Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 28

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Running Slow?

Has anyone else had problems with Simple running slow? The pages load very slow. ENWP and UNCYC are fine for me though. SwirlBoy39 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for me. Majorly (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very bad for me. I'm at the point where it takes 5 minutes to load a page! SwirlBoy39 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at the five minute mark, but overall the site have been much slower than normal for several days now. -- Creol(talk) 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not five minutes anymore but still slow. Can this be fixed? SwirlBoy39 23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to load especially slow when you have Recent changes loading along with another page. Chenzw (talkchanges) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the case for me also. Oysterguitarist 02:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been running very slowly for me as well. Glad to see it's not a problem with my computer. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is working perfectly now for me. You? SwirlBoy39 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting) The loading time has definitely decreased, but it can take as long as 40 seconds sometimes. Chenzw (talkchanges) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Wow! SwirlBoy39 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, almost all the servers crashed yesterday (both Apache and MySQL), at around 9 PM UTC. Chenzw (talkchanges) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site was working fine after my last comment was posted, but it is running slow again! My browser clocked 150.288 seconds reloading Recent Changes! More annoying, there was nothing to be updated! Is anyone having the same problem? I will try to upload the screenshot of my Fasterfox (disabled) page load timer on Commons. Chenzw  Talk  13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inkpen2 Vote

Just so all those involved know, I have voted to support the unblocking of Inkpen2. The verdict is now 5/4 and can be found here. --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cethegus had already voted, and although it wasn't as distinct as the other votes it remains a legitimate 5/5. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear we're not going to have consensus on this. It would need to be pretty overwhelming in Benniguy's favor in order to overturn it. (P.S. Myself, Creol, and Archer7 made our opinions crystal clear that we're opposed before the "Support"/"Oppose" sections were created. A responsible bureaucrat like the ones we have will take that into consideration. It's not a numbers game.) · Tygrrr... 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have to agree with Tygrrr on this count. I know for a fact that we will not have concensus on this issue because of the amount of controversy that will ensue from it. I would also have to agree that, while there have been many votes on this issue, it is actually quite split when you think about the administrators' votes. Roughly half of the administrators say yay, and roughly half of the administrators say nay. Then, we go looking into the bureaucrats votes, and you will find that 2 of the 4 bureaucrats voted against the unblock, so that it pretty much hung up too. In addition to what I posted earlier, I would also have to say that Inkpen2 has been proving to be as much of a disruption as he has proven to be in the past. He hung up Tygrrr on his talk page today for well over 20 minutes, when that time could've been used to help improve the Wikipedia. This just goes to prove the points made by Tygrrr, Archer7, and Creol on the AN. Razorflame 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also just say (as I said almost verbatim on the Inkpen talk page): As much as Benniguy would like it to be, it's not just about the numbers. Ultimately, a decision will be made one way or the other as to whether or not he'll be allowed back on a trial basis. The decision will take into consideration all comments and all facts as we know them. This "voting" is really only to get a clearer picture of where members of the community stand on the issue. The "results" will not be "law". This is not an RfA, RfD, proposal for VGA, or similar official vote where there is a set percentage of support that must be reached.

