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.
When you speak of needing an article about the Fitzroy River, do you mean the Fitzroy River in Queensland or the part in Western Australia? I am going to try and do some of the rivers on your list of "red" rivers. Please let me know. Thanks,
ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carriearchdale, that question made me think. When I check, there are red links to both, so if you are feeling in a "river mood" please write something. Even some basic stubs would be better than what we have at the moment.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Username:Mr.raaj634536
hii. I am from india please help me how to became a adminstrator.and reply me.
Thanks for that oversight issue. I was going to tag it for deletion and then have the stewards suppress the information. Thanks again! Eurodyne (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear Peterdownunder, can you please grant me the patrolller right? i am very familiar with Simple.wp policies and guidelines and i believe that that will especially be useful to me.This right will be useful to patrolle new pages and to reduce the workload of new page patrollers.I also have autopatroller right on frwiki,and meta (check). Regards --Grind24talk??Contribs14:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Grind24, I would like to see a few more edits to be sure about granting you the patroller rights. Writing in Simple English does have a few different problems. I would simply like to see you demonstrate your understanding of the policies and guidelines in a practical way. After that, there should be no problems in making you a patroller.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peterdownunder, I feel that User:Batcher9999 is a sockpuppet of KANGAROO EXPERT because did the exact same disrupted editing on Despicable Me. Just compare the edits by Chineseman (which was confirmed to be a sockpuppet or Kangaroo Expert) and to that of Batcher. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of the rfd after I entered my vote, comment, and proof of my opinion as to why my argument shows the article nominated by the nominator is indeed totally notable. diff is here --->
The nominator of the article for rfd has gone in, and removed most of my comments and proofs shown in the diff above. No notation was left for other editors to consider my argument for keep and the proof behind my argument. After chopping out the almost whole part of my argument with proof for keeping the article in the rfd, The nominator went back after just leave one sentence of what I had posted. She put her comment as to why she believes the article is not notable.
I have no problem with the nominator making comment down further in the rfd discussion. I do find it difficult to believe that a nominator may remove part of a voters argument and proof, and leave only one sentence left from the comment that she chopped up and demoted to the deep history of the page.
Peterdownunder, is this normal procedure here at simple english wikipedia? That it is okay for the nominator of the article, who btw is an administrator, to go in and edit the vote, statement and its proof by a voter? And then put in more of a statement as to why they think the article is not notable. Now remember that chopped out all but about a sentence from the voter's statement. Please tell me, Peterdownunder? Is this the normal procedure and protocol and such here at se.wp during an RFD? ciao!!! Carriearchdale21:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)All the text I deleted is in the article, and the RfD should refer to it there. We do not put article text or references on the RfD page. By the way, it shows a little bit of bad faith that you not only didn't ask me about this first, you didn't even let me know you were complaining about something I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of problems here - Carrie not being aware (actually neither was I) about rfd arguments, and Aof6 being perhaps heavy handed in dealing with it. I am quite sure that both editors are trying to get the best possible outcome for the SEWP. I think it is OK to ask another editor for an opinion, I always ask when I am unsure of procedures, protocols and practices. And they do change over time. You are both editors whose work I respect, so please stay calm and believe like I do that you are both doing your best. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your improvements on this. I had declined a qd on it earlier, and my changes were to get it just to the point where people would realize it was a real thing and not nominate it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of the top Medical editors! I want to use this opportunity to introduce you to our most ambitious project.
We want to use Wikipedia to spread knowledge where it will be used. Studies have shown that Wikipedia is the most common resource of medical knowledge, and used by more people than any other source! We want high quality articles, available to everyone, regardless of language ability. It isn't right that you would need to know a major language to get hold of quality content!
That is why in the recent Ebola crisis (which is still ongoing) we translated information into over 70 languages, many of them small African languages. This was important, as Wikipedia was also shown to be the biggest resource used in Africa for information on Ebola! We see tremendous potential, but also great risks as our information needs to be accurate and well-researched. We only translate articles that have been reviewed by medical doctors and experts, so that what we translate is correct. Many of our translators are professionals, but many are also volunteers, and we need more of you guys – both to translate, but also to import finished translations, and fix grammatical or other style issues that are introduced by the translation process.
Our articles are not only translated into small languages, but also to larger ones, but as of 2015 this requires users to apply for an article to be translated, which can be done here (full articles, short articles) with an easy to manage google document.
So regardless of your background head over to our main page for more information, or to our talk page and ask us questions. Feel free to respond in any language, we will do our best to find some way to communicate. No task is too small, and we need everyone to help out!
I hope you will forgive me for sending this message in English – we also need translators for messages like this, and above all local language community managers, which act as a link between us and you. Also I can not reply on your talk page, so please go to our talk page!
Thank you for helping medical information on Wikipedia grow! -- CFCF🍌 (email) 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You have kindly been our class ambassador on past projects. This year, in honor of US Women's History Month, we would like to create/populate pages on notable female authors who write award winning or very popular books read by middle school students. Our teachers want to hold this class fairly soon--Monday, March 23, 2015, at 8am-12 noon, Pacific. I'm just getting back up to speed on all this project requires, but we have been very careful to follow all guidelines in the past. Would you be available to be our ambassador once again?
