User talk:Chenzw/Archives/Oct 2012
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chenzw/Archives/Oct_2012. |
 |
| This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw. |
|
|
Quick question re Hirokazu Goshi deletion[change source]
Hi,
You recently closed the request for Hirokazu Goshi as Delete, but it is still there. Was it delete or not? There were a bunch of them together, so easy to mix up which went delete or not?
Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I closed the RfD as keep due to lack of consensus... :P Chenzw Talk 11:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I misread and saw the Delete for the next one after it. My mistake. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
sorry — This unsigned comment was added by 117.214.202.176 (talk • changes) on 09:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC).
Redirect practices[change source]
Dear Chenw,
Please understand that these redirects are not there for inappropriate reasons. I have edited the regular English Wikipedia since 2003. I have done redirects like this (redirecting every iteration of a name, every romanization, every possible spelling, every plausible typo) for various subjects and pages for years, and years, and years. The general practice I have learned across all Wikimedia projects is, the more, the merrier, if they are appropriate. Based on precedent at not just EN, but various other Wikimedia projects, I have learned to do redirects like this. The idea is that one wants Wikipedia articles to be more visible and appear more easily on Google.
I can understand such sentiments if it was a new user, say, promoting a company that turns out to be non-notable. But this is not the case. This is a longtime Wikipedian doing standard practice, making various redirects to ensure people arrive at the correct place. You asked "please reconsider if it will really be used as a navigation aid" - I have considered that matter for years, and concluded that such redirects just about always can, and are, used as navigation aids. If a typo is not plausible, then it's deleted. If it is a name form nobody uses, then it's deleted, etc.
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, we aren't like other Wikimedia wikis. We try to keep things simple here. Simple doesn't just apply to the language used but to the administration side of things as well. Ours wiki in a way is often a case of less is better. That being said this probably isn't that big a deal. But it is something to keep in mind. Simple wikis are nothing like other WMF wikis. The simple idea runs through everything we do. It is often a big mistake that many new editors from en make that they assume what they do or what they know from en is the same here. It very often is not. We are in many ways completely different from en in how we approach most things. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I understood that writing the articles is more simple (not as much focus on minor details) but I wasn't aware about the administration side of things. Which administration aspects are the most streamlined? What do you think are the biggest differences? It may be especially helpful since I'm planning to submit a proposal to build a different simple Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- It would be hard to point it out specifically other than to suggest reading our various guidelines/policies and editing a bit here. But generally a lot of our policies/processes are scaled to our size. As an example, we don't have PROD because that just complicates things and there aren't enough users to keep it going well. So everything goes to Rfd (our version of Afd). Something to keep in mind if you are successful with your bid for a Simple French would be that you keep it in mind its harder to write a simple version of an article than a normal version. A mistake we see here a lot is people assuming that they know a little English so they can write articles on Simple English. It actually takes someone who is more skilled than the average native person in a language to write an article well in a simple fashion. Simple wikis are more about the readers than the editors in that our target editor (person skilled in writing simple) is different than our target reader (person with lesser English skills) whereas on a normal language wiki they would both be people who know English or whatever language. While we have plenty here who edit that are ESL. A lot of very talented writers from en.wiki have come here and said "Wow, its a lot harder to write simple than I would have guessed." -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I figured it was a challenge to write simple - When I was moving over some content from the ReachOut article I was trying to find how to express "mobile dentistry coordination program" and "provides the coordination of services" (it's how the newspaper articles describe the company, so it's the best choice) in a simple manner. I purposefully glossed over the corporate transactions for the simple article, but some things are unavoidable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- It would be hard to point it out specifically other than to suggest reading our various guidelines/policies and editing a bit here. But generally a lot of our policies/processes are scaled to our size. As an example, we don't have PROD because that just complicates things and there aren't enough users to keep it going well. So everything goes to Rfd (our version of Afd). Something to keep in mind if you are successful with your bid for a Simple French would be that you keep it in mind its harder to write a simple version of an article than a normal version. A mistake we see here a lot is people assuming that they know a little English so they can write articles on Simple English. It actually takes someone who is more skilled than the average native person in a language to write an article well in a simple fashion. Simple wikis are more about the readers than the editors in that our target editor (person skilled in writing simple) is different than our target reader (person with lesser English skills) whereas on a normal language wiki they would both be people who know English or whatever language. While we have plenty here who edit that are ESL. A lot of very talented writers from en.wiki have come here and said "Wow, its a lot harder to write simple than I would have guessed." -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I understood that writing the articles is more simple (not as much focus on minor details) but I wasn't aware about the administration side of things. Which administration aspects are the most streamlined? What do you think are the biggest differences? It may be especially helpful since I'm planning to submit a proposal to build a different simple Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oct 26, '12[change source]
To; Chenzw,
Hello. My name is Dawn (aka; Dawnofrabbits),
I received this message that my edits are considered vadalism. I assure you that I am who I am & have had this E-name; Dawnofrabbits for almost a decade (10 years) now. My alternate E-name is; Sheofmermaids. I have a genuine interest in colors, moods & mood rings. I was not trying to vadalize The Wikipedia at all, but to contribute to the Web-site. I made every effort to make sure that my entries were correct on the colors & that proper credit was given for the source from where I got my information.
I know that my account has been in disuse for quite a long time & I only recently started using it again, but I am not a vandal. I did open up an E-account with The Wikipedia very recently under my other E-name; Sheofmermaids, but when I couldn't remember the password- I just went with my older E-account of Dawnofrabbits instead.
If there is something I am missing here, then please let me know. My frustration with Wikipedia is that I have seen pages on the site which are clearly deliberately vandalized with seemingly no remorse on the offender's part. I have, however, always tried to make appropriate & accurate entries.
Is there something amiss with my E-account(s). I hope this page for you is current. Please respond & thank you for your time.
98.207.41.27 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Request to Restore[change source]
I would like to ask you if you could please restore the Hurricane Sandy page, that you deleted under the reasoning of QD A1 of having very little meaning, on October 27, 2012. This is because Hurricane Sandy, is a very notable storm, as well as there are current details coming out now on the Hurricane, as the name will likely be retired at the next meeting, of the World Meteorological Organization in the spring of 2013, as it has generated plenty of damage. As well as there are currently alot of notable news sources and other sources out there for the Hurricane. I would be grateful if you did restore this page. Thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)