He is still distracting everyone, even while banned. He wants us all to keep an open mind about him. Here's what I have to say to everyone about that. If you have an open mind, you're taking in all information as it comes to you and processing it to form an up-to-date opinion about a person or situation. The information that my open mind keeps taking in is continued pouting, insincere apologies, yelling (in caps in edit summaries) to get attention, and bickering with anyone who comments on his page and says something he doesn't agree with. I can't speak for anyone else's open mind though... · Tygrrr... 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the second paragraph almost completely. What I see from the Inkpen2 talk page is a continuation of the issues that were surrounding Benniguy when he wasn't blocked, and now that he has been blocked, I would actually have to say that these poutings or other such melodramas that he is continuing has not only continued, but has actually increased in both volume and other such things. His using caps locks on edit summaries is, in my opinion, abusive and attention-seeking behavior that is unbecoming of an editor on this project. Therefore, Inkpen2/Benniguy, just by continuing to act like this, you have cemented into place a solid chance that you won't be unblocked. Sorry, but that's just the way that I see it. I, too, try to keep an open mind about things, but, being that I live with ADHD, it is a bit harder for me to do that that a normal person, but I do try very hard to keep an open mind about all things. I'm sorry, but it just isn't meant to be. Razorflame 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caps lock is supposedly so that it stands out in recent changes, so I'm prepared to ignore that, but if anything he's too interested in coming here - it all seems a bit excessive to me. If he's telling the truth, it doesn't seem normal to get a doctor to certify that you can come back to the site - there's tons of wikis and other sites he could contribute to, but why us? Because we're the only ones that banned him - I believe it is more of a challenge for him. Perhaps he sees it as an injustice that he must get corrected before he'll be happy. Whatever it is, something isn't right here. I still think that this site simply does not serve his interests, and therefore problems will recur. I think the problems kept coming because this is a relief from boredom for him, rather than an active interest. Some of the users that have commented in support of him didn't actually deal with him, so perhaps haven't looked into it very deeply - it's very easy to say "I support second chances" and quickly vote in support without looking at the actual issues. There is no consensus here, and I think this has dragged on long enough - the agreement on WP:AN was that if there was no consensus, he would remain banned. Unless anyone can come up with something that we've missed, I think we can close this now. Archer7 - talk 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only the edit summaries in caps that he uses. He also writes sentences like: "I have spoken to my doctor earlier today, and they are going to travel to Ashford (about an hour's journey)" or "I have gone to the doctor to get him to travel miles to get me a slip signed" as if appealing to our sense of guilt to try and make him come back here and edit.
He even threatens us with his involvement: "My doctor is going to go to ashford to get permission to sign the slip... unless you suggest otherwise." which I think shows us that he is still not mature enough to edit here, disorder or not.
Then he moves onto trying to make us feel sorry for him with a " Please don't be angry with me just because I was born with a psychologically disabling problem... :(", I think that Benniguy isn't, and never will be, cut out for such a small online community. If we unblock him we have only a halt in progress here and another 200kB talk page to archive, filled with his whiny, accusing words. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tygrr said "The information that my open mind keeps taking in is continued pouting, insincere apologies, yelling (in caps in edit summaries) to get attention, and bickering with anyone who comments on his page and says something he doesn't agree with". First off, the capital edit summaries are so that he will get the attention of others, which is exactly how I came across this raging war. And as far as the bickering goes, he is not disagreeing with you any more than you are disagreeing with him. A lot of people seem to think that this site does not serve his interests, but you will never find out if you don't unblock him. He can't do too much damage if he is unblocked because obviously everyone is going to be watching him like a hawk. I think you are letting your past bitterness get to you. Just let it go, give him a chance, and if he blows it you can leave a nice big "I told you so" message on my talk page and on the talk pages of the other 11 users who would like to see him unblocked. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that everybody would be "watching him like a hawk" shows exactly why he shouldn't ever return. That this debate is wasting time shows why he shouldn't return. I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by trying to defend him here. And, while I'm sure I'll get attacked for posting this, I noticed your EN userpage has a box stating "This User Believes that Evolution is a false theory, and that Creation is right" which makes me seriously question your judgement MindTheGap (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry MindTheGap, but i don't understand how that userbox on Andrew for NC's en user page has anything to do with this case what so ever. i also fail to understand why the statement on that userbox - "This User Believes that Evolution is a false theory, and that Creation is right" should make you question their judgement. the only thing that statement says to me is what it should do, That Andrew from NC believes in the Craetion. IuseRosary? (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I really don't want to get too involved here, but I have problems balancing the fact that someone believes in Creationism with the other fact that we are here to build an accurate and factual encyclopedia. I have no problems with someone choosing to believe in a fairytale, but it does raise questions - as least in my mind - about their judgement. MindTheGap (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MindTheGap, the above constitutes a personal attack. It is unrelated to the above topic and will not be brought up again. You and Andrew are entitled to believe what ever you want but harrassing about it is unacceptable. -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your conversation seems to be typical for Wikipedia for me. One is speaking in a certain context to a certain person, but one is watched by many people. If one is not cautious that can lead to arguing. But that seems to be comparitively harmless for me.

