Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Password reset[change source]

I apologise that this message is in English. ⧼Centralnotice-shared-help-translate⧽

We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.

Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.

In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.

Select strong passwords – eight or more characters long, and containing letters, numbers, and punctuation. Joe Sutherland (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

For those who don't know where to find it, a link to change your password is in your preferences ("My settings"), on the user profile tab, in the basic settings section.
While on the subject of passwords, is there a procedure to reset a forgotten password? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
As long as you have an email on your account you can just click the forgotten password link. If you don't have an email on your account then you are out of luck unless you can convince a Steward or Dev I think. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies - that first line should read "Help with translations!". Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: These passwords are not the safest (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well since I'm not an admin I guess I will just be unsecure then. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you know[change source]

It looks like there are hooks ready in queue at Template talk:Did you know. I can work on some of the maybe's to see if they can be moved to okay. Can someone who knows what's going on with the page take a look? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How simple should Simple Wikipedia be?[change source]

Should we all use Simple Writer? (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting site, and a good place to start working out what is simple and what is not.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That seems like it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about using xkcd :P I will look into converting it into a MediaWiki extension. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Simple Wikipedia should have just as much information as the regular English Wikipedia, but with less jargon and simpler sentences. I try to write as if I were explaining something to a twelve year old. For example, instead of saying "mass is a measure of inertia" I would write "mass is what makes objects resist a change in motion" and then follow it up with examples like "it's harder to move a bowling ball than to move a tennis ball because the bowling ball has more mass". is a good resource for writing clearly, and it isn't as extreme as Simple Writer. Notfruit (talk)
Have a look at a discussion we had a couple of years back, which I've preserved on my talk page (User talk:StevenJ81#Simplicity). I'm not so sure that SE Wikipedia needs "just as much information" as the regular English Wikipedia, any more than (to use the example there) World Book Encyclopedia needed "just as much information" as Encyclopædia Brittanica.
If you look at the articles Hebrew calendar, en:Hebrew calendar and fr:Calendrier hébraïque, for example, you will see that the enwiki and frwiki articles have far more in the way of details of calculation and mathematics than the simlewiki article does. (I brought frwiki in just because the article is better organized than enwiki's is.) But the simplewiki article is quite complete for the needs of most readers. I personally think that is what we should aim for. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, quantity is an issue if the reader's language skills are borderline. There is a great deal more to simple writing than meets the eye. On my talk page under 'Syntactic Structures', I suggested that the writer needs to make a connection with the reader's mind. Advice on writing often suggests that a writer should start off with something the reader already knows, and lead the reader to what he probably doesn't know. That's not to say that vocabulary and syntax are unimportant, just that there are other things going on in a successful communication. That's why it may be not enough to replace rare words with more common words, whilst ignoring other issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Steven. While users are free to include as much or as little detail as they want when creating articles, our main page says, "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." One of the areas where we need to improve is short articles. Too many articles are brought over from enwiki as stubs, with only the intro from the original article. That may be better than nothing, but we shouldn't settle for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Disney movie vandal[change source]

The Disney movie vandal is back. Be very suspicious of any changes to articles about children's movies. Report any vandalism or suspicious edits to Vandalism in progress straight away. This vandal will be reverted and blocked on sight.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sort of inactive, can someone fill me in on what the Disney movie vandal is (besides the fact that they vandalize disney movies :P) Computer Fizz (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Now and then someone changes movie articles to add incorrect information. The changes are often to names in the credits, release dates, etc. It happens a lot with various children's movies, not sure if it's just Disney movies. If you see this kind of change, revert it on sight and report it right away, even if the user hasn't had the usual progression of warnings. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like you are taking this pretty seriously. I'll start signing on more often to make sure that it is taken care of. EDIT : Oh man, one of these happened just 20 minutes ago! Computer Fizz (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the talk page for Wikipedia:Sandbox also a sandbox?[change source]

Back on EnWiki, the talk page for the Sandbox is also a sandbox. Is it that way on Simple English Wikipedia too? If not, then I wonder why not. Thanks. -- (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not officially, but I think nobody would mind. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Help test offline Wikipedia[change source]

Hello! The Reading team at the Foundation is looking to support readers who want to take articles offline to read and share later on their phones - a use case we learned about from deep research earlier this year. We’ve built a few prototypes and are looking for people who would be interested in testing them. If you’d like to learn more and give us feedback, check out the page on Meta! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

QD notice[change source]

Can someone please let me know what template to use when notifying a user of a QD request? Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's {{QD-notice}}. If you use Twinkle to request the QD, it should take care of that for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't use Twinkle because I only do a bit of vandalism stuff. The template you linked is for telling the user the page was deleted, not that it's been requested to be deleted. Thanks though! --Tbennert (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That template is used to tell someone a page has been nominated. It detects whether the page still exists and shows different text if it has already been deleted ("has been selected for quick deletion" vs. "has been quickly deleted"). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh, got it. I saw that a while ago but just read the top part - and I don't think I would have known it changed. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft Outlook x Outlook Express[change source]

Hello. More than 1 week ago, I created a topic on Talk:Microsoft Outlook Express. There, I pointed that there is an error on that article. Could someone please check there? Thanks.-- (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)