Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Articles to be worked on[change source]

Hi everyone. I'm an English teacher at a cram school in a non-English speaking country and I'm considering having my students, who are returnee middle schoolers (and possibly junior high schoolers as well), work on improving articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. I've taken a look at both Most wanted articles and Requested pages to come up with a list of articles students can contribute to, but some of those were either too specific (e.g. articles about places within London) or too challenging (e.g. topics in thermodynamics). I was wondering if you have any suggestions on what would be suitable for middle schoolers to work on. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. NMaia (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Something to consider reading through might be the following: Wikipedia:Schools and Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide. Doesn't necessarily help specifically with your question but it might give you some ideas. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@NMaia: Would your students want to improve existing articles or create new ones? You could choose a country, either your own or a different one, and create articles about its history, places there, people from there, etc. The places could be either human-defined ones (for example, cities, counties, etc.) or things like notable mountains or lakes. If this seems like a good idea, if you tell me what parts of the world the students might want to write about, I could make more-specific suggestions. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Auntof6, NMaia, you could always have your students write in Simple English about things in or from their own country. One of the problems with the two English Wikipedias is that they focus on things that native speakers of English have seen themselves, which means it's been highly America-centric. Maybe they could write about their country's history or famous people or any World Heritage Sites. One thing: writing about people who are currently alive is a very delicate thing, and they might not be ready for that.
You should also consider the English Wikinews. Their review process is heavily focused on correcting people who are still learning to write in English. My first year there, we had a whole heap of Australian journalism students come through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WAM 2020[change source]

The so called Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2019 is back this year 2020. Last year it's a mess as the organizer left after the event started and BRPever and I clean up with only one day notice, so I hope this year anyone wanting to organize can be an experienced member of this community (rather than a random Joe Doe leaving the name on the meta page). I don't mind acting as standby organizer, hopefully then I can have slightly more time to spend onwiki. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

+ Hopefully we can have enough participants this year, last year we only have 2, which only 1 finished... Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Camouflaged Mirage I am going to participate in this year's WAM --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Any interest to organize, i.e. judge articles created by other participants? I will join in to help as much as I can? As organizers cannot self judge articles. @Thegooduser: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage:, I can help in judging the articles, but I will need help in setting up the pages. :)-BRP ever 13:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@BRPever: The pages I can help to settle if you mean the contest page (copy paste from last year) etc. Pending Thegooduser reply, if they are willing, then I will submit 3 of our names to meta as organizers. The fountain should be done by the international team AFAIK. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2020 is created, so the pages are sort of in place already. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up, this is held at the same time as National Novel Writing Month in the United States, November 1 to November 30. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Camoflaged Mirage I can be an organizer, but is there a page with instructions on what to do, and can we create articles? Also, I'm busy, so I'll only be online a hour or two a day. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Camouflaged Mirage Fixing Ping. See above --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Basically is just using a tool called fountain to approve articles, not to worry, when the contest start we can guide you along, me and BRPever did it last year so we have the experience. Just a log in (with SUL) and then the system will check the basic and we click accept / reject. At the end, when everything is wrap up, send a success message to successful ones, unsuccessful one to those who failed the standard 4. Time isn't a concern either, we settled this around 4 hours last year irrc. There is no rush to judge. Yes, you can still write articles, the other judges will mark it in this case (to be fair). So I shall place all 3 of our names there (me as a reserve - as I might be busy then). Thanks for volunteering :). I think we just need 1 day on IRC to co-ordinate and judge that's it, I will try to pop into IRC (simple channel). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
When's a good time for IRC? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Not to worry for now, basically we don't have anything else to do at this moment, at then if there is a need to discuss about whether an article is ok or not, I can make it basically around night UTC+8 time. We just need at most 1h / week in Nov. We can discuss more nearer to the date. If the submitted articles are all okay, nothing much to consider, then we can just approve without IRC. My IRC is currently not available but I will strive to recover it by Nov. Nick is "cohaf" my previous username. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Nigeria[change source]

A new WikiProject has been created to help the development of Nigerian articles. Feel free to join here and contribute.Tbiw (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: Sure I'll help out. --IWI (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-41[change source]

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric[change source]

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Gay Yong Hernandez and systematic creation of stubs from IPs[change source]

While this wasn't thought to have been an issue of concern back in July 2019, the concern of Gay Yong Hernandez (talk · contribs · count) creating stubs while logged out has surfaced again this year:

Indeed, there is nothing in the rules saying that registered editors cannot edit Wikipedia constructively while logged out, however it has been highlighted that the volume of stub creations by the range 2A02:21B0:644D::/48 is starting to create increased pressure in the patrolling backlog. I have also noticed that the initial revision by the IP is a generic "x is a y in z"-style edit, and that the registered account adds contents in subsequent diffs. See page histories of Gooise Meren, Haarlemmermeer, Heiloo, Bussum for examples.

