the project, so in this case this project will never be inactive or useless after a few months or years. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If people didn't have time or interest in doing peer reviews, they won't have time or interest in this, either. No one is saying it wouldn't be helpful, just that it doesn't get enough participation to pull resources away from other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's c/e being done everyday by almost everyone. Why can't a project that is helpful be used? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

Can I do this project as a trial and move it to User:AJona1992/Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors (similar to WikiProjects)? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't need to ask questions for anything to do with your userspace. Goblin 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
Just wanted to asked. Its best to see what the community thinks :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Use update

I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at Talk:Terms of use. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of Terms of use is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at m:Terms of use/de, but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2 -- Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that someone is going to translate the new Terms of Use from Lawyer English to Simple English before it is linked here? Racepacket (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely we don't simplify things that are legalese for legal reasons. Simplifying can change the meaning which of course can lead to legal complications. Its one of the reasons we don't do fair use images. Simplifying the legal stuff would be a nightmare that would likely cause issues. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Learners

I have been around here for months, and this appears to be a very good project (or at least the ideas behind it are admirable). However, what I have noticed since discovering this Wikipedia is that most users have a comprehensive, excellent command of the English language already. As someone who was born and raised in the United States, my first language is English too, which is not uncommon in the least on this wiki. It is not often that I have upon a user who was just beginning to learn English, or who did not appear to understand how to communicate in the language. Indeed, most Simple users appear to be native speakers of English, from a Western, Anglophone background, and if English isn't their native language, they usually are well-versed in conversational English. While the presence of native English speakers trying to help those less immersed in the English language is certainly not a problem, there is a possibility for there to be more helpers than people being helped. Personally, I dislike the idea that of a wiki that has less people trying to learn English and more Westerners building a community around the idea (when they are not effective at it). Not saying that the community is ineffective, but I am not sure about whether non-English speakers are actually benefiting and joining the community. Has anyone tried promoting this site to non-English Wikipedias? I am not sure about this, so let me ask: does anyone here know of/remember a case of someone struggling to learn English (or who was obviously a non-native speaker and had trouble expressing her or his thoughts) and editing here frequently? Or just looking for help here with English? Thanks. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the audience, too. Here are a couple of thoughts:
  1. The technology does not help us learn about the users. If we advise users not to say much about themselves on their user page, then of course we don't know much about them. The Foundation has not funded any market research on us, and if they did they would find out (as you suspect) that we are not widely known about.
  2. Writing a foreign language is very much more difficult than reading it. It's almost impossible to contribute text until one's grasp of the language is quite good. It follows that our contributors do (generally) have quite good writing skills. We are not in the business of directly teaching people to write English, but to create an encyclopedia which does much of what English wikipedia does, but in simpler form. That is difficult enough.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked several times with English classes from Japanese universities where they have been set tasks to write articles here. This has been an interesting challenge, especially as I have no Japanese, and they have very liyyle conversational English. Some of their efforts developed into good quality articles, some are still in the sandbox as they are close to unreadable. It was difficult to help them when neither can communicate. However writing is not an easy task. The people who contribute regularly are a small group, but the readers are a vastly larger number. And also writing in Simple English is not a simple task.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peterdownunder, it is good to know that there are foreign students using this as a learning tool. That seems like a very interesting project. Macdonald-ross brings up an important point, that learners of the language might not be confident enough to write in it, because, as he correctly points out, it is more difficult to write in a language than to comprehend it. However, one would think that at least one person who doesn't speak English well (not contributors who are already fluent in English despite it not being their native tongue) would come to this wiki and start contributing without fear of embarrassment. A concern of mine is the response when someone like that arrives; when someone who seemed to fit that description came here (the "Pakistan editor" or Pakistan "vandal" -- does anyone remember hir???), s/he was accused of vandalism, the response was unfriendly, and even somewhat racist. I would indeed like to know more about the audience, and also, it would be good if this wiki found an audience among those whose mother tongue is not English (keep wanting to say "foreign" or "immigrant" - I guess that is the consequence of living in a xenophobic country). I understand, however, that this is probably very difficult to accomplish and I myself have no solution to the deficit in users who are beginning to learn English. In no way did I intend, with my original post, to minimize the (underrated) effort that it takes to create a wiki in "Simple English". This is just something to think about: how can more English learners be encouraged to participate in the Simple Wikipedia community? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have set pages on this wiki for students in my classes at Japanese universities to read, but contributing their own writing is much more difficult. I'm proposing a course that will include writing on this wiki, but it takes time to get approvals etc. Most language teachers will tell you that you can't just throw students into this project. They need instruction and support all along the way. I do hope to get that going with at least a few learners. There are teachers asking students who are non-native writers of English to work on this wiki and on En, but ironically if those contributions are quite good, you might not notice them. Gotanda (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) So far, I have come across one user where I had the impression they wanted to contribute, but that their communication skills in English was limited. The user ended up copying (parts of) articles of the English Wikipedia; two or three times, an attempt was made to communicate with the user, but failed. IIRC the user ended up being "banned" (yet comes back regularly). I am not a native speaker of English, but the basic problem I see is that the skill of English of an editor need to be at least at a basic level, to be able to communicate with others in the language. The editor I am talking about (The Pakistani edtor) has neverethless contributed a great deal to the Pakistan-, Bangladesh- and India-related articles here. He uses an IP that resolves to somewhere in the Manchester-area, so I cannot imagine that they cannot speak at least a little English. Anyway, since we are utterly unable to communicate with him, we didn't have too many options. That editor could be a great contributor to this wikipedia, if the communication problem were solved; there are two or three small things that he needs to change in his/her editing pattern, and I am sure no one would object to him contributing. As to the other audience, I cannot tell you much, as no studies have been done. A few times, we had official "Class projects" of people contributing content about their region. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing deletion debate

