Yottie talks about the new Stub Cup to try and eradicate them from SEWP.
QandA
The QandA. Every week, one or more users will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taken by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlineditor, Shappy, Yotcmdr and Juliancolton.
The Commanders' Choice. For every edition, Yottie or Pmlineditor will be chosing articles that need creating, expanding or being attended to. Here is this edition's list:
Sorry, it looked a lot like vandalism. Collaborate on your talk page. I also recommend that you create an account, as IP edits are more suspicious. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would have thought that I would have noticed that. At any rate, I've left him/her a note directing them to email the admins list. Thanks for the speedy response. — laurynashby00:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genetics means relating to genes. Genes are passed down by people in the same family. Saying that autism seems to run in families is simple, accurate, and unbiased. Either way (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
untitled
Well, if i keep making bad changes, can you please explain to me the changes that I am doing wrong. Thanks, yujely13
Sometime this month. Not sure when. I think they are going in order of who kept using the beta. They put Commons first because 85% of users who used Beta kept with it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Monobook and all the other pre-Beta features will be kept as UPOs - they're just going to be rolled out as the 'default' across the sites. Goblin00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
A late award, recognizing more than six months service to the Simple English Wikipedia, a copy of the "Book". Enjoy it! There are also medals or a ribbon if you would prefer one of those. Peterdownunder (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Moved book here. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If you're going to use rollback, you may as well de-flood yourself as flood doesn't hide rollbacks from recent changes." — laurynashby22:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<-Dear Griffinofwales, Thanks for your message, for the time being I am not be able to give you more sources on death of Gohar Shahi by the way all of them are not article as :::This source of Daily Times, which is second largest English newspaper in Pakistan, is a news story, rest are article evident that he is no more and his also located in Kotri, Sindh, Pakistan. Regarding which states that Shahi was murdered in prison, this was published in omission and newspaper pulished sorry for that, unfortunately, it is not available online.--Imsaa (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested help
I was looking for help on the reflist function. I tried several avenues to obtain help as I am new to this and I am still figuring some things out. I did get the help I needed and I do appreciate your inquiry into my request. I am finding that there are many helpful people out there. Thanks again. (Markusjca (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry for reverting your warning! I reverted it back. I hope my rollback rights aren't removed. I made a horrible mistake. :o I hope you'll forgive me. ♥Belinda♥01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Griffinofwales. I'd like to know why you erase references to the crimes of Tito. Truman clearly stated his 400000 murders and Wikipedia should report -as an NPOV- even the statement of a US President. --LM (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But we don't have to go down to the level of en.wiki where a group of Tito's supporters allows the "criticism" section to be only 1O% of Medals and Decorations. Truman statement -in my opinion- should be added.--LM (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits seem ok, but the problem I have with it is the size of the section. The article is currently 6.5kb, but the criticism section you are adding is 8.5kb. Please expand the other sections (which are more important), and then work on the criticism section. Also, I like the size of the criticism section on Tito on enWP (shouldn't be long on bios IMO), but you are right that the awards section seems excessively large, considering that an article is devoted to it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. I have done even your last additional requests. But now there it is user:Either way, who always revertes all the improvements. Can you solve the problem with him? Sincerely.--LM (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, when user talks are abused and the block is not that long, it might be useful for stopping further rudeness. In any case, since the IP address seems to have desisted, there is no need to block his talk again. Ciao, M7 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
um...
I just wanted to let u no that my edit was right, why did u change it back?? You can check anywhere for more info on my change. thanks!
I did. From what I can see, you are incorrect. The PM of Canada advises the Queen on what to do, and the Queen appoints the Governor General, who in turn, appoints the PM. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe so, as long as the expansion happens before the cup ends. Just leave some time of note on your submissions page. Thanks for your hard work in expanding stubs. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki is not for experimenting, practicing your typing, MYSPACEing, or doing random stuff. It is for working on the encyclopedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Commanders' Choice. For every edition, Yottie or Pmlineditor will be chosing articles that need creating, expanding or being attended to. Here is this edition's list:
Rules say From 2200 bytes of text and for every additional 700 bytes of text you get 1 extra point. Before my changes it was 3,633 bytes. After, 18,821. So add 700 to 3,633 until you get as close as you can get to 18,821, which is 18,333, which is 21 700s. 21 x 3 = 63pts. I don't see how this could be wrong, unless I'm reading the rules wrong. I-on/talk/book/sand13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking the impersonators of me and the other user. He was also doing it at en.wikipedia too. wiooiw (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) this is actually wiooiw and not another impersonator, feel free to check the history tab if you are unsure.[reply]
Griff, I'm just writing to tell you that I think you are making an excellent sysop on simpleWP! I, and you, know that a great deal of the community didn't like you to begin with (I even blocked you once). I'm happy to see that you have become a really valued (and respected) member of the community, and a respected sysop. Well done! I think that you have proven that not all first impressions are correct! fr33kman01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the information the user added is correct, it is copied from ENWP. I am going to readd it (properly formatted and credited). Please remember that all users of rollback are bound by the rules of its usage, regardless of flags held. fr33kman03:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..yeah. I'd go with your "poorly formatted AGF edit" definition. I'm half-asleep, can't rollback correctly. Thanks for catching that. *goes to bed* --Griffinofwales (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are a separate project, with different rules to all the others. We want a link to be to another simplewiki article. Our readers come here because we're easy to read. Sending them to en is not helpful. It's better to make the missing article here. :) fr33kman23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. Never noticed this thread. Like fr33k says, keeping the links within simple. Linking to other languages within text (including enWP) confuses the reader. Create the article here instead. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's using the dewiki as a reference, which is not really the right thing to do either. However, what must be avoided is a link within a sentence in the body of the article such as [[en:Numeral]] it should always be [[Numeral]] even if it makes a redlink. fr33kman00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the only interwiki links on an article here should be the [[en:Article Name]] & [[fr:Nom de Page]] type edits at the end of the code for an article. If an interwiki link exists in-line in the body of an article, it is wrong and should be fixed. fr33kman02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly :) I just thought it was a bit POV, since I don't think that the mormons thought of it as violent. I don't think that radical (POV again) muslims think that killing innocent citizens is violent either. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you turned that down because I used G4. The reason I did was the page had been deleted earlier this evening by Fr33kman, and then was recreated. You can see this in Special:Log. I renommed it for QD. Purplebackpack8903:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Fr33kman said on IRC, QD G4 is for when the content is the same, not when the same page is recreated. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the user page at present, so I've removed the quick deletion tag back to Griffin's version. :) Kindly, Clementinatalk03:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to a certain extent. If a page is QD'd and then recreated with roughly the same content (or with other content that violates our rules) it can be listed as G4, however, an editor should always review the reason it was deleted in the first place and decide if it fits a deletion reason for the recreated page. In this case, the editor made a new page that does not fit the reason I deleted the page in the first place. Therefore, G4 is not right. It may fit another QD reason, but not G4. fr33kman04:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Griffen, did you know your talk page was watchlisted by everyone :) lol Jon@talk:~$ 06:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. How many people have my talk on watchlist? [reply]
Remember that speedies can be automatically restored if the speedy was objected to. Unless its blatant vandalism. Thus meaning you have to go through Rfd to delete it the second time. I don't seem to watch anyones talk page on simple...probably because I'll hear about the issues eventually on another page lol. Nothing stays self contained on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm lost. A QD (valid QD) is always a QD, unless something makes it not a QD (notability now stated in what was a "no assertion" QD). If you place a QD and someone deletes it, it is not auto restored on objection. Jon@talk:~$ 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our QDs do double duty in a way, they act both as speedies and similar to what the prod tag is on en. (it was decided the prod tag wasn't needed here as a seperate tag). Anything prod'd can be objected to and immediately restored. Assertion of notability to use your example is very subjective. At what point is something an assertion, thus with such ambiguity it needs to move on to Rfd. So for example you delete something with the reason of no assertion of notability and say Joe Blow thinks there was an assertion, it gets automatically undeleted. And if the person who asked for the speedy wants to persue it they go to Rfd. (This is also an example of why admins aren't supposed to delete their own A4 tags and should let another admin so it gets a second opinon) This doesn't apply to all speedy tags because some like vandalism are obvious. Basically all I am getting at is G4 never applies to speedies that are recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks!