I am personally am not a fan of mass stub creation (especially when the creation is templated/semi-automated), and am highlighting this for the community's attention. The lack of response by the editor on their talk page is also concerning. In fact, there have been zero edits to User talk, Wikipedia, and Talk namespaces since the account was registered. Chenzw  Talk  06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A case could be made that they switch to the IP to avoid scrutiny which I believe is something that is disallowed by policy. Now whether a strong case could be made for that is a different matter as pretty much everyone knows it is them, although it is hard to track as their IP changes regularly. A case could almost definitely be made that lack of communication when issues have been brought to them is disruptive as well. -Djsasso (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I do agree that almost everyone knows the range is them, but tools we use don't and they will still appear when GYH logs out to create the stubs. --Minorax (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on some comments on his talk page that were just left it has me wondering if he is using automation to create the articles which could explain why he wasn't logged in. And then uses the browser to change the pages which would be why he was then logged in. If that is indeed what he is doing it is completely blockable for using automation without a bot approval. -Djsasso (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Chenzw, Can you provide me with the log, of which admin, had granted Gay Yong Hernandez patroller rights? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
While I really appreciate the work Gay Yong Hernandez does (assuming it's not a bot), it is concerning that this could be a bot and not a person editing. I think a block would be the last resort, and I hope we won't need to go there and loose another editor --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: the right was granted in Dec 2019. Chenzw  Talk  10:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is he patrolling his own IP creation, like Briaroaks, Texas which clearly shouldn't be marked as patrolled. This page is close to an A2 as rephrasing the title in some sense. This seems illegit use of patroller rights and seems socking. Worrying IMO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Well technically if GYH were to create that page using his account instead of the IP, it'll still be automatically marked as patrolled. I think the sysops should consider removing his patroller rights, @Eptalon: ping for comment. --Minorax (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
True, however, this can also be seen as wanting to conceal the IP creation problem. So even if we AGF and then deem the page patrol issue not important, autopatrolled users shouldn't create such pages or rather, can create and tag accordingly etc. Still worrying? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict) It's worth pointing out again the major issue that GYH has apparently never edited any talk namespace here, and thus has never communicated with anybody here. Communication is needed. I don't personally think someone who does not communicate should be granted any extra rights. I also can't exactly say that he has demonstrated article creation worthy of the patroller right. It also could be the case that the massive amount of stubs he creates are automated, which might explain why he fixes up his own IP articles. Many of the articles he creates anonymously, particularly the one sentence "PLACE is a commune in the DEPARTMENT department in France" ones that have been made en masse are very poor, and not particularly useful or helpful. It may also be worth looking at the blocks placed on him elsewhere in his CentralAuth.
On the other hand, I will say that he does clean up other's new articles by categorising them accordingly, which is quite helpful. I agree with Thegooduser that a block should be a last resort for this final reason. --IWI (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, considering he apparently operates stub creation bots elsewhere (apparently plwiki), I would say it is very likely these stub creations are made by a bot. This of course, isn't allowed. I would definitely support the removal of the patroller right at this point. It is also certainly blockable to operate such a bot without authorisation. --IWI (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Just noting here that the user has continued to create these stubs as an IP and patrolling and cleaning up even after this discussion as I am writing this. Maybe action should be taken sooner rather than later. --IWI (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I won't comment on a possible link from IP to user, as I can't do this per policy. As to Gay Yong Hernandez: I tink they only have intermediate language skills in English, and recently their edits focused on fixing texts, finding typos, and similar. Personally, I have always had the opinion, that 'X is a city in Y'-type articles are borderline deletes, even if vommunity consensus is that such articles are notable. And as to me assigning the 'autopatrolled': At that time, their edits looked like they didn't need another look, they were unproblematic. Also, I don't know what the benefit is of me creating an article as IP as opposed to me creating an article as logged in user. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: As stated above, it appears that the IP creations are most likely an automated unauthorised bot (he operates a similar bot on another wiki). He then uses his main account to add categories and patrol each creation. There is really no question of whether he is related to the range as all article creations by the range are immediatley edited by Gay Yong Hernandez. In my opinion, patroller should only be assigned to people who demonstrate a good ability of writing a large number of Simple English pages. --IWI (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment So, Technically speaking Gay Yong Hernandez could be blocked now, because of WP:ONESTRIKE? I will try to get in contact with him by leaving him a message, but I doubt it would work --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Well technically speaking he would have to have been banned on another project. --IWI (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
+ I don't think ONESTRIKE fits them, as this isn't creating pages out of the project language, and if I am not wrong, we need to notify them ONESTRIKE before we can use them, which no one had officially notified them. I will say let's communicate and find a solution out of this, I don't want to see a productive contributor being lost. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