(4953) 1990 MU was deleted with the edit summary "RfD: Result of a deletion discussion". Why can I not find the archive of that discussion? SpinningSpark 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the article is lumped in with others at an RfD. For example if we deleted all the articles with "Villages in Pakistan" (for example) we wouldn't have an individual RfD for each one. We'd have a single RfD for all the articles. Normandy (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, technically, that answers my question which was phrased as why but what I really meant was where the f*** is it? SpinningSpark 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ignoring the unnecessary incivility there....the article was deleted because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Asteroids. Only (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Punk music

WikiProject Punk music

A Punk music WikiProject has been created, to improve and add to the small number of punk rock-related articles on Simple.
If you are interested please go to the project page and maybe even join!
Thanks! - Benzband (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Ban Discussion - Purplebackpack89

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Result: Community banned, with an appeal possible after no less than 6 months from today. Block duration will not change (remains at "indefinite"). Personally, I hope that the editor in question can take this time to reflect on his own actions. In the world outside Wikipedia, it could get more cruel than this. Chenzw  Talk  16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal community ban discussion regarding the user Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs). PBP was blocked twice recently, both times by myself. The first time was on October 13, 2011 for general project disruption, and the second is for "Bad behaviour/harassment: and accusing TRM of vandalism, and also canvassing (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAjraddatz&action=historysubmit&diff=3132295&oldid=2699636)". PBP has a long history of strained relationships with other editors and has been blocked numerous times before. At this time, therefore, I am initiating a formal community ban discussion. fr33kman 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I support a block ban. The evidence speaks for its-self. I'm sorry, but I don't really see another way around these pretty big problems. –Orashmatash 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a "block" or a "ban"? For what length of time? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, a block. However if the problems continue when (if) this block expires, then... –Orashmatash 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A ban. Indefinite. –orashmatash 19:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that there doesn't seem to be any new information regarding this matter and that most of the active community has already weighed in on the issue, I will close this discussion later today (probably around 1200 UTC). Anyone who has not given his opinion but wishes to is urged to do so by then. We need to move on with this. Chenzw  Talk  03:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just catching up on all this. While I think in general our handling of problematic users is rather arbitrary, I do agree that in this particular case banning the user seems suitable, given there's been en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues and some rather immature behaviour displayed. That said, I think that an indefinite ban with no opportunity of returning would be extremely harsh in these circumstances, and propose that the ban either expires after ~6 months or is open to appeal after that time. sonia♫ 08:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse ban, in my opinion this should've been done much earlier, we are far too nice about disruption. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Side discussion – the use of IRC

