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

English Wikipedia based[change source]

This is just a copy and paste of an EnWikipedia article. No attempt made to simplify English. Needs to be transwikied. HappyHangman (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request[change source]

  • The passages below are exactly the same between the attributed En version and the current Simple version. Other parts may also be the same, but that's what I found. Gotanda (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This word comes from English dialect geek, geck: fool, freak; from Low German geck, from Middle Low German. The root geck still survives in Dutch and Afrikaans gek: crazy, as well as some German dialects, and in the Alsatian word Gickeleshut: geek's hat, used in carnivals.[1]

In 19th century, in North-America, the term geek referred to a freak in circus side-shows (see also freak show). In some cases, its performance included biting the head off a live chicken. The 1976 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary included only the definition regarding geek shows.

Although often considered as a pejorative, the term is also often used self-referentially without malice or as a source of pride - an example is the 'Geek Squad' of the Best Buy company.

meaning. The terms nerd, gimp, dweeb, dork, spod and gump have similar meanings as geek, but many choose to identify different connotations among these terms, although the differences are disputed. In a 2007 interview on The Colbert Report, Richard Clarke said the difference between nerds and geeks is "geeks get it done."[2] Julie Smith defined a geek as "a bright young man turned inward, poorly socialized, who felt so little kinship with his own planet that he routinely traveled to the ones invented by his favorite authors, who thought of that secret, dreamy place his computer took him to as cyberspace—somewhere exciting, a place more real than his own life, a land he could conquer, not a drab teenager's room in his parents' house."[3]

Geek Pride Day has been observed on May 25 in Spain since 2006 (May 25 being the world premiere date of Star Wars and also Towel Day). The holiday promotes the right to be nerdy or geeky, and to express it in public without shame. A new convention, Geek.Kon, has sprung up in Madison, Wisconsin with a purpose to celebrate all things geek. The website BoardGameGeek is an online community of boardgamers who identify themselves as geeks at game conventions; they call their website "The Geek," for short. Technical support services such as Geek Squad use the term geek to signify helpful technical abilities. In recent history, some geeks have cultivated a geek culture, such as geek humor and obscure references on t-shirts. The so-called geek chic trend is a deliberate affectation of geek or nerd traits as a fashion statement. Nonetheless, the derogatory definition of geeks remains that of a person engrossed in his area of interest at the cost of social skills, personal hygiene, and status.

There has been criticism over the widespread appropriation of the terms "geek" and "nerd" as self descriptors, especially by individuals who would have most likely not been described as such under the traditional stereotype. Along with efforts to de-emphasize the negative social aspects, in recent years there have been arguments for de-emphasizing the necessity for having noticeably exceptional levels of intelligence or technical aptitude. This has resulted in the desire to redefine the term geek rather as any person who pursues a passionate interest in anything regardless of genre, is creative, and individualistic. Arguments against the revisionist definitions, however, state that it is not only unnecessary, but it completely contradicts the traditional accepted definition of the terms which distinctly refer to persons who are noticeably above average intelligence, usually more adept in technically demanding fields, and socially awkward or alienated to some degree.

Geek chic is not to be confused with preppie fashion, which is more widely associated with a conservative image rather than geek culture. Instead, much of the geek chic image borrows from various alternative youth fashions such as goth, hippie, and bohemian among others,[source?] but t-shirts with geeky in-jokes seem to originate from the geeks themselves, with shirt designers who tailor to geeks offering rewards for the best ideas.[4][5]