While there is indeed the general impression that there are signs of trouble here, I dislike having to resort to ONESTRIKE as an arguably more convenient way to block and remove an allegedly problematic editor from this wiki. It is also worth noting that our policy page talks about users "who have been banned on other Wikimedia Foundation projects" (emphasis mine), so we should adhere to that. Users who are actively breaking rules on this wiki can be blocked, with or without ONESTRIKE's existence. As a community, we can do better in our efforts to engage editors before resorting to other sanctions (of course, engaging the editor in this case doesn't seem to be going particularly well). Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Chenzw, ImprovedWikiImprovment I've left a message on their talkpage, encouraging them to join in --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are 64 more stub creations over several hours during two days of this discussion. As dj pointed out up above, active editors here know it is them. However, using the IP somewhat conceals his bot-created stub history here from users of other wikis. It should be clearly visible to admins of other wikis when they start bot editing elsewhere. See no reason to make an exception for GYH for bot (or indistinguishable from bot) edits. --Gotanda (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Another concern I have, is that GYH, when editing, does not make edits all at once, for example, they will make 1 edit at a time on the same page, it may just be their style of editing though, and I am going to AGF that it is --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Seriously what is so wrong of making edits one by one, we do miss it at times to complete a full edit. It's not they are pandering edit counts or whatsoever or to game some sort of status etc, we have wikis (like zhwiki) where rollback needs 1000 edits, so yes, if we have these criterion, splitting edits can be seen as gaming. Not all users can make a page by just 1 edit to be honest. This isn't an AGF issue IMO. It's totally fine for me. (for this particular issue). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Camouflaged Mirage What I meant is, I won't assume that that the account is a bot. I mean I edit like that too sometimes, and I'm sorry, that I didn't word that good enough. I don't mean to attack the user (GYH). Like, I mentioned, that may just be how they edit, and that's fine. It's only concerning if it's a bot making those edits, but I will assume it's not a bot. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser No worries. I am also a little heated there. Face-smile.svg To be honest, if they run bots using IpV6 we can't do much either, the address will skip and then we have to block a range which is clearly hard here given the range they use can be used by other users. What is worrying to me is they having the patroller rights (which they aren't creating autopatrol eligible pages always - one example I given above). In addition, the lack of communication and engagement to the community is worrying. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Using IPv6 isn't an issue as issuing /64 blocks on them is considered the equivalent of blocking a single IPv4 IP in that it is done all the time. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What I am concerned is the possible collateral? As the bot will not end soon, I am afraid a long block might have some collateral as we typical indef unauthorized bots but with IP, indefs are very rare. That's my concerns of ipv6 or IPs in general.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think an indefinite block for an IP is what is being considered (that sounds like a very bad idea). /64 has low collateral really too. --IWI (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all for clarifications. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for other admins, but I probably wouldn't jump to indef on the IPs immediately (though maybe on the named account). It would be a slow build up of longer and longer blocks toping out at the typical 1 year max for an IP that isn't a proxy IP. And it wouldn't be the first time. His IPs have been blocked in the past before we all knew it was him doing it, so not sure if blocking just the IPs would make him stop. It would probably take blocking his main account as well. As for collateral, most ISPs assign IPv6 /64 ranges to a single customer in the same way a single customer gets a single IPv4 IP. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The whole situation is somewhat puzzling, but I agree with Djsasso about not jumping to indef on IPs. We should follow the normal procedure and go from there. --Yottie =talk= 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus here maybe to implement a block of some type on the IPs at the very least if not their main account as well. At the very least it appears they are running a bot without authorization which is blockworthy in and of itself. The fact that they have not one single time replied to anyone's concerns on their talk page including the two notices about this discussion means they are violating en:Wikipedia:Communication is required as well. Am I correct in thinking there is consensus? I ask because I don't want this to get lost in the archives. Could we maybe get people to chime off if they think a block is warranted so its a bit more clear. -Djsasso (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

