User talk:DenisL

Hello, DenisL, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you are happy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

We have a special page that describes how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

We are also focusing on core articles until this Wikipedia grows. This list of topics will help show the types of topics we want most.

Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, do not be afraid to be bold! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later.

If you need any help, send a message to an administrator on his or her talk page. Administrators on Wikipedia will try to help you with your problems and resolve them as soon as possible.

Finally, if you have any questions on how things work, don't hesitate to ask me. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. Good luck and happy editing! Billz (Talk) 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Unprotected temporarily. Let me know when you're done. Archer7 - talk 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

The source for Basic English spellings is http://ogden.basic-english.org/basiceng.html. Ryota does not appear to be an established authority. Ogden had no overt preference, other than commenting that American spelling was an achievement that should be continued, largely because it is much more phonetic and therefore less confusing to new learners. This was already discussed quite some time ago (Wikipedia talk:Spelling). -- Netoholic @ 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you pick any point in time and look at the publications, you will of course see spelling variations. That is not the point. Currently, the most authoritative source for Basic English is basic-english.org. Keep in mind that this is just a word list, our usage is not strictly dependent on that. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This IS the point. And you don't seem to get it. You are saying the modern adapted sources can surpass the genuine original sources. That is contrary to Wikipedia principles. DenisL 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Join Esperanza!

Vector has invited you to join Esperanza!As you may know, all the members have one important goal, which is the success of this encyclopedia. To do this we want to make the community better, and be the nice side of Wikipedia. So join us now and help form our very own community!--vector ^_^ (talk)

Netoholic

Netoholic is no longer an admin, and appears to have left the Simple English Wikipedia. I suggest proposing your changes on Simple Talk so the rest of the community can have a look at it. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dear DenisL, calm down. You seem so uptight, so relax, okay? Your comment you made here ridiculed Netoholic's behaviour. No that he's no longer an admin, I would suggest that you dicuss the policy with all of us at the Simple talk page. Thank you!-- Tdxiang 10:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I just want to ask your opinion. I new to the simple English wiki and find it rather backwards that not all the Basic English words have an entry. I figured I would it changing that but soon discovered that there is some debate as to whether articles on the basic list should redirect straight to the wiktionary or because of the possibility of future disambiguation an entry should exist plus a link to the wiktionary. I like the latter option and started doing just that on the word reason. I thought this would be good in that i could distinguish it from goal, intent, purpose, and justification but i can't seem to do that without defining it. The en.wikipedia is of no help since the article approaches the word from a philosophical perspective. What to do. What do you think?--Stjetters 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)