The A3 test is "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." Obviously, the whole article was not copied with little or no change. See this diff. What section (if any) do you feel was copied with little or no change? You have not justfied deleting the entire article under A3. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Already answered. See above. All of the above blockquote sections are identical. Other changes are minimal. Gotanda (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Please reread the article. if you want to make your own simplifying changes, you may do so, as did Barras and DJDunsie on this article. I do not claim "ownership" of the article and want it to continued to be improved. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This is similar to Jonayo's recent copy pastes. Run the diff on the attributed version Of course the current version here on Simple appears to have been significantly changed when compared to the current version on En, not the version actually copied from. But this is a pretty clear copy-paste. A few added links and a word here and there do not make an article simple. You should know that by now. Gotanda (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Jonayo used En Wikipedia articles from 2003 and 2005. Here the current En version was used, but instead of trying a QD on July 22, you are nominating it months later after others have further simplified it.
What specifically about this article do you find not simple? It has been simplified by Barras, DJDunsie and me. If there are specific concerns that remain, either let me know, or change them yourself. The article is not eligible for A3 because it is different. It is also has been changed since you nominated it for quick deletion. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Gotanda here, this article is very very complex. I have done a moderate simplify, I didn't have time to do the whole thing, and I had to keep checking my dictionary to see what words meant. Needs heavily simplified, but I don't think it should be deleted under A3. Orashmatash 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it is very obvious that much of this page has been directly copy-pasted from en. I'm reading claims that is has been simplified, but a quick check from the time of creation until the time that the QD tag was placed, the only simplification I see is the removal of external links. I think this can be deleted per A3, unless somebody wants to take it to userspace to simplify.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The author should take that to their own userspace. However Gordonrox, if you look at the diff where I did a simplify, you will be able to see that I simplified it, not very much though, because as I said above, I was wasting my time constantly looking at my dictionary to see what words meant. I now support either deletion under A3, or moving to someone's user space, because it's pretty obvious that not going to be simplified any time soon. Orashmatash 15:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, if Gordonrox24 wants to compare En Wikipedia with Simple Wikipedia, you need to look at the article on English Wikipedia. The diff you gave above compared a simplified version on Simple Wikipedia with the tagged version. The diff compares the English Wikipedia to the Simple Wikipedia. Also, the version at the time of tagging is not relevant. The article has since been changed, and the question is whether the version today meets the A3 criteria. We had invited Gotanda to move articles into my user space and leave a review of the article, but rather than do that, Gotanda has opted for a Quick Delete. Racepacket (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Gotanda has already done that at the top of the page.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket, you could save us all time by just moving the page into your userpace. Orashmatash 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
To Gordonrox24, I believe Gotanda has merely listed the portion of paragraphs that he found unchanged. Some of those sentences have been divided into more sentences or rewritten. There are two opposite approaches to addressing a problem. The first is constructive engagement, where Gotanda could list what problems he has with an article, and I will work to address his concerns. The second is to nominate articles for Quick Deletion, where the concerns are not spelled out other than to claim that "little or no change" exists between the English and Simple versions. That is an objective standard, but leads to more drama with the time of many more people involved. Because the article was changed more than a "little," it should not be deleted. I would hope that Gotanda will use constructive engagement rather than Quick Deletion for any problems he has in the future. (This is the third QD in a row that he has proposed, the other two were declined and are now at WP:Requests for Deletion.) Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that DJDunsie and I have made many changes since the QD tag was posted, it is claer that A3 does not apply here. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Even the earliest version was obviously not the same as the En Wikipedia--for example, it had the trademark dispute section and the footnotes to the Wall Street Journal article that were not in the En Wikipedia article. It did not have the "Other pages" section that was in the En Wikipedia article. This is not a "little" change. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I have declined the QD as it is not an exact A3. Please take the deletion to RFD. Thanks, fr33kman 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. But I really don't think I should be deleted at all now, only moved into userspace, as editors have spent much time trying to simplify it - it would be a sheer waste of time if it were to be deleted. DJDunsie (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is that complexity alone is not a criteria for deletion. The sentences quoted at the top of the page have been broken up long ago. People are working together cooperatively to build the encyclopedia. And finally, I have learned a lot about writing simple articles since this one was created back in July. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that on October 23, Gotanda has gone back and made a comparison between my first version here and the En Wikipedia version. Here is his diff. It is clear that I added the Wall Street Journal source and the discussion of the trademark disputes. But the day before, October 22, he nominated it for QD|A3, which was declined on October 24. Racepacket (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest not stating what I or other editors may have "confirmed" especially since the RfD discussion is long over. The reason it was not QD'd probably had more to do with the fact that the nomination caused you and other editors (DJ in particular) to edit the article. Then it became different from En. At the time of nomination it was substantially the same as En and unsimplified. It is now different in many places, but still unsimplified. Copying, pasting, and then not simplifying is not helpful to this wiki and just creates work for other editors to do. A bot could copy-paste and leave it for others to clean up. Increasing the number of complex articles on the wiki is not productive for a Simple English Wikipedia. Gotanda (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the justification behind, "It is now different in many places, but still unsimplified." Please could you give examples for further improvement. DJDunsie (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
DJ, I know you really tried to help, but just off the top of my head--some vocabulary: reclamation, derogatory, enthusiast, socialized, inclusion, mainstream spectrum, freak (redlinked), Low German, etymology, gimp (linked to the GNU software), dork+spod+gump (empty wikt links perhaps from some autosimplify tool), trademark, drab, deliberate, affectation, revisionist, and bespectacled for starters. And, I'm sorry, but linking those to wiktionary, a red link page, or a complex page doesn't help. Rewriting is the way to go. Then, there is the sentence structure. Unfortunately I have work to do now for my actual job, so that's all I can do for now. This is not a simple article. I just verified that. Gotanda (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the criteria for QD|A3 is "little or no change", which is what Gotanda asserted. I then provided a diff to show that there was more than little or no change. Gotanda then said that my diff was wrong. He then created his own diff using the English Wikipedia Sandbox. Gotanda's diff confirmed what my diff showed, but he kept silent about his findings and left standing his incorrect characterization that the difference was "A few added links and a word here and there...." It is very strange that Gotanda opted to use QD|A3 (on this and three other articles) after we invited him to move articles for which he had concerns to my user space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The RfD is over. Let it go. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't try to change history. Just simplify the article. If you copy, simplify. Don't leave it for others to clean up after you. Gotanda (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to Wiktionary. HappyHangman (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. Cite error: The named reference merriam-webster was used but no text was provided for refs named (see the help page).
  2. The Colbert Report - 2007 Archive - 1/17/07 - Television - SPIKE Powered By IFILM
  3. Reconstruction 6.1 (Winter 2006)
  4. ThinkGeek: Tshirt idea submission page
  5. TShirtHell: Tshirt idea submission page