At that point, we would just be repeating the conversation above. But I do think there is a consensus to block the unauthorized bot. I do personally feel a bit sad in saying that due to the loss of someone with 25, 237 edits. But policies are policies, and I do think that there is consensus here. Naleksuh (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  I certianly think a block is the only way forward at this point for both the account and IP range. The user has been given chances to communicate over a period of several months. We certainly can't allow these bot creations to continue, and since the user does not answer to comments, there's not much else we can do. --IWI (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Yeah I certainly don't want to redo the conversation above. I just wanted to make sure people stated clearly they thought a block was the way forward. Most comments above talked about issues but didn't necessarily outright say lets block him. So I wanted any admin to be super clear before we blocked as you say a 25k+ editor. -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, as requested, I am chiming in to agree that a block of the named account is appropriate and should be done. If creation from the IPs continues, then short and progressively longer blocks seem reasonable. --Gotanda (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I can make an attempt at speaking to the editor (after all, they speak the same language); It is my opinion that a block must not affect the named account, but only the IPs (which also means not blocking named users operating from the IPs). I haven't run a checkuser, as so far I haven't seen any need. I do however trust the named editor; in my opion, the edits of the named editor do not warrant removing the autopatrolled flag. --Eptalon (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If you can get through to him in his native language then great, but at the bare minunum we must remove the patrol right here. There is no way any of those stub creations can be considered autopatrol worthy creations. And the IP range is certainly him, no CU is required. They always edit at the same time – they clean up and patrol every stub within a few minutes. There really is no debate whether this IP range is him. Evidence from other wikis makes it very likely they are using an unauthorised bot script to create these stubs en masse and then patrolling them while logged in. This is definitley something we would apply a block for to protect the encyclopedia if they refuse to stop or do not communicate. --IWI (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I left a message on his talk page, in German. Any action taken should be the result of a consensus. So please don't jump to conclusions here. --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course. In order to achieve that consensus I am adding my point of view to the discussion, which is of course how Wikipedia works. Thank you for leaving a message for him in German; we shall see if he does respond. --IWI (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As above I really hope they will communicate, not easy and dedication to keep to so many mainspace edits over so many years (w/o breaking the temptation to break it). However, communication is needed here. I will note if we block the IP address only, they can IP hop and that might be problematic. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear that Gay Yong Hernandez will IP hop. If the ISP respects the conventional sizes of IPv6 prefixes, a /64 or /56 block is sufficient for coverage (I understand that some particularly generous ISPs grant a single /48 to each customer). If anything, if IP hopping occurs after the above-mentioned IP block(s) are made, I would start considering it as potential evidence of bad faith and refusal to communicate. Chenzw  Talk  11:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I am meaning the hopping between different IPs such as using multiple /64 blocks or rather using other ipv4 etc. I am worried there might be a possibility that they will resort into using other IPs to evade the blocks, this will certainly be met by further blocks for evasion but I truly doesn't want to see a good faith contributor turning into a LTA or sort. I know I might be pessimistic (given how the current global climate is in part) but such blocks to communicate might not yield much afterall. I am for a block for creating bad pages with or without using a bot but then they fixed most of the pages. Block or not block we need to calibrate properly to ensure it doesn't turn into a true net negative for the project. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree there is consensus to block the IPs for a period of time, with a warning not to continue. I would hold fire on the named account, as per Eptalon's suggestion. --Yottie =talk= 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Block I guess is okay for now, since they are editing after Eptalon message and didn't engage here. Communication is needed for a collaborative project. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In light of recent sentiment on-wiki I think I should clarify the above statement doesn't want to see a good faith contributor turning into a LTA: one does not simply become an editor worthy of "LTA treatment" merely because they evade blocks. Saying that a "good faith" editor becomes an "LTA" is an oxymoron - if you accept that their contributions are good, what is the reason for turning into an LTA case in the first place? I don't know the reason(s) behind GYH not engaging with the community - perhaps they are extremely shy, perhaps some other reason - but that is hardly enough yet to label them as "LTA". WP:LTA explains further under the section "Don't use LTA unless needed". Chenzw  Talk  12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes the term "LTA" implies bad faith, but I am pretty sure that GYH is acting in good faith. I don't see how a person acting in good faith can be labelled as "LTA". After all, they are creating pages and cleaning up new ones; I don't think any of their behaviour suggests otherwise. This is very much a WP:CIR issue. There could be a large number of reasons why they do not respond. A block would not imply that the user is acting in bad faith, and nor would them editing under a new IP address. --IWI (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify where I am coming from. I seen cases in other wikis where there are some good faith contributors for some reason or sort get blocked for some reasons, and then they started using multiple IPs to disrupt the project, over a period of time, they turned into an LTA. What I didn't place in the original statement is that the time it progresses from good faith to LTA. Clearly, I am versed with LTAs having dealt with it in various venues, I know when to / when not to term someone as LTA. I am not saying GYH now is a LTA, it clearly isn't. What I don't want is that there is that slim chance they might. LTA implies bad faith yes, what I mean is that someone who may be aggrieved by a block can have the tendency (however slim) to turn into LTA. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: I will say blocking them by itself implies assuming bad faith in general, unless we are using CIR as a reason but to be honest, saying CIR is also meaning they lack the competence to edit which is also sour to the user in practice. Blocks tend to follow warnings, and usually is level 4/level 4im, which implies bad faith anyway. In addition, if we allow them to edit under new IP address, we aren't solving the problem and then why do we block in the 1st place. And if they edit using another IP address when blocked, repeating the same behaviour, this can be deemed as bad faith editing or whatsoever. What my point is that should we block, let us communicate the reason properly, and then give them the chance to address the issues (given their communication issues - we need to be extremely patient). I don't want to see a block on them, and then the standard block notice and etc, and then they use another IPs to edit, we block the another IP as block evasion and this goes on and on and after 2 years, yeah, we have an LTA. Let us handle this carefully. Sorry for the language used, pardon me if it was a little excessive. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Left an additional message for them to engage. Hope they can finally talk to us. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