For helping out Sonia with the revdeletions. By the way, could you make sure that Wiooiw's talkpage is revdeleted as well? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And someone is really going to submit something in those 40 minutes? If you have something, then submit it. I was just trying to finish up before I forgot. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a self promotion. Article was deleted from Hebrew Wikipedia. The author of this article provided the same version to Simple English and English Wikipedia. I rewrote the en.wiki version.
Untitled section
Moved from top of page
i dont know how to communicate with you on here so ill do it like this- apologies. what i did wasnt vandalism its a fact and will prove helpful. i will replace the article now and ask you do not delete again for its not a joke. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.199.48 (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2010
Census simple talk announcement
I can understand why you did that, but I put it back because it seemed to me that some of our active users may still not have heard about it. Pi mentioned on Sonia's RFA yesterday that more ppl have supported her RFA (all or almost all of them being active users) thsn have signed the Census. And Pi's comment about the census was the first time I had heard about it, and I've been continuously active for a year. So something must be awry about our census policy. Purplebackpack8900:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One, it's an unofficial census in userspace, two, it's been at the top of ST for a month, making it almost impossible to miss, and three, Sonia's RFA has many not-so-active users !voting in it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not an official census, and its results are never remotely accurate because people end up signing it who have only made 10 edits....and others who are regulars don't end up putting their name on it. So the numbers are never remotely accurate so its a waste of time. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reversal
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a note to caution you that reverting administrative actions could result in a block. Please, do not revert other administrators without attempting to discuss first, rightly or wrongly, unless it was a clear mistake or the wiki is being damaged. Jon@talk:~$ 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I added please after the thread[reply]
Be aware that he followed BRD. He was completely within his right to undo an admins actions. A wheel war is not considered to have begun until you reverse him. You have had it explained to you before. There is no policy demanding he talk to the original admin. Please stop trying to police admin when they are not in the wrong. And I will also point you to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.-DJSasso (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRD does not really count for administrative actions. I'm being civil. You simply no, you don't go and reverse another administrator without discussion. Jon@talk:~$ 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRD applies to every action taken by everyone on the wiki. As for civil, you threatened him. That isn't civil in the least. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Griffin, sorry I came on so strongly, I showed a lack of good faith. I'll try not to let this happen again. Jon@talk:~$ 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to tell you on IRC, but with your connection, plus me going away, I didn't remember to post on your tp. Also, I usually act then discuss (especially if it's not controversial). Clearly I understand that you don't like being told, but AGF a little more next time :) Griffinofwales (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Griffin of the great land of Wales; Re you delete of the Category:Public company. I have no problem with the delete. I am trying to debug the template {{Infobox Company}}. It references Category:Types of companies. I made Public company a sub category, but can't get the template to populate it yet. Leave the category deleted for now. I am still looking into the template. Thanks--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Griffion, our current flag template system is a strange duck. It relies on default flag names, and coding kludges to display the flags. Flag names are stored in multiple locations, and numerous templates exist simple to return the name of a country. For example, {{Country alias France}} returns France. As DJSasso put it, "I usually get frustrated with flagicons and end up just creating redirects at commons to fix them. ;)" This new system should make it easier for everyone. After the changeover, I will be able to clean-up a lot of articles, and delete a lot of unnecessary templates.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Griffinofwales, I have removed your vote on the above page per the rationale that "emotions may soar", especially when such little time has passed between the incident and the creation of the RfdA.[1] This is nothing against you and you are free to participate again in a few hours, when the 48 hours has passed and the protection has been lifted. If you have any queries, please feel free to ask me. Thanks, ChenzwTalk15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Found you on the English Wikipedia! But anyway, I want to know whether you know a bit of wikicode. I've been having a bit of trouble trying to fix up this template so that it could resemble the one on enWiki. Right now, the wikicode is screwing up the template that I tried to implement on my talkpage (I wanted it to look like the one I had here). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. I suspect this is a problem in one of the templates that's in the main template. I can find it if you want, but I'm lazy, so I would be gratified if you'd find the problem. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I've undone this. People here used to created their talk pages the way that this box in on the right side. several users use this template and a move to the other side of the page may spoil their pages. Please discuss it first or get a way, a parameter or something, where people have the choice on which side of their page they want it. Thanks, -Barrastalk10:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was patrolling recent changes when I saw that you blocked multiple socks of this guy. Do you have checkuser by any chance? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did they happen to run checkuser on all of Kennedy's accounts? I want to know who he is and how many accounts he's purportedly misused from the given information on the Simple Talk page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Griffin. A little while before you told me to let others handle the block templates, but may I request placing a tracking category for the recently blocked accounts? Please? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you review the above two sets of blocks.
The three IP addresses in the 202.45.119.* range that you have blocked, as a reverse DNS lookup suggests that the three IPs are shared by schools in Australia. 1 year is too long for a school block.