I think the main problems of Wikipedia are: 1. It has a potential to make addictive 2. It can cause a lot of stress. (I think most of you who are experienced Wikipedians know what I am speaking about.) - Inkpen2 tells us, he is seriously ill and needs medication to overcome his problems. My question: Is there anybody here who knows for certain that neither stress nor addictive potential can do any harm to Inkpen2? If he knows then he should explain where his knowledge comes from. --Cethegus (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second chances are very valuable is all I'll say....I support this guys unbanning.--   ChristianMan16  23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unidenting) OK! PLEASE! Make this stop... unblock him per community (most say unblock) or protect his user talk please? This is going on and on with no decision. Lets for ours, Ben's, and the wiki's get this done! Anyone agree? SwirlBoy39 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I have now closed this discussion. Please see User_talk:Inkpen2#Conclusion. Archer7 - talk 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help simplifying...

I have copied some wrestling articles and some other articles from enWP into my sandbox for simplifying and could use some help doing so...please feel free to help out. Please help, I can't do it quickly on my own.--   ChristianMan16  06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't require admin interaction, put it on simple talk, thanks Oysterguitarist 14:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about this page until now.--   ChristianMan16  18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would pay attention to this thread.---   ChristianMan16  03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good person to ask for help in simplifying would be Lights. I would ask him (I'm assuming Lights is a male) on his talk page. He would definitely be a good helper in your simplification task. Razorflame 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him/her....I'm just waiting on a response.--   ChristianMan16  17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has already started to simplify your sandbox for you. Cheers, Razorflame 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, Razor, right now I'm trying to stand back and watch him so I can really learn how to do it myself.--   ChristianMan16  03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Native American the link to the Hrvatski wiki has a gold star

On the left hand side of the page where other wiki links are beside a grey square the Hrvatski link has a gold star. why? ~ R.T.G 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the page Pieve Ligure has a gold star for the Italiano link ... ? ~ R.T.G 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is because the article in that language is a VG article. Click on the interwiki link next to the gold star and you'll see the VG tag on the article in that language. Check out the article on Jimi Hendrix on ENWP and you'll see a lovely golden star next to the SEWP interwiki link. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now thank you. ~ R.T.G 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core articles

Congratulations, Simple English Wikipedia! With the creation of Transformer and Energy (society) (also known as Energy (technology), we have now completed every article on the core article list! Razorflame 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well done everyone! Majorly (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's just hope they don't update it again and we're left with a bunch of gaps again. :-) Good work everybody! · Tygrrr... 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that list. As I went through each section on my syllabus in biology at school, I created an article on it (eg. learned about the ear, auditory system was born). I strongly recommend people do the same as it helps both Wikipedia and to reinforce the stuff they pour into you at school (those of you who are still at school, anyway!) --Gwib -(talk)- 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to kill the mood, but actually this isn't the "core article" list. It's a big list that all languages should have, and all of them are core articles, but we still have many core topics to go that we just haven't thought of. Take a look at WP:CORE for the full definition. However, it's a massive step to get everything done, now we have something for all the most important topics. Well done guys! Archer7 - talk 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username restrictions

Under the Offensive usernames section of WP:USERNAME: Do not choose something that might be offensive. Your user name should not suggest that you hold any particular political, religious or other belief.