GYH has Interwiki "Other Languages" Links for his userpage, Is this allowed? (I've never seen it done before, and I want to do it for mine too, but wanted to make sure its okay) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask Gay Yong Hernandez to email me? (Or any one of us) If he prefers that way? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Yes, you can have hardcoded interwiki links on your own user pages, to link your user pages across sites. I have it on mine. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 How do I do it? Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Just put [[en:User:Thegooduser]] at the bottom and change the language/page name accordingly. --IWI (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 25 more new bot minimal stubs from IP then updated by GYH after the message in German from eptalon. We have made multiple exceptions for this editor and many attempts to contact them. It appears they do not wish to communicate or follow the policies of this wiki. --Gotanda (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotanda Can we at least give him the simple English Wikipedia Admins's email, before we do anything else. Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I think he has been given far more chances than most now. Whatever the reason may be, he is not communicating nor listening to our community. These stubs are unhelpful, and I still support a block on both the IP range and account. --IWI (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, we can't just go and block him, without giving him the admin's email list email. Like Chenzw has said, maybe he's shy. Or maybe the reason is private and hence he didn't respond. Let's just see if he will respond via email, we can't just go blocking him without giving him the chance to email the admins first. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Change conflict -- Why? We have already made every reasonable effort to communicate with this editor. They have chosen to never respond. Here are 45 more. Both those sets of IP created pages have been patrolled. Were they patrolled by GYH themselves? No other current editor is given this much leeway to work outside the clearly explained policies of this wiki. --Gotanda (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Gay Yong Hernandez does not have an e-mail address attached to his account. Whatever the reason for the lack of communication may be, he is welcome to write on his talk page or send e-mail while blocked. Naleksuh (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Change Conflict) Alright then, I'm not the community and I don't make the decisions here, it's based on consensus, if the community doesn't want my suggestion, then they can go ahead and do what they want. (This tone of message might sound like I'm attacking, but I'm not :) ) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
IPv6 /64 blocked for 1 week and message left on GYH's talk page. As a side note, if one is concerned that the tone of their message might sound combative, perhaps they need to re-think how they worded their original comment(s) in the first place. Chenzw  Talk  03:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

East Japan Railway Company[change source]

If that article, if I'm correct, was copied from English Wikipedia, and not attributed, I have no idea which version it was taken from, is it a copyright violation? I editied the article and did not know it was copied from EN. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Apparently is the latest edition, seems the lede only. The text is almost the same. I just provided the attribution (and is acceptable as it's not too long ago). Is copyvio then but no more, but ideally the translated page template should be added eariler. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImprovedWikiImprovment[change source]

Please note there is a RFA open --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you know...?[change source]

Hello all, I think we should revive the DYK process. Ideally, we should have 1-2 updates a month (ideally, one every other week). I therefore propose we do an update of the DYK hooks in one week's time. Look at the nomination page:

  • Add new ineresting hooks
  • Review existing ones
  • Help fix the ones with findings.