For 202.168.11.174, though the IP in question did support Kennedy in a ST discussion, it appears to be a dynamic IP address, and thus is impractical for it to be used as an open proxy. - unblocked by scream shortly after I have finished typing. ChenzwTalk15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was 202.168.11.174 yesterday. I know my IP changes but I don't really wanna register. I was heaps upset that you banned me for supporting Kennedy. He was my friend on Wiki in 2008. You know, it's a bit like a witch hunt where you ban people just because they voice an opinion. 202.168.12.58 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Griffin, thanks for the flood flag. As I can't find any more links, can you remove it for me? (Hmmm... funny, the templates still show up on the what links here page.) But thanks again, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the flood flag for me. I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier; I was away from my computer and I still had some unfinished. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do it yourself instead of spamming every single active user's talk page. If you truly need assistance, post to ST instead of 40 times somewhere else. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which edits of his did I revert which were useful? I came by here because I was being stalked across several wikis by a lunatic, saw Bambifan's edits and reverted them as I would have done on Wikipedia as an administrator and which I did do over there. You want to deal with that yo-yo, you go ahead. Either he's blocked/banned or he isn't, so feel free to revert my changes. I don't mind. An admin had already blocked him and I tried to help. I won't touch his edits from this point, but I will politely ask that you never threaten me with a block again. I am not your problem. I'm an administrator, bureaucrat and user in good standing on several wikis, most of which are Wikia/Wikimedia. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I see the problem. Yes, you and I did discuss this back in February, but I'd redirected my talk page back to my user page and I couldn't see the discussion until now and I don't come around here very often. I was going to come back from the break anyway. Sorry about the mixup, but please don't threaten me again. We are supposed to be in this together. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't like prolific sockers as much as the next guy, but I felt I needed to get my point across. Blocking you would have been a very last resort, and probably would not have happened. I don't mind you reverting bad, or even so-so edits, but reverting edits that fix errors is counter-productive, even if a socker is doing it. Please continue reporting sockers to one of our CUs, and they will be blocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. I don't think I'll be likely to forget again. :) Besides, I'm reactivating this account in order to actually write rather than to shoo off that goofy kid from Alabama; there are some truly glaring red links on subjects I've written about at English and which should be basic fare here or at any encyclopedia. One thing, though: Part of the reason I came back here in the first place was because of a vicious cross-wiki vandal who has been stalking me across several different projects since last Saturday. I have a list of his known IPs and if he shows up again, I'd like to e-mail them to you or to someone of your choosing in order to block him over here. I clobbered him on English and those other sites on which I have admin rights, but of course, I'm not an admin here. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a box in my Userpage, the language box for Welsh doesn't seem to work on the Simple English pages. I mean, I haven't done anything wrong, I've checked the formula and stuff. If you could maybe tell me what I should do, then I'd be really grateful. Thanks! Thefartydoctor (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks into the Purplebackpack Challenge Cup, and several editors are off to a good start. Barras has a commanding lead in the Plum Division with 135.5 points, Yottie leads the Royal Division with 68.5 points, and PiRSquared17 and Kansan are also off to good starts. However, several editors have yet to claim any points at all! In addition, none of you have claimed a GA, VGA or the Edison bonus, bonuses that could break this competition wide. Hope that changes in the next two weeks! Purplebackpack8915:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to let you know that that IP isn't an open proxy. I was the one usingit, as my computer was freezing and I restarted the browser, but it seemed logged in. Please unblock it. Hazard-SJTalk21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, like I said not that big a deal. Just wanted to remind you incase you had planned to go through the rest. (assuming you hadn't already). -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mistook simple for not so simple
My mistake . . . I didn't realise that I was on the simple english wiki rather than the standard level of complexity wiki. I found the report vandal page via Google -- it looks like the Simple version has a higher ranking. // You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you could find a way to work something about their academic distortion back into the article. It can easily be sourced (In fact, it was sourced before it was removed), and is one of the chief criticisms of the church. Also, the friendly IP who started this whole thing deleted the statement that the church has a lot of money...people are pretty sure that the church is, just not HOW loaded. You could take it on to the ("Not saying how much money the church has" point...(though many people believe that is a very large amount of money). Also, it says "disproved drinking coffee"...should be "disapproved" as its a cup of Joe, not a scientific theory...and its a tad too complex throughout Purplebackpack8905:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first point, and if you could rephrase it to sound more neutral (remove "Lying" for instance), I wouldn't object to reinstating it. Since there is no proof that the church has a lot of money, since nobody knows how much they have (a criticism), we can't have both. I will rephrase that other bit. While the criticisms section seems to be a problem section, the article overall needs help, and I'll be looking at getting some help for it. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the front clause (Lying...including), change "and" to "while", and maybe add a front word of some sort, you'll probably be fine POV-wise: You'd end up with:
Likely hiding facts that could say that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some bad things, while touting too many good things that Mormons might have done.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tanner|1979|pp=29–33}}</ref>.
There are also a few other things that could/should be done:
Put back at least one of the criticism website removed by Fizz
Start a "history" section (even if you just start it with an expand tag; I expect someone will come by and add to it). People have been complaining the article isn't long enough; there's a place where it could be added to
I'm trying to follow en's example, so no criticism websites. As for the history section, I'm only trying to keep the article neutral. I'll leave expansion to others. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you had forgotten. ;) Quickly reading through it, it reads as very fragmented. For example, "Later in the 1850s, there was conflict between the Mormons and the US government over control of the territory. The Mountain Meadows massacre was part of the Utah War." There is no mention of the Utah War anywhere, except for one battle (if that's a term for it). I'll see about working on it. Hop on IRC and we'll go over some other parts in more detail. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I replied to your question about Vargas Llosa. The date tricked me, but I should have realized it was a typo 2019-->2010. Thanks for pointing it out. Ted (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the URL will be very long. Imagine: User:Hydriz/WikiProject Countries/Singapore as compared to User:WikiProject Countries/Singapore. Just unblock this account. I won't be using it for vandalism. Hydriz[Discussions needed]17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an account name that implies that it owns or administers that project (which it technically does, since we don't have any official projects, but we're try to eventually move away from that) or that it is operated by Wikipedia. You do not need an account for every different type of edit that you make. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:P That's funny, because I think you're very kind, intelligent, clever, and great at editing. Simple English Wikipedia must be so glad to have you! ;) Happy editing, Dewflowertender leaves02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the revert. There is a vandal that likes adding "Villian" sections and such, and I ABFed on it without thoroughly checking. Thanks for catching that and keep up the good work! Griffinofwales (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizational Debate at History of the United States
Can you point me to where MOS says "fibre" is spelt "fiber"? If not, then don't use Twinkle and a useless edit summary (to a new anon editor) to revert edits please. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fiber is the American way of spelling "fibre". The MOS indicates that you should stick with the original spelling as the editor who added the word put it, unless the subject is of an American or British/Australian/Commonwealth nature. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, we don't go around changing the wording. That's why it's there. As you'll notice on my last revert, I sent a non-templated message explaining why I did it. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not incorrectly implementing anything. You are the one who is wrong. That rule is to prevent users from changing the existing form. The existing form is "fiber" and it should stay that way. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the diff. The facts are, "fibre" was there originally, it was then changed and not reverted, but not that it has been there for a long time, it becomes the existing format (read MOS), and so, becomes the default. I would not define that edit as a revert of the change to "fiber", would you agree? It is simply a change, but not a revert, because the intention of the edit was to change it back (not knowing that it had been "fibre" and later changed). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, fibre was the first instance so it's the de facto correct spelling in a universal English article, per MOS. You cannot and should not use automated reversions and warnings on new or IP users for something like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the last sentence, since that is irrelevant at this point. To quote MOS If an article has been in a dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article from one dialect to another unless there is a very good reason to do so (this is rarely the case). Other editors can revert such changes. It has been there for about 6 months (when the article was expanded for the stub cup). As it was re-written by an editor, I would say that he (I-on) is now the author, so we should follow him. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to open up myself a can of worms, but I don't see the issue with griffin using twinkle and that edit summary to revert. He didn't mark the edit as vandalism, and the revert contained a link to the MOS page if the IP was confused. It may have been better if he had marked it as an AGF revert, but other than that I don't think I would have done much different.--Gordonrox24 | Talk23:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But is there any difference in manually doing it and using TW? No matter what method used to revert the edit, it's really the edit summary that tells the person why you are reverting. Using twinkle doesn't change the edit summary, as you have the option to input one when using Twinkle. That's the reason we only use rollback for vandalism, because we can't input an edit summary. With TW you don't have that issue, you can input whatever summary you wish. I don't think it's debatable, it's right there in WP:MOS.--Gordonrox24 | Talk23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article through for simplicity. Gotanda seems to think it it's not simple enough, but I think it's fine. (There are a couple split infinitives? So what?)
