User talk:Barras/Archive 11

Epic Trout Slap

Whack!

Do not take this seriously. Someone wants to let you know you did something silly!

You have been trout slapped for: [ insert reason here ]. Enjoy! —stay (sic)! 10:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How funny. -Barras (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey dude, cheer up! It was April Fools Day. —stay (sic)! 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello, I've already renamed my account from "Just_Angelus" to "ANGELUS" in the Italian Wikipedia, but in the Simple English Wikipedia my username is still "Just_Angelus". Could you please rename my account? That would be awesome. My request is here. Thank you! --Just Angelus (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -Barras (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WWII

Please review the article World War II privately, since WP:PR might draw no attention. Thank you.

P.S. I'm about to propose it a good article. --Horus (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do when I get the chance. You may also want to ask TRM for a review. -Barras (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Posted on his talk page. --Horus (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Barras,

Respectfully, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Reshipora, Saloora, District of Ganderbal (2nd nomination) had one comment to delete. It takes a discussion with more than one or two contributers to find a consensus for a deletion, otherwise, it defaults to keep. Please reconsider or let me know if you want to DRV. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not about votes but about comments. I don't count votes, I read the comments and the article and then make my decision to which I stand. -Barras (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for catching up with all my QD U1s! --SEPTActaMTA8235 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I apologize for recent vandalaism that has been coming from this IP address. I just want to let you know that this is a public computer at a school, and so there's about 20 people coming through this computer every day, and only 1 with troll-ish intents. I wanted to let you know in case it changes anything. 169.204.229.74 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Patroller rights

...might be useful for me. Would it be possible to grant the right? Thanks, NotImportant 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox

So no? Where should I discuss if there is no requested moves page or associated Wikiprojects? The move request on enwiki had unanimous consensus. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it, because it looked like vandalism, take a look at the last revision. QD explanations shouldn't go below the the whole article/text. -Barras (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting to be prompted with a reason request like on enwiki. As this is uncontroversial can we move it? I will take care of the cleanup. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox is the real name of the program. Actually, enwiki is the only wiki which moved it. All other wikis use the complete and imo more accurate name. It might be better to open a discussion about the move locally on this wiki. The best is to drop a notice on WP:ST. -Barras (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Really?

We keep articles like these? There is absolutely nothing simple about it. I don't see the point in keeping so complex articles when there has been no attempt to simplify it. There doesn't seem to be an en. version of it either... Ydennek ^(talk) 09:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand the article. The problem here is that it is a scientific article (physics). Most people have troubles to understand it. At least for me it isn't that complex. The general topic is, but the words used are understandable. We really have worse articles. -Barras (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that complex?:

"Time-domain spectroscopy is a type of spectroscopy that measures the power of electromagnetic radiation as a function of time. Normal spectroscopy is frequency-domain spectroscopy. It measures radiation as a function of frequency or wavelength. Time-domain spectroscopy usually requires the use of Fourier transforms."

You may be able to understand that, but I'm not sure anyone else can. It is incredibly complex and I don't understand the fact there are worse articles than this. I thought this was meant to be the simple English wikipedia, why do we have articles which are not simple? Can I create an article in German and just leave it. I can understand the article in German, though you or someone else may not. I'll just stick a banner on it saying "This article is in German: feel free to translate it into simple English if you want". Its exactly the same situation. If my first language isn't English then I couldn't understand this article in its current state, or if it was in German. Either way, the article shouldn't exist in its current state. Ydennek ^(talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since when is "Too complex" a part of the QD criteria? I don't know about others, but I can understand what the article is trying to say and I agree with Barras that we have even worse articles. In this article, many of the complex words are linked to existing articles. If you think it is too complex, take it to RfD, but there is no reason whatsoever to QD this in my opinion. NotImportant 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The real problem here is not the complexity of the article/words/sentecnes, but the complexity of the subject. This is a general problem with scientific stuff (especially physics and maths). It is hard to explain things in simple words or at times this is possible, but the context itself is somewhat hard to understand that the article isn't that complex, but hardly understandable to non-scientists. -Barras (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So this article actually comes from an assignment for an instrumental analysis class. As it was explained to us (and what I got from the homepage), SimpleWiki is a place for articles with real content but for non-native English speakers. So being an English speaker, when I had a question relating to my instrumental analysis course, I would use Wikipedia articles; the content may or may not be complex, given my current level of understanding. For a non-native English speaker, the Wikipedia article would be difficult to understand from the language alone. This, I thought, is the reason for SimpleWiki. Thus, I took a complex idea and tried to put it in simple English. It's still a complex idea, but just with different wording. So my question, when trying to remove this complex tag, do I need to put the article in more simple English, or do I need to water down the idea? To quote the homepage, "Simple does not mean short. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want basic information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, add details, but use basic vocabulary." (128.146.164.158 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)) (original writer, different IP)