A new user called User:America Needs Jesus has just been created, and this rule would also affect ChristianMan if we chose to enforce it. I personally think that we should - it seems that whenever we mix politics and religion in with what we're doing, we get arguments and fights. It's very easy to take a dislike to someone over such trivial things over the Internet, and I really can't see why personal beliefs have any place in what we're doing. The original policy on userboxes was to only allow Babel and Wikimedia based boxes to try and prevent the kind of divides in the community. Do we think that this rule should be enforced, mildy encouraged or totally ignored? Archer7 - talk 14:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with you here Archer. In the past, more specifically with the whole JewBot incident a while back, it does seem that we get into problems when we mix religion and names. The most recent incident of this was the whole IuseRosary incident, and we all know how that ended. Therefore, because of how many problems we've had to deal with the whole religion/name thing, I would be impartial to strictly enforcing that. However, I think that there are some exceptions that we should make. I think that we should allow them only if they have an established account that is in good standing in another Wikipedia. I'm always willing to have an open mind about this, so therefore, I don't want to exclude people who are established and in well standing on a different Wikipedia to be prevented from creating an account on here just because of an odd religious username. I would also like to add that I am completely fine with both IuseRosary and Christianman16 having those usernames. I am not as inclined to be happy with America Needs Jesus....I don't agree with it, but if the user really likes that name, then I would be a little reluctant to say that he should change it.

As to the userbox rule, I am one for strictly enforcing that rule because I think that we are too small of a Wikipedia/community to have userboxes at this time. Maybe in the future, when we have more than 25 active users (more like around 100 active users) is the time when we should have userboxes, not just yet. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I lean enforced, though ChristianMan doesn't bother me. I think America Needs Jesus is closer to being unacceptable. Each individual is probably going to have their own opinion though obviously. -  EchoBravo  contribs  14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:America Needs Jesus should be told that they need that they should change their user name to something which doesn't endorse an opinion, however ChristianMan is not offensive because it doesn't endorse any opinion, his user name is simple information that he is a user who believes in Christianity. This is the way that user names are dealt with on wikipedia.--Kerotan (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I read that policy as Do not choose an username that can be offensive, or shows a strong (political/religious) opinion.. In that view I think America needs Jesus is much more problematic than ChristianMan; ChristianMan has shown to be a valued contributor to a number of subjects; America needs Jesus has not. I think one of the 'crats should approach America needs Jesus, and suggest a name change. As already said, I think ChristianMan is less of a problem. --Eptalon (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Christian" is also a given name. Much like me using the nick "AlexMan16". I don't think it's an issue, especially as ChristianMan has shown he is a good productive editor. Majorly (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliments.--   ChristianMan16  19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:America Needs Jesus

My username is the same one as on the main Wikipedia, and they allowed my username there. They did discuss it but declined the block. More in the main wikipedia, there are so many UserNames that haven't been blocked. Including mine. Why I don't have many edits is because I only got on today, I will stop using this account if I have to, but prefer to not. Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 19:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for you to be blocked on here because of your edits, but I would like to make a friendly suggestion to you and ask if you would please consider changing your username to someone less than that, like maybe User:ANJ or something like that...would you be willing to do this for those of us who find it a little distracting? Cheers, Razorflame 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote directly from our username policies here:
  • Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event.
  • Do not choose something that might be offensive. Your user name should not suggest that you hold any particular political, religious or other belief.
  • People should be able to think things about you just based on your contributions, not on what they think about your name.
  • Some names do not offend people, but they show a strong view or are very religious. These names are discouraged but less seriously than names that offend people.
You don't have an offensive username, but it does come close to violating some of the username policies and I recommend you take Razorflame's advice above. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could, I am not very established on here so I guess if somebody is that persistent, I wont be a problem. But, I don't know how! If you really want me to, you'll have to tell me. Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a message on your talk page containing the information that you need to get a name change. Cheers, Razorflame 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can let this discussion continue and let a bureaucrat decide if consensus has been reached. He doesn't need to change his name yet. He will be politely asked by a bureaucrat if and when that time comes. No need to shove him to it yet. -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was informing him about how to get his name changed...I was not suggesting that he needs it changed...I was merely trying to help out by telling him about how to get a name change. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are doing, but to a new user who doesn't know you or any of us, or how we operate, it may seem like you were telling him he needs to this now. I just wanted to make it clear for him. No harm. -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have caused so much talk today... Amazing! No really, if you really want my name changed, I don't need a Bureaucrat. I have asked Archer7 that it be changed to American Eagle and I think I'll go through with it. Strange day ;], Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The username has now been changed, thanks. Archer7 - talk 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP talk pages