Consolidate all the Foner refs
(in a couple days): Weigh the merits of the arguments in the organizational debate over the Post-Cold War section
How dare you! If I didn't feel guilty enough about the category thing, I would be handing out a fresh, thrashing, still only half-dead trout slap... ;) No, actually, thanks for editing my talk page back to its correct, that is, truthful position. You just helped bring up the joyous orange box of new messages! ♥ingly, Bellatête-à-tête00:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This month sees the return of Simple News after several months of inactivity. The Did you know project is looking for more hooks and active participants.
Wikipedia turns 10, find out where the birthday events are taking place and join us in celebrating the birth of the world's best free collection of knowledge.
I hope that 2010 was a great year for you, and that 2011 will be an even better one! Enjoy the rest of your Holiday Season. They Year 2010 The Year 2011 Keep up all the great editing and work you have done in the past year, and hopefully next year will be as good!
This editor is an Experienced Editor and has the right to show this Wikipedia Simple English Edition.
For more than 18 months service and an almost unbelievable number of edits (more than 17,000), you can have it all in a pocket edition of the Simple English Wikipedia. Congratulations, Peterdownunder (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you make a template? I need one so I can use it for WikiProject invites. It's getting annoying having to type it all in. Please help me. Loudclaw (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is so wrong that I'm doing with my wiki page. I'm simpily trying to make my own page for a club, like this one is doing. I am completely confused.
It looks like you tried to remove the QD template, but it just got moved to another part of the template. Also, I don't understand your explanation. Can you please let me know why it shouldn't be QD? It is directly copied from En and not simplified. Not a challenge--I just want to understand why. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are code, so they can't be simplified. Documentation, on the other hand, which frequently comes separately, is the how-to-use guide for the template. This can be simplified, but has no bearing on the status of the template. If the template is needed, it should be here. As for the QD tag, simply purge the page. It will fix itself. For future reference, when QDing a template, put the tag inside <noinclude> tags. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matter & Co.
I changed Particle theory of matter to a redirect. The redirect goes to Matter, where I added some content from Particle theory. I left our discussion on the talk page of Particle theory.
Our Atomic theory seemed too different in style, and waits for someone to add the 20th century. We have very few people qualified in modern physics, and I am not one of them!
Hi, I noticed that you deleted Ongamenet, and thought you may be able to help with something related.
The user who was known as User:Tenmei is now w:user:Enkyo2 on en.wp. He let me know about this very recently, and on simple.wp user talk:Enkyo we see a usurpation request from user:Ansei (who is also Tenmei). See also this. It is a bit of a mess. This user has been the subject of a few arbcom cases on en.wp, so it will be beneficial if this user finds a new username and sticks to it. Lots of renames are likely to annoy people.
That brings me to look at Special:Contributions/Enkyo, where I see a userpage about Ongamenet; probably the same text that you deleted. en:Ongamenet doesnt mention it being "the first ever game channel in the world", so I doubt it is true, and the userpage could also be deleted as advertising. But I would like to confirm that the simple:user:Enkyo is the same as simple:Ongamenet, as it may help the ururping request. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, as one of the bureaucrats on this wiki, I am not willing to grant a rename request to this editor any more, regardless of the validity of the request. The editor, also known as Horeki, Ansei and Jinki, sporadically causes project disruption due to his attitude and style of speaking (as described in the arbcom case). I daresay that he has exhausted the community's patience, and that we are just short of a formal ban discussion. I consider his rename requests as further disruption and an example of gaming the system, for he has changed usernames more than once (without going through CHU), and I don't think that the move to a new username (and to a "fresh start") has been beneficial to anyone.
Thank you so much for the detailed response, and especially for compiling those diffs. What a mess indeed. I'll need to review his arbcom cases, as that level of disruption and time wasting is precisely what those cases were supposed to stop. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave warnings on users' talk pages, please do not start with final warnings. Start with the level one warnings, then increase by one level each time a new warning is left. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I follow procedures that administrators set forth years before you even started editing here. I review the user's previous changes, check for cross-wiki vandalism and blocks, and proceed from there. In the specific case you reverted, I issued a level 3 warning, in which I assumed bad faith of the user. This is due to the fact that 1. The user had a history of vandalism 2. The user has a long term vandalism block on our English companion 3. This school's IPs have received extended blocks and have an extensive history of vandalism on both Wikipedias and 4. the user's change for which he/she was warned for indicated an awareness of how Wikipedia worked, and in turn, an understanding of what acceptable and unacceptable behavior is here. Unless it is clear that the user was innocently testing, I always start my warnings with a level 2 (or with history, level 3). Griffinofwales (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I follow up to noticing that you deleted a page I created with a vandalism warning. That user was a clear VOA and I provided an appropriate warning to cease and desist the behavior indicated. If you disagree with my warning, that is one thing, but to delete it entirely, instead of replacing it with a more (in your opinion) appropriate message is the incorrect action. Griffinofwales (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the user is an IP user, it is even more important to start with the lower-level warnings because we can't be sure it's always the same person doing the editing. As far as I know, even when a user has vandalized elsewhere, we give them the benefit of the doubt here to start with. The changes I reverted were for users who had only one recent bad change here.
As for the page I deleted, a page creation can't be reverted like a change to an existing page, so I deleted the page instead. I do plan to replace it with a lower-level warning, as I plan to do with the other warnings that I reverted. I just haven't gotten to that yet because I wanted to reply to you here first.
Again, I stand by my warnings to the new account holder. I give users the benefit of the doubt until they do something wrong. In this case, users who had gone through the system at en came here and continued the pattern of vandalism. AGF ...policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence that they have bad faith. I believe that a level 2 or 3 warning was appropriate, and completely at my discretion. This project is well known for taking bad apples from other projects and working with them. However, we are very strict with them (I recall a one strike rule). I tend to adopt the same line. If a user/IP with a long term block and begins vandalising, I will immediately make clear that this project will not tolerate such actions. I think we both can agree on the policies, I just have a slightly more liberal approach when it comes to assuming bad faith on the part of the vandaliser. Griffinofwales (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to any arriving administrators: I pop into SimpleWP from time to time and I certainly don't have the time or desire to engage in a major discussion regarding this issue. So, I may ignore this issue entirely until the next time I decide to emerge again (weeks, months, years). However, based on my years editing here, and my relationships and extensive discussions with the administrators (on and off wiki dating back to when I first joined SimpleWP), it has always been understood that discretion is given to the warning user. My reasoning is stated on my TP (where this discussion should stay unless elevated to ST/AN) as to why I issued the warnings I did. Do what you will with it, Griffinofwales (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another view on the details
I'll just say in passing that these editors are amongst our most experienced and valued contributors, so a difference of opinion between them is potentially significant. I went through all four cases, as follows:
Jamesmcleish2000: I think the text of his changes are vandalism, that does rule out "assume good faith". On that basis I would have used a level 2 warning (Griffin level 3? was it?); Aunt level 1. It wouldn't have occurred to me to delete the page.