Exactly. The article and its meaning is fine, its just the wording is too complex. Water down the the wording, keeping exactly what it means is what I'm saying. Ydennek ^(talk) 19:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not always possible. Our goal is to use the simplest words possible. Not necessarily simple words if you know what I mean. The word might be complex but it might be the simplest solution to get across an accurate meaning. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Matetsky

I definitely, did not need to see that in my life... ever... that was plain disgusting and I wish I didn't see it.

-Boredsohere (Bored?Chat?)

Saturn (planet)

It was so wrong of Goblin to close this promotion discussion, which after a long lag was now in full flow, with constructive work by three experienced editors. If we go on like this, with TRM proposing many demotions and Goblin closing discussions for promotion prematurely, then indeed we will have few GAs and VGAs left.

It is a real mistake to demote VGAs two steps down automatically. And a mistake for admins not to use their common sense. (end of rant) Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can understand you, but I have only been occasionally active on the (V)GA area, sadly. Please also note that the closure of such proposals is not part of the admin work. Anyone in good standing and with the necessary experience can do this. I think it might be good to address this issue on WP:ST or on BG7's talk page, at least the closing issue. Best, -Barras (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The process and the rules of the process are there for a reason, and that's to stop articles from sitting around for ever and gaining an unfair advantage over other articles - extensions are granted and, in the case of Saturn, it clearly had one, albeit "unofficially". There are (still, thankfully) numerous users who are more than happy to conduct article reviews and help users get articles into shape or keep them in shape, just an apparent unwillingness to seek out that help and then to meet all the concerns raised (not aimed at anyone in particular.). People nominating articles for Good or Very Good status should be proactive, not reactive, in their approaches to getting the articles promoted. Indeed, back in the old days no article would come to P(V)GA without having been through a comprehensive 'informal' review which normally saw all of the concerns met before the nomination was formalised, leading to some article spending a week on the page before getting a promotion. I'm not saying that the method that we seem to be shifting towards ("Let's pick an article, nominate it and then meet the concerns") isn't the right one to have, as I've done it myself with Epping Ongar Railway and one or two others, but I am saying that this could be a part of where the process is failing, perhaps.

To tackle the issue of demotions, put simply if articles don't cut the grade then they should go - we shouldn't be showcasing articles that are not up to standards and if no-one is interested in fixing them in a three week period, which is ample time to solve all but the longest of articles, then they should probably go. It is interesting to note too that the majority if the articles that are being demoted are either those from the very early days of the system, when it was, arguably, less stringent and worked solely on arbitrary vote counts rather than consensus, or they are those articles that were always borderline in their promotion anyway, and perhaps in hindsight shouldn't have had the promotion. This is particularly true of 'drive-by' nominations and those specialist subject articles that were promoted by now-departed users who just couldn't keep them updated; and yes, again I'm guilty of this myself - the majority of my (V)GAs are now rather outdated and should, by rights, be demoted, as I won't have the time to fix them for another couple of weeks at the very least due to exams etc. Once the cruft has been completely weened out I think we will see the number of demotions drop significantly - though, that said, we shouldn't just sit back and let them filter through, but again be proactive and perhaps try and save them before the demotion comes, or at the very least react when the demotion does come through.

Finally, on the subject of the two-step demotions. Around two years ago we did 'trial' a couple of these, however they were largely unsatisfactory and I think that all have now been demoted completely. It was decided (There's a discussion somewhere) that it is better to just strip articles completely and then step them back up as it ultimately would lead to a better quality article, whilst also it was further incentive for people to fix the articles, particularly the original nominator who got the article promoted. I know that if any of my articles are nominated for demotion I would rather put in all the effort I could (Assuming I had the time) to save it at the same grade, rather then risk a half-demotion perhaps for a similar amount of work to dropping it all the way and starting again. Perhaps it is time to review this decision though I would certainly be against any change, and I think several of the other (V)GA regulars would be too. I honestly don't know what the best way to go on this would be, though.

If you want to comment further it might be best to take this to either my talk page or your own, to stop clogging up Barras'? And apologies for butting in! :-) Goblin 09:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!