I would like to make it clear that the use of IRC in Wikipedia-binding decisions should be seriously discouraged. I would like to understand the community's opinion on this as well since I find it very strange that a user can make a plea off-wiki and be unblocked from an indef block. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've very strongly urged people to not do anything that results in an on-wiki action off-wiki because we need the paper trail. IRC should not be used for anything other than social interaction with your fellow editors. I am only ever on it because I have to be since I have noticed a disturbing trend of people forgetting they need to have any sort of discussion that affects on-wiki actions on the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning Fr33kman's decision here, but I find this rather strange. I don't see how a request for unblock off wiki should be treated any differently from a request for unblock on wiki... –Orashmatash 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because on-wiki is visible to all, off-wiki is invisible to some (i.e. those who don't use IRC). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but still, it's the same editor asking for the same thing at the end of the day; an unblock. The only difference is that it's off wiki. So the decision shouldn't be any different unless Fr33kman seriously felt that Purplebackpack89 was being sincere. –Orashmatash 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision-making process, as with all other Wiki-based proposals, should be discussed on-wiki. That's obvious. Decisions of this nature should not be made off-wiki. Ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. –Orashmatash 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM: again, indefinite means just that, it does not mean infinite. I have said this loads of times before. I do sometimes block indef when I'm unsure of the period of the block but know it needs to start right away. There was no discussion happening on PBP's talk page that could really be considered a community ban discussion. Therefore I was still the blocking admin and could alter the block if I felt it right. When a person is truly contrite and shows they have no intention of continuing being disruptive I believe a block should generally be undone. Blocks are not punishment remember. We don't keep a person blocked because they called you a vandal, we keep them blocked only if they are a danger to the wiki. @Orashmatash: yes, I believe PBP has every intention of changing, I wouldn't have changed it if I didn't believe that. Now, as for IRC, things happen on IRC all the time and for loads of projects, however I believe I am allowed to speak to a blocked user via any means. I was reevaluating my initial block; I saw no actual discussion about banning going on, so the blocking admin still gets to reevaluate (or indeed any admin for that matter). Now, that the community ban discussion is underway, changing it would be a totally different bag of peanuts. fr33kman 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I agree with Fr33kman's response. I understand why he did what he did, and I can understand TRM's POV here. But Fr33kman is the blocking admin and has every right to reconsider via IRC or wikipedia. Sorry. –Orashmatash 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I'm missing the point here. What is the reason for the change in block? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're splitting this discussion into several places. This part seems to be the use of IRC, which we can agree should not be used at all for on-wiki discussions. We have no paper trail to see what PBP said to fr33k to allow him to change the block. No-one who doesn't use irc is able to comment or make their opinions known. IRC is not WP Normandy (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for changing his behaviour, I've seen no sign of contrition, just more vitriol. Hence why I want to know what led to the block being rescinded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Side discussion: I can understand how IRC might seem helpful and how email communication might allow a cooled-down discussion. But, I would prefer to see all block & unblock discussion happen on-wiki. Sometimes an editor is blocked through a public process and then suddenly unblocked through a private (or less public) process. People who support this project and make it work may then have no way of knowing what was discussed or agreed. That does not build understanding of standards in the community. I mean that in general, not just in relation to the discussion of PBP89; it applies to others as well. Gotanda (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fr33kman. Indefinite is called so for a reason. However, I do also believe that there is a need to retain a record of proceedings, for other administrators reserve the right to review the decision and advise accordingly. For that, a log should have at least been made. Whether it would be faked or not is irrelevant, in my opinion, because our administrators are elected because they are trusted members of the community.
In either case, understanding the dynamic nature of on-wiki issues, a hard rule definitely must be in place. This is not the time to discuss the use of IRC yet - so what if we all come to the understanding that off-wiki discussion on such things are not permitted? The main issue here is the editor's ban. If the community has made up its mind, no amount of IRC and/or other on-wiki discussion by other parties can change the decision anyway. Let's get our priorities right - ban discussion first, restrictions on IRC (and other off-wiki communications) later. Chenzw  Talk  16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, about File:Wiki.png

Hi. I have recently noticed that the [[::File:Wiki.png|logo]] for this page was the old puzzle ball and I thought that it should be changed to the new one. I have seen this on it's talk page. Please visit that page. Thank you. —Η-θ hi 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you want the entire Simple logo to be changed (the picture at the top left), we'll most likely need community consensus (see here). –Orashmatash 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah why have we never updated it? Seems reasonable... Normandy (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand the WMF was going to be doing it themselves across the wikis...but maybe they weren't. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you find this? —Η-θ hi 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall, but I know it came up one of the last few times changing the ball had come up. Something along the lines that the WMF was gradually switching over wikis. But as I said maybe I am wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well how are we going to get community consensus? —Η-θ hi 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We get it right here. When people see this, they'll probably have some input. –Orashmatash 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People will comment here if they think it needs to be changed or not. That is how consensus happens, by discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need community consensus? Can't we just be WP:BOLD and update it to be like the other wikis... Normandy (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I agree there. –orashmatash 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I would say we need to seek consensus to implement the change rather than being "bold." The reason being is that in the past we decided not to update it through discussion. Bold should not be used to go against previous consensus. Only (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say this but; where was it discussed before and consensus that it should not be changed? Normandy (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find the discuss I'm thinking of, but here's one about it from the past Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_83#Wikipedia_logo. Maybe it was in the main page archives? I'll have to search again later. Only (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Simplifying Copy Editors

Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors

A Simplifying and copy-editing project has been created, to improve articles that are aimed to be nominated at WP:PGA and WP:PVGA.
If you are interested please go to the project page and maybe even join!
Thanks! - Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyrighted addition

An IP user has added content like this (insecure diff). I believe this is copyrighted from the website I posted on the user's talk page. Is the content OK to use? πr2 (talk • changes) 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions look fine to me. At the bottom of the website it does say "© 2010 Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust." so... yup. Good work, good spot. Normandy (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

How are these (Special:DoubleRedirects and Special:BrokenRedirects) updated? Is there a bot or a link to purge? Normandy (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a function of the Wiki software so it happens automatically. But I am not sure how often it updates. I am thinking it updates at the time of database dumps which are fairly far apart. At least a month I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its updated today after only three days. It must be fairly random... Oh well, I'll just continue to check daily :P Normandy (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

I have come across an odd addition to the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 article. Please could somebody check it out as I think it may be vandalism. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=3145349"