78.40.232.73: blanked a page and replaced text with a comment which conclusively proves it was no accident. Therefore level 1 is not appropriate. Griffin level 3, Aunt level 1, and I would give level 2.
46.60.252.97: two level ones given last month, and a history of making bad pages. I would give it a level 2 (again!). Griffin gave level 3, Aunt level 1.
46.60.232.112: here a gap of six months does justify a level 1. (Griffin 3, Aunt 1).
I don't have any feeling that my answers are necessarily "right", and I don't think either of the other evaluations are far out of line. There will be differences in how editors see a particular instance, and we can live with that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent analysis and thank you for weighing in. I agree with you on your assessment, however with the long history of vandalism and active longterm blocks on enWP I took a harsher approach. Again, we all have different approaches to how we approach this, and I really don't mind how Auntof6 chooses to warn users. However, what I do take issue with is when my warnings are deleted without advance notice and without a complete understanding of the reasoning behind them. I would hope a little more deference would be shown to other editors. This does me for the night/morning. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr the above, however, I also just block without any warning as needed (and at the currently rare occasions I'm around). All depending on the kind of vandalism and everything ofc. I did it that way for the last 5+(?) years I'm an admin here. Sometimes warnings are good and sometimes warnings are just waste of time. I never really look if everyone I blocked received 4 templates they ignored anyway ;-). But you know, I'm a rouge admin and so I see no problems to block vandals right away I see them. -Barrastalk15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally always start at 2 unless its not clear that it was intended as vandalism which is pretty rare. If there are other warnings from the past on a named account I might start at 3 or 4 depending on what and how recent. But on IPs where they could be different people I generally start at 2 and work my way up. I only ever jump to final warning immediately when it concerns something that was oversightable or a specific attack of some sort. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English language
Unfortunately, Quebec is still shown as a country that .... If you know how to fix it, why don't you change the map? Otherwise, we should ask for help from an administrator. Kdammers (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
↑This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
↑Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
(Sorry to write in English)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Griffinofwales, as you mentioned on your user page, you occasionally fight vandals, so consider joining the User:Runningblader/Wikiproject Anti-Vandalism, which is a group dedicated to reverting vandalism. Stupstup (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The individual making the change was/is a cross-wiki vandal and was editing disruptively across several projects. His change on your page was in line with that pattern, but you're more than welcome to add it back. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to Antisemitism is apparently vandalism now?
There are cited references for the statements made in the article. I would recommend that you open a discussion at Talk:Khazars and the community can comment on how to present this information. Best, Griffinofwales (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick deletion per A2
Hey Griff, you recently tagged a few pages for QD under A2 but they do not meet Quick deletion criteria. To meet A2, they should either be blank or only have templates, categories, or just a rephrasing of the title. If it is a city in a certain state, it's notable. Thanks --BRP ever06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was nominating them under the rephrasing of title clause within A2 as the included content was little more than that title but I respect the point. Thanks for the heads up, Griff (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits today. (FWIW: Sometimes I will use the talk pages, instead of turning a blind eye to a supposed descrep_ncy - and moving on.) However, your post on the talk page was spot on (because it tells anyone reading - to go ahead and Be Bold).--Anyhow, I decided not to clutter that talk page - therefore this post (here). Regards! 89.8.162.107 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
I have undone your sweeping revisions to Arab Belt. I am curious as to why you choose to insert material from English Wikipedia from 2017, rather than the more reliable recent revisions? It is important that Wikipedia reflect the reliable sources (as cited in the article) and I a curious as to why you chose to remove all of this material and replace it with material cited to a single NYT article and primary source (Human Right Watch). I have reverted you changes on the assumption that you have made a mistake. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: - I did not make a mistake but instead tried to re-write the article to focus on the basic facts and keep it as neutral as possible. I have asked other administrators to review the article to verify its compliance with our policies. As an additional note, we have a reciprocal blocking policy for users blocked at English Wikipedia so I would personally advise you to stay away from topics from which you were topic banned from at that project to reduce possibilities of issues in the future. However, you are welcome to help our project in any way. Thanks for all your help, Griff (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bedivere for being the first to support me. I appreciate our long friendship and it is good to see you back on this project. Griff (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Successful RfA...
Hello Griffinofwales,
welcome back to Simple English Wikipedia. After your successful RfA, I flagged you as an admin. Use the tools wisely. Thank you for volunteering again. --Eptalon (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eptalon! It is good to be a part of the group again. I will make sure to only block the people who I don't like ;) Griff (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats!
Here's a new shirt. You might have lost your old one. -Ferien
On the successful RfA. But before you even think about making any admin actions, you need to wear this new admin shirt first, that's the most important part of being a sysop nowadays. ;) --Ferien (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do I get to pick a different color? The shirt is going to get dirty with all the deleting and blocking I'm about to do :) Thank you for the nomination and supporting me from early on. I appreciate it very much. Griff (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Let me know if I can be of any more help. Just so you know, they are saved with a forward slash rather than a back slash. Best, Griff (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I guess we could also use both cats, with Ukrainian Americans being a sub cat of American people of Ukrainian descent?"--For now, I am trying to take a break from that discussion. (so I will try to not clutter that page, with any information about my support for your idea). Regards! 89.8.65.245 (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Griff.
I just made some update with "Switzerland is no longer neutrality" based on announcement by its Federal President Ignazio Cassis.
Then you reverted with reason "seems not be helpful".
I'd like to know more about the detail, for Switzerland is famous for its neutrality, but it has claimed to forego its neutrality, it is really big news, right? why doesn't it be helpful? thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunzhuoshi (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I originally reverted your change as it inserted emojis into the text, which obviously isn't okay. I have gone ahead and added a line about the neutrality change of sorts back into the article. Just remember that even if this is a very :O moment, to leave those comments in the chats, and out of the articles :) Have a great day! Griff (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a barnstar for your wonderful work in the SimpleWiki since I've been here. You've been one of the most active users with your reversion of vandalism and your activity on RfD and have been incredibly friendly to everyone here, showing true leadership. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk04:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MrMe! <3 I really really appreciate this, thanks for the barnstar and for being one of the reasons this project is so much fun to be at. Griff (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Erkek Sünnet (circumcision of boys) in Turkey
As I see, the person deppiyy claim turkish men are not circumcised all, without source. So this users claim is nonsense. I'myself on the other side give sources more as one to show how important it is and be a part of the turkish culture since ottoman times. This user @Deppiyy allways deleted it, without any source.
But how strange, he didnt deleted it what i have written about oil wrestling, camel wrestling or marriages ceremonys from the same source who include circumcsion of boys in turkey, so I ask you, why only he deleted the passage of circumcision? so this user shows his real face, it is a non circ group or a person who is against muslim trad.
ABout you, you in the same way deleted an integral part of ceremony on circumcision of turcic people as you do in uzbek people.
Anyway I see too many users in english wikipedia didnt like it to give information about turkish culture, music, dance, food, etc. this is sad, and if anyone give sources the anti-turkish lobby deleted it.