... are not available to the person using the IP. Although messages are often left for a user logging on with an IP, there is no link at the top of the page for an IP user to access their talk page. Only a log in/create account link. ~ R.T.G 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll get a new messages bar for any messages left for them. Or they could go to Special:Mytalk. Majorly (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an IP user has a message left for him/her/it, then it will give the orange bar stating new messages. That is the only time that I can forsee an IP address ever needing to get onto its' talk page. Hope this helps. Cheers, Razorflame 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that they can see new messages. It was where they might miss a warning I was thinking of. Maybe there should be a welcome template for IP/unregistered users telling them to save their userpage addresses to their favorites. ~ R.T.G 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied some new polling templates from Commons...check them out at Category:Polling templates--   ChristianMan16  20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demoting Blockinblox from 'crat status

One of our bureaucrats, Blockinblox has seemed to become more inactive over the passed several weeks. While his lastest edits date to March 26 (which is approx. 2 weeks ago), he has rarely been using his sysop/'crat tools. As far as I'm concerned, Blockinblox has almost never used his 'crat tools, as shown here and here. The lack of use for the tools show that Blockinblox might have no need for the tools, although I'm not saying that he's a poor sysop. Since the addition of Creol, we now have 4 'crats and the removal of 1 'crat does not cause any real loss. I propose that we demote him if he [Blockinblox] agrees with us or is willing to step down and that we either replace him or continue on with 3 bureaucrats. But I think that he is still worthy to keep his sysop tools and still edits occassionally. To see his contribs, see below:

P.S. I'm back everybody! :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's no remove him. He's still somewhat active and could find a use for the tools easily. More doesn't hurt. Majorly (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the saying goes, the more the merrier! Chenzw  Talk  06:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong Oppose --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Oppose of removing his privileges. SwirlBoy39 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no need to remove his tools. Oysterguitarist 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already suggested this, and that was what prompted Creol achieving his 'Crat status. However, now I realize that Oppose is the best course of action. I would have to agree with Chenzw's statement that he made earlier: The more the merrier. Cheers, Razorflame 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blockinbox should keep his 'crat and SysOp flags in case he comes back. --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No need to remove his tools. He even said he's going to be less active on his userpage, so he might use the 'crat tools in the future.-- Lights  talk  00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The more the merrier", I'd wish that was true, but bureaucrats are supposed to be devoted in improving the wiki their in. Blockinblox has shown little need fot the tools and has put little effort in doing so. Also I only insisted to remove only his bureaucrat tools, not his sysop tools as well. Also I'm not trying to be mean by demoting Blockinblox, all I'm trying to tell if we could fing a better bureaucrat for the sake of the wiki. Also if Creol was meant to replace Blockinblox, why is he [Blockinblox] still a 'crat? I know that Blockinblox also edits here occassionally, but I've noticed that it is nowdays required for new administrators to be constantly active while Blockinblox puts in like 5 edits a week? That would be lame for new admins and to-be admins. Also what's the point in "more the merrier", are we trying to show off against other mid-sized wikis or to see who has the most 'crats in a wiki? That's not the point in trying to have dedicated sysops improve this wiki. Otherwise, why not have 5 or 6 or a dozen bureaucrats if "more the merrier" is such a great idea? I'm just trying to illistrate a point here and I do not have anything against Blockinblox personally. He's a terrific wikipedian as an admin, but id not active enough to be a 'crat. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen, there is very little need for bureaucrat tools on this wiki; there have only been a handful of actions requiting 'crat tools this year. Blokinblox has shown he can handle these tools. As long as he is not totally inactive (style: not editing for months), I currently do not see a need to take his tools away.--Eptalon (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to allow my bot to use AWB. Do I just add the name to the checkpage or does my bot have to go through a more formal process? Chenzw  Talk  11:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can just add it. Majorly (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]