Ideally: Publication of new hooks, Oct. 18, 2020. --Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eptalon I Agree, Sometimes some hooks stay on for months, while some for only a week. It isn't fair --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, Eptalon. I agree, it would be great to get this updated more often, given the prominence of the Main Page. --Yottie =talk= 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon, Thegooduser, Yottie: I agree. I will try to get more involved in DYK over the coming days. There was a point where I was able to update the template fairly often a month or two ago. --IWI (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: It's not a question of being fair. Everyone here is a volunteer and works on whatever they have the time for and interest in. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 Yes, somewhat. But it takes a lot of time and effort to make a DYK hook. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser:Yes... but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything being fair. If you're saying we should all pay more attention to DYK because people put time and effort into it, I'd have to disagree. We all decide for ourselves where to put our time and effort. I'm not saying DYK isn't worthwhile, just that we shouldn't make people feel obligated to participate. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6, If we shouldn't pay more attentions to DYK's then there is no need for this discussion to take place at all. But I respect your opinion and everyone's opinion and we'd have to go with what the majority agrees to. I don't want to make this conversation heated, and I don't intend rudeness with my tone of sentence here, It's just hard to put into words what I'm trying to say. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: I don't consider this conversation to be heated. :) We all have things we think deserve more attention, and the thing is, we're all right: everything here deserves more attention. But as long as each person decides for themselves what to spend their time on, not everything will get all the attention it deserves. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Auntof6 I totally agree with you. We all have different areas we like to work on here, but in the end, we're all helping build the SEWP! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is why I suggested awhile back in the last push to get DYK going again to remember to not just immediately publish a queue to the front page once it was full. There should be a number of queued up ones waiting before we change the one on the main page, then it becomes easier to determine when you should change the main page one as you can see how fast new sets are being filled up and you are prepared for periods of slower creation. Based on past history the ones on the front page probably shouldn't be changed more than once every other month or so. Obviously the goal is to get it happening much faster. But yes the fact that some of them changed after only a week was exactly the reason I suggested making sure you have a number queued up and ready so you can spread out the changing of them. Remember how many DYKs we create is directly proportional to how many new/significantly expanded pages we create. So the best way to solve this situation is to create/expand more articles. -Djsasso (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with changing it once a month. That should give us enough time to fill a queue, and any extras can go onto the following month's queue. --Yottie =talk= 19:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, we are almost there; the next DYK queue (2) is full, except for the DYK with the picture...--Eptalon (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-42[change source]

15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Robin Williams[change source]

We've been getting some increased vandalism on this article. If anyone feels like adding it to their watchlist, at least for a while, that might help us catch the vandalism quicker. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Yes I have it there now, although it all seems to be coming from one IP range, as listed on VIP. In any case, I will keep an eye. --IWI (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kimono[change source]

I'm currently in the process of making this article a Good Article or Very Good Article, where can I find the rules for them? If anyone wants to help, feel free to :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles. --IWI (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest doing it in two steps, the Good article criteria are a subset of the very good article criteria. The proposals page: for Good Articles, and for Very Good Articles.--Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Only cursory glance: There are very few red-links, so you are probably almost at a level to poropose for Good Article. --Eptalon (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with that. The article is near to the GA level, however everything will need to be sourced. The sourcing in the article needs to be improved; I can try to help with that. Most of the claims are unsourced. --IWI (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to WikiProject: VIdeo Game Hardware[change source]

We are now Wikiproject: Video Game Hardware and Software, as a few video game software pages are in need of improvement. Thank you.--Derpdart56 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

also the reason we're not wikiproject video games is that was already taken and that one was kinda dead so yeah--Derpdart56 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why not just revive that one, a wikiproject isn't really tied to one person, anyone can be in them. No need to reinvent the wheel. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK[change source]

Hello. In our current DYK article templates, it mentions that if the article has been in a DYK or not, in the talkpage of the article. However, it does not mention the hook, which was used, unlike EN wiki. The hook should be added in the template, so future DYK'ers can know which hook/fact not to use --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion to me. --Yottie =talk= 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It already does. Look at the second example on the template page for how to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43[change source]

16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)