Its no wonder too big anti-turkish lobbys here on work.
Here few sources about how important circumcision of boys in turkey is.
I have added the sentence about circumcision with sources. All additions to this Wikipedia must provide reliable sources, which your edits did not have. You are welcome to make changes to articles if you add reliable sources. Best, Griff (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, All this sources i given is not reliable? but there are many pages without any source as you know.
Have a look is this reliable to give in usbekistan people?
Its honestly not a great source, as it is commercial in nature (sources to be avoided included "websites which are selling products"). However, that source may be good if used with another source. I encourage you to read our guideline on reliable sources to help you. Griff (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
194.146.157.91
Hello Admin @Griffinofwales, have a look to this IP adress 194.146.157.91, this IP Adress changend all what you have written about circumcision under Turkey. He also changend some other things who was sourced.
Thank you for notifying me. It looks like you undid that revision. If you notice any other issues, feel free to bring them to my attention. Best, Griff (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User Deppiyy
There is a problem with the User @Deppiyy
He removed from the article Hungary all about the Danube Swabians what I have written with sources, all the other things is unsourced but this wasnt deleted by him. The ancestors of the danube swabians once came to hungary, settled by the habsburg monarchy. It's a collective term, the population came from different places in Germany, but since 1922 they were officially named Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians), although of course not all ancestors were Swabians. you can also read it at english wikipedia.
I see this User is against me, because this user could not get his way with the article turkey, yet he goes against everything i wrote. He doesnt give any source but my sources he didnt accepted it.
This Users editing is not helpfull in any case. Well then...This is no more longer nice what this User did.
Hi, the article was talking about ancestors of ethnic Slovaks, Serbs, and Romanians. Danube Swabians are ethnic Germans, an article should remain consistent. Deppiyy (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was about the years, in this years also the ancestors of the danube swabians was settled in Hungary. From 1689, so i included it. Admin Griff, this is enough yet with this User Deppiyy, this is too strange with this user. I havent the time for such things. Let him change what ever this user want. Im out of this as long such users in wikipedia this didnt made fun anymore. --Nalanidil (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Deppiyy, I'm just trying to understand your side, are you saying that we should use the term "Germans" instead of Danube Swabians? Also this is your only warning about 3RR on Hungary. Any further reverting will result in a block. Griff (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you first reverted the entire change, but there was no reason given. Are you saying that they should be called Germans, Danube Swabians, or that we shouldn't include them at all? Griff (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the term German confused, because oficially the german settlers in the former hungarian-austrian habsburg monarchy was named danube swabians, here have a Look:
Deppiyy, I've changed it, let me know what you think. Nalanidil, this is also your only warning about 3RR on Hungary. Any further reverting at that article will result in an indefinite block for you. Your opinion is also welcome. Griff (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a note on your talk page, but edit warring is against our policies. This means that if someone reverts or edits your change, you should talk to them instead of changing it back to the edit that you made. If you do this 3 times in 24 hours, you will be blocked from Wikipedia, and even if you only do it once or twice, you could be blocked for "edit warring". Griff (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, just to say: Anyone can edit articles here. Just because I created an artilcle, the article does not "belong to me". I have created many articles which were later changed, and improved by other people. And the three revert rule is a very basic concept. Rather than editors posting their version over and over again (each time undoing the other), they should use the talk page to find a version of the article they can all agree on. If the edit warring is done by more than 2 editors, admins can also protect the page, which will make some editing impossible. Eptalon (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a completely different note, A1 for the area code articles? Just wondering what brought you to that decision, I thought those articles passed the smell test. Griff (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lot of them that I patrolled yesterday had already been tagged for qd so I just kept the ball rolling. Given there realy isnt much info to work with to each area code (for the most part.. some could have a notable history/use/whatever) I figured most realy only had "little to no" information presented. I did skip the Delaware one as it said it was the first and longest lasting without change. Shall I stop tagging them? Creol (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their enWP counterparts are fairly thorough. I'll leave the QDs for a different administrator, but I think they could meet our inclusion standard if we group them like enWP has. Griff (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rfd
Sir, I want to really ask you honestly, that I think you are the admin, and you can help keeping and deleting the articles, as you have told me, in the article "Ayush Dutta" that before it had no correct coverage from significant sources, so now I have found some significant sources, like from G'day India, The Indian Weekly, Dainik Bhaskar, Clicly, I found more significant news sources in Facebook, but Wikipedia Simple English, warned me that external links are marked as spam, so, I didnt added the Facebook elements, but I have added some significant sources from Google. Sir, it's an humble request to you that please, please, keep the article "Ayush Dutta", don't delete it. I have spent 7 days in writing that article. It's really my all hardwork. I hope that you will really keep the article. Joeluwa (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I see that you posted links to their websites in the article, I did not see Ayush Dutta mentioned. Could you please post the sources you are talking about here? As a note, they should be reliable sources that give "significant coverage" to Ayush. Griff (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all the sources. The first 3, GdayIndia, The IndianWeekly and IndieDB do mention Ayush Dutta, but do not provide significant coverage about him, and the first two are just copies of each other. Making a game does not give notability, so the fourth source is not valid, and clic.ly is not considered a reliable source. As a result, none of the sources show notability. Griff (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joeluwa (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Will you please keep the article "Ayush Dutta". Because, as you have told, I think Wikipedia Simple English Article "Ayush Dutta" will be Ayush Dutta's first significant source, please keep it.[reply]
We do not even consider Wikipedia a reliable source, and that is a very bad reason for keeping the article. As has been explained to you multiple times, and as I have shown you, the article does not meet our requirements to be included on the project and will be deleted after the discussion is concluded. I recommend focusing on making articles we already have better. Griff (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish People from Turkey
Hello @Griffinofwales, I have a question why is the page about Turkish people or Turks from Turkey, redirected? other ehtnicity also have there own Page.
Here have a look please Turkish people or Turks from Turkey.
Also many descendants of Turks from Turkey live in Germany and Austria and other parts of the world.
I want ask you before, if we can re-created the pages, what do you think about.
As example, Hungary and Hungarians have there own article in simple english wikipedia and many others too.
A lot of times, if we don’t have an article for a specific topic, we will redirect it to a similar topic till one is written. I encourage you to make an article in your sandbox and then have it reviewed by an experienced editor. When that is completed, we can make a new article for the Turkish people! Thank you for asking all your questions and for all your help on the project. Best, Griff (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Admin@Griffinofwales, unfortunately this User Deppiyy, redirected te Article Turks again, but he created an Article Hungarians who was also before redirected to Hungary, isnt it strange? For this User it is ok that he can made Hungarians as own Article again, but Turks of Turkey not? Yet i see clearly who this user really are...He is against ALL what have to do with Turks or Turkey. Nalanidil (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues. First, I believe that the article you created covers the same subject that our article on Turkic people does. If it does not, we can discuss why a third article on people living in Turkey is needed. Second, I asked you to create an article in your sandbox and to have it reviewed before making it an article. I highly recommend you do this in the future.
I also recommend that you stop casting aspersions on other users. Deppiyy is a content creator here and has a lot of experiences with articles, he is simply helping keep our articles at the standard we expect. Personal attacks will not be allowed.