The only problem that usually pops up is stewards watching the creation of a number of accounts from the same IP. This, if it is not quickly noted as a school project, can be blocked as they are worried about spamming. If you follow the guidelines it should be Ok.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (talk page stalker)Hi, Peter. Are you going to actively check these articles, or just respond when asked for help? The reason I ask is that I see style, simplification, and other issues. If you're going to check them, then I'll leave them alone and let you communicate with the students and teacher. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aunt, I will be checking and making suggestions over the next 24 hours, but please feel free to do so as well. This is all part of learning to work in a Wiki environment.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ogden was a very strange man, and quite a few of his decisions about Basic English were not rational. Anyway, "many" is a Basic word at the 1500 level, even if we don't list it on our page. It's one of the most common adjectives in English! Oh, sorry, in modern speak it's a determiner...
Many ranks 108 in English word count; most is 95 (!); few is 492. . They are words which are absolutely essential for readers of English. One problem with circumlocutions is that they are inexact. Is "plenty of" or "lots of" many or most? Also, idioms are less likely to be covered in the small dictionaries that learners of a language often use. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) [written before reading the above][reply]
In your Simple Talk comments, I see that you are willing to be my mentor. I hope that you will do that with me. I will let you know when I have an article in user space that I have ready for your review. Thank you very much. Racepacket (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction. I have been working on some edits to a page, but another user is reverting the edits in a manner which i believe to be indicative of profound institutional racism. I made comments on the talk page to this effect, but the page was reverted anyway. I do not feel i have the technical expertise to effectively combat this, but it disappoints me to see this type of activity on Wikipedia, and I would like to pursue this in the most appropriate way possible. Can you advise me on what I should do?
Thanks for your query, but the article in question is on the English Wikipedia - this wiki is the Simple English Wikipedia. We are a different group and are not able to help. Try contacting an administrator on the English Wikipedia for help.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
{{subst:currentuser}} has given you a tall and cool glass of milk! Milk promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day very good. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy your tall, delicious and good drink of milk!
Spread this drink of milk by putting {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with the best message!
This user Richard Arthur Norton is just deleting articles because they are just "ordinary". That's not a legitimate reason though. I dont know what to do. I'm scared that this user is just going to delete all of the articles because of them being "ordinary". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)What he means by that is that they don't show notability. He hasn't QD'd very many so far, as far as I've seen. You can count on the admins to evaluate each one before deleting. I think we do have a lot of articles that don't show notability, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you see one tagged and you want to save it, just put a {{wait}} tag on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True. But isn't that the point of Simple English. Not copying English articles even though the outcome might be shorter than expectations with one or two refs. Just to be safe, I think he should thoroughly know the requirements of what's notable and not (for all we know he could just justify his actions because he is known world known). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point, especially what you put in parentheses at the end. Articles need to show notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. An article of one sentence can show notability (especially with geographical places that only need to exist to be considered notable), and a ten-page article can fail to show notability. References do not guarantee notability (such as when they're used to support non-notable facts), and lack of references doesn't mean a topic isn't notable. The QD option related to notability requires a claim of notability, but it doesn't require that the claim be supported with references. If someone thinks the claim isn't true, it can be challenged. I'm not sure any if that answers your point. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Richard has made a valid point, that notability does not mean superlative. So the ordinary can, and does quite often, meet our notability guidelines. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of a number of methods to check how simple an article is to read. I aim for 8. But like all of these tools, they do have problems - you can write rubbish and a still get a good score. So remember it is just a tool. Read more here: Wikipedia or here Fog index --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not, making a genuine QD request is not regarded as vandalism. The article is now listed for an rfd discussion through our processes, so the new QD note is not needed. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Without checking any references, it is probably because the oboe is the least tunable of all the instruments. All other instruments can be easily adjusted to make them sharper of flatter, for example a flute headjoint can be rolled in or out, and a violin string can be tightened or loosened. An oboe reed can be slightly adjusted by pulling it slightly out of the top joint to make the instrument flatter, but there is little leeway for this. The way you set your lips (embouchure) does most of the work. You need to have a good sense of pitch and you really need to have made or purchased a reed that plays in tune. Secondly, the oboe's rather strident tone means that it can cut through - other members of the orchestra can easily hear it and make the necessary adjustments during the tuning. Hope that gives some insights into your question.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thanks. I rather suspected both of those things. Of course, when a piano is in the orchestra, I know the oboe takes its pitch from the piano, but in that case I imagine the lead-chair oboe and the pianist work it out ahead of time. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The oboe player is expected to play at the correct pitch (here it is A=440). I carry a tuning fork to check before providing pitch to others. You would expect the piano to be tuned to that standard as well. Taking pitch from the piano is really just a micro adjustment to double check.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the Groves Dictionary of Music: "The tradition of tuning to the oboe is documented from the beginning of the 19th century. According to Vogt and Fétis (Manuel des compositeurs, Paris, 1837, p.117), the narrow bore of the oboe made it less susceptible than other wind instruments to pitch variation caused by temperature fluctuations." --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(change conflict)You would expect that, of course. And in the hall of a serious, professional orchestra, there's going to be a piano-tuning kit and someone who knows how to use it on hand. But if you're at the local primary school, and the piano has drifted down to A4=438 since its last proper tuning (or because of temperature or whatever), you're the one who's going to have to adjust, no?
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