Wow, well then, if you on the side of Deppiyy then all is said...I see...
I create a new page about Turks from Turkey, but you deleted it?
Turkish People from Turkey and also Turks from Turkey and there descendants who live abroad have the right to be an own Page in simple english wikipedia, if not, then it is discrimination to a whole Nation. Think about. Nalanidil (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to understand, which articles do you think we should keep? I don't understand why we need an article for Turkish people from Turkey when we already have an article for Turkish people. Griff (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry there is no any Article about Turkish People from Turkey.
As example Uzbek people or Turkmen people also a Turkish speaking nation, but they have there own Page here in simple english wikipedia, why then not for Turkish people in Turkey and there descendants who live in different countrys.
This Article, that you mentioned is about Turks generelly, nothing else.
But Turkish people from Turkey is an own Nation, with own culture, music, food, etc.
english wikipedia have an own Article, and also Articles about Turks from Turkey wo live in different countrys. Why is not allowed in simple english wikipedia? Nalanidil (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which article does the English Wikipedia have that we do not? And what content are you creating that cannot be included in one of the existing articles? Griff (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Article about Turkish people in Turkey on simple english wikipedia, only an article Turks, but why then Uzbek and Turkmen people have there own Page? They are also Turks.
Crimean Tatars and Tatarian have there two own pages on simple wikipedia.
Putting the Turks of Turkey and their descendants in other countries under Turks in one general sentence is not an article about a whole nation. Nalanidil (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turks of Turkey do not have their own article from English Wikipedia. If you want to create an article about Crimean Tatars, feel free to start one in your userspace and have it reviewed by an experienced editor. Griff (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crimean Tatars have thre own Article here in simple english wikipedia, and this is not the topic.
Have a Look: The Article Turk, and If you click on Turkish people, there is not an own page, because it is redirected.
You are welcome to start an article on Turkish people in your userspace and then have it reviewed by an experienced editor. We can then post it in article space. Griff (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely evil and bad what @Deppiyy did.
Turks is a legitimate redirect to Turk as it can mean either the Turkic or Turkish people. As you requested, an article was made for Turkish people at Turkish people. What is the problem with the content of the article? Do you feel that Deppiyy copied your content without attribution? Griff (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official title (per English Wikipedia) is Turkish people. This is a Wikipedia built by everyone, not any one person. You are welcome to continue to help make the Turkish people article better. You will probably find that as you go around making articles, other editors will come and make changes to those articles. This is encouraged, as none of us write perfect articles. If you need help with writing articles, feel free to reach out. Griff (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Article need some improvings, because in Germany live the mostly Turkish immigrants from Turkey in europe, since 1960-1970 they came as guest workers, it should be written in the article too, and of course also mentioned sünnet party who is also held in germany by the turkish minority.
Also North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece have a turkish minority since this countrys was once a part of the former ottoman empire. Nalanidil (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point and sounds like we can definitely add some sections to the article on Turkish people. I welcome any help you can provide. Best, Griff (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the same as before, I want to wrote it as i explain you on your talk page, but have a Look: I create with sources the Article: Turkish Cypriots, hope this is ok? because in other languages of Wikipedi they have there own Article as you can see. Nalanidil (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the content is good, there are significant issues with the manual of style so a lot of formatting changes will need to be made. This is why I recommended having the article made in your userspace before publishing it as an article. I imagine other editors will come along and make changes to the article soon. However, thank you for your changes here, they are helping us grow our coverage of Turkey. Griff (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Not sure what happened there, I know I definitely hit block. I'll pay for lunch next time, seafood restaurant? :) Griff (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm not at home right now, can you check 168.220.175.223 and their edits? They have a long term block at enWP but their diffs don't show up well on my phone. Tsugaru, I hear eating sashimi is much harder when it's attacking you while you're eating, thanks for the reminder :D Griff (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you notifying me but the IP editor you mention has thousands of edits. Can you provide links to the specific changes that are problems? Thanks, Griff (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this IP Adress IP 89.8.157.238 and IP 89.8.144.217, the same User., and every change what this IP Adresses made is not helpful for the Articles. Nalanidil (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
again same person with other IP 89.8.157.238, changend on Oil Wrestling, the name Kirkipinar is given in the picture, but he deleted it also he changend everything this is vandalism Nalanidil (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please send links and show exactly what is wrong with each change. I'm not seeing anything that meets our vandalism standard. Griff (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, Im out of this...its no longer the Article i created...this IP Adress have colpletely changend, and allways with a different IP Adress, also this IP Adress wrote one my Talk page...I didnt give a response. Nalanidil (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QD A3 requests
Hey, just checking in. That IP user has been copying and pasting a lot. I requested QD A3 on a bunch of them that were deleted. Turned some down as not needing much simplification. I just wanted to check. This is a word for word copy-paste with a lot of complex ocab and language. "A millennia ago, humans fought a war against demon ogres known as the Orgs. With the help of the Power Animals, the ancient Gao Warriors were able to defeat the Orgs' leader Hyakkimaru, sealing the Orgs away along with one of their own. When the seal wanes, the Power Animals select a new generation of Gao Warriors to fight the freed Orgs and protect all life on Earth. The current Gao Warriors, the Gaorangers, are recruited to abandon their civilian lives and names while traveling to find the other Power Animals that were in hiding." Did you think this was simple? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are a bunch of articles that have a paragraph copy/pasted from enWP, however I'm not sure if it's to the level where deletion is preferred over simplifying the paragraph. Creol did a few, and I'll send a formal warning to the IP to ensure the pages are simplified prior to posting. Thanks for following up. Griff (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching that page for a month now, I wasn't sure whether to report it or not because even though it was disruptive IMO, it wasn't exactly vandalism. If you look at the editing history of that article (and on enwiki too apparently!), the editor has been making small changes (and sometimes undoing themselves). Do you think the other registered users are connected to this? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I was going to request a SPI at enWP tomorrow and see what they turned up. I also had the same thoughts on the article, and only took action when I saw they had an indef block at enWP for the same nonsense. If you happen to see anything DUCKlike, especially from a registered account, just bring it to my attention (or any admin/CU) and I'll act on it. Griff (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like its all related to Tymega, thats what the SPI case is listed under. If you want to add to the SPI case at enWP, or even just go straight to SRG, I'm sure they'll look at making it a global action, now that we see its cross wiki. Griff (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear, I asked a wiki editior to start the bio for this, after he started it and you deleted it, he stopped responding to me. Could you please let me know how we can talk through this in order to get the article up again with the proper wkiki guidelines. Also, could you tell me how to report the editor? 96.9.130.114 (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. May I clarify things reg the subject? we can have proper links to refer to his leadership and contrinutions that are not only social media links. Let me know. best! 96.9.130.114 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues, 1. That reliable sources were not included in the article, but more importantly 2. That the subject of the article does not meet our notability standard. As a result, you need to have sources that show that Ali Qassim Jawad is notable/important enough to have an article. Once you have those, you will need to present this information for a deletion review and the community will decide whether to allow the article to be made. Griff (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Edith Head
I guess it could have but it hadn't been transcluded to the main RFD page so I figured it didn't really count as "live". The speedy deletion was extremely uncontroversial (G3 rather than an A4) and the RFD wasn't posted on the article either. A potato/potahto situation if you will, either way the RFD got a speedy closure :) Griff (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppetry of 212.129.81.101, and please block them
212.x.x.101 is stale (as in they are no longer vandalising) but if they do so again, please post an alert on our vandalism reporting page. Individual administrators may not always be active but active administrators receive an alert when reports are sent there. Thanks, Griff (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were fast, I was about to tag it with G4 :P. Can I see what's the filename of the image in the article? I want to speedy-delete it with the F10 criteria in Commons. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page06:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was out in the open but sat unchanged and barely noticed. Since everyone else was ignoring it, Ill take that as a fail and move on. --Creol(talk) 15:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I guess technically its more a withdraw than a fail as the bureaucrats are really the ones that have to close those. I'll archive it appropriately. Thanks for being willing to help out. Griff (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It met its deadline and was not approved as a pass. Didn't pass = failed. I didn't withdraw, my request failed to be approved. --Creol(talk) 16:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm not sure I agree with this take. We have RFDs go weeks overdue but that doesn't mean we automatically say they failed. The redirect discussion I closed was open 2 months because nobody wanted to touch it. Hell we let oversight and checkuser promotion discussions go on indefinitely, and your request was the first of its kind in over 10 years. I'd assume good faith that the single active user who could review your request simply hadn't gotten around to it, but its totally up to you. Griff (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a picture of a cute corgi to get your mind off that :) thanks for the report, it has been dealt with appropriately. Griff (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh, my long lost sock puppet! (remember those accusations?) How have you been? Welcome back to the project, I've missed ya! We're getting the old club back. Thanks for the barnstar. Griff (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice that, although in my personal opinion, testing should be restricted to the Sandbox page, as that is the only page actively cleaned by Hazard Bot. Interestingly enough, the IP's only edits were 4 months ago to test the same thing. Certainly raises some questions. Either way, thanks for bringing it to my attention! Griff (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 22 articles created today, 19 were created in the last 30 minutes. It'd be too much work to clean them up, and nuking would delete the pages that have been trimmed/simplified, so here's a list of the articles not yet trimmed:
If they havent been worked on by the time I get to the airport later today, I'll delete them for my flight. Thanks! Griff (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I took so long. Yes, they can, it's just like any other help request on ST. Obviously, you take responsibility for the changes you make. Thanks for asking! Griff (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noted in the Deletion Review that Youssef Rzouga's article was left as no consensus to undelete. I found this to be odd since there was a clear consensus to keep the article at RfD, which was why it ended up at Deletion Review in the first place because it was deleted against policy. I don't know the person who the article was about but I suppose I am expected to make a new one, and do I have to make it in user space first? None of my other articles have been deleted or nominated for deletion so is it okay if I just start it in mainspace or do I need to create it in userspace first? Happy to be guided. Thank you. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend creating the article in user space and having it reviewed by someone else to ensure there are no notability concerns prior to moving to article space. As a reminder, G4 applies to articles with "same or similar content", but if the article is sufficiently re-worked and no policy concerns are raised, it shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for reaching out, Griff (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can be bothered with all of that. I didn't create the article: I just voted for it to not be deleted, and then it was deleted out of process. Sounds like a lot of work to fix an admin error. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also see the report on the Administrators Notice Board page, and thought this might be a better place to have a discussion on the page. Feel free to ask any questions here as it may be a more reliable place for a more private discussion to sort out the problem. Thanks. 2600:4040:21D4:700:2182:BB55:4DA9:502 (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close poll Remove Ali Tajdary's article
Hi, my article about Ali Tajdary, the candidate, was removed. The majority vote shows that it should remain in Wikipedia. The polling request time is over and this section is still open.Please close this poll, time is up.thank you --Razeasheghi (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is y'all, but I feel that the y'all people wouldn't have a problem with me using yall, if you know what I mean. :D Does that mean you have redneck blood? Griff (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to see? Not much to see??? Not much but beautiful countryside! That, and a lot of history, although you have to look for it. (Yes, I'm from there. :) )
Lol really @Auntof6:. I was raised in a town called Tunkhannock. So do you have a drawl too? My sister picked it up after she moved there and pretty fast too. I find it annoying not when talking on the phone but when she texts me and uses redneck spelling of things because I have to decipher it or I just reply “redneck” then she will reply back “hell yeah and proud of it.” Then tell me in normal English what she was trying to say. Lol PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done?05:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: No, I don't have a drawl because I grew up in PA. But I used to develop a slight bit of a southern accent when I'd visit my relatives in the south. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created the page about the Gagauz people from Moldova with sources, because about the Gagauz language is already a page in simple English: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_language. So i thougt it should also be an own page for the Gaguaz People who speak this language, because it made not sense for a page from a language but who speak this language is not. Yet, the User Macdonald-ross deleted the page. This is realy not funny. He do hat twice. I created before also a page about Yuz Asaf and he deleted it too. Why he do that?
In the english wikipedia a page about the gagauz people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_people and about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf. So why it is forbidden to create a page in simple english? What is the reason that Macdonald-ross deleted it? If anyone google it about the Gagauz people, there is en masse about them.
I am not able to see any items in the logs that show the article was deleted. If you have questions about an administrator's action, I suggest speaking to that administrator on their talk page or asking for assistance through deletion review. Contacting other administrators may not get you an immediate response, especially with real world commitments. Griff (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check in Ferien. My work situation significantly changed and the amount of free time for Simple English Wikipedia has unfortunately decreased to near zero (I'm writing this message on a mini-holiday). Everything is well with me and I hope to make more time for the project as we enter the winter season and my work projects slow down. Griff (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The essay you wanted is an essay that summarises the various discussions that we can use in the future. Does this mean I'm not allowed to include my own thoughts?
What kind of things should be included in my essay to be used in the future?
Am I allowed to use any style that I prefer, or is there a specific method that you prefer?
If you are too busy to answer me, should I take this question to WP:ST?
Perhaps you have already gotten responses to these or taken them to ST, but here's my response:
If different view points are to be included, I would make clear which ones received what levels of support, and if you are moving one into project space, and your view has not been already been discussed, you may want to present it first.
When you say "what kind of things", what are you trying to discuss or include in your essay?
I think that the best examples of essays would be found on other projects, and using similar styles. If you would like me to provide some, I can.
Just to clarify, I in no way am inferring that you have issues with Can and Must. I am only pointing out that some do have issues in that reqard and need their hands held when trying to understand what something says. Odd statement on a wiki dedicated to explaining things so it is easier for people to understand what is being said.. but still. It is common to expect better of the people in the non-article spaces than the people reading the articles. Pure Evil (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
↑Cite error: The named reference Yuri_Gagarin was used but no text was provided for refs named (see the help page).
Done - Next time, place a report at our version of AIV. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
But anyway, I want to know whether you know a bit of wikicode. I've been having a bit of trouble trying to fix up this template so that it could resemble the one on enWiki. Right now, the wikicode is screwing up the template that I tried to implement on my talkpage (I wanted it to look like the one I had here). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
me too :) congratulations && enjoy, happy to see your high-quality services. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
