Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 32

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Wikiproject of Good articles

I started this new wikiproject to help cleanup and promote and articles to a good article status. And also to promote already good articles to a Very Good article status. Consider joining? -- AmericanEagle 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfA tallies

I have a question for other users on this site. I would like to start having people post a tally in the RfA whenever they have an RfA so that it is easier on the bureaucrats to close out Requests for adminships. Although I doubt that we have enough people to substantiate a practical use for it, after going through most of the old logs, tallies usually end up getting placed onto already closed-out Requests for adminship. If we are already putting tallies onto Requests for adminship after they get archived, why not have a tally right when someone posts up an RfA so that someone wouldn't have to after the closing of the request? Opinions and thoughts on this are welcome. Cheers, Razorflame 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can count, realy I can.. Using a running tally just means people will have to remember to update it each time they vote in an RfA. This will just lead to other people constantly going around creating busy work fixing the count after each vote to keep it up to date. It also would get annoying personally as when I vote I rarely edit the entire RfA. I only edit the oppose or support section as needed. Since the tally would be at the top of the RfA, I would now need to edit multiple places in the same article/section just to say yes or no and if it is a large RfA with a lot of debating/bitching going on, this can get tedious. Much easier just to wait till results are actually needed to get a final tally. -- Creol(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are right in this instance. Thanks for bringing your impressive reasoning to the plate, you help us simpler people understand why something would or would not be a good idea. Thanks, Razorflame 18:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and consensus isn't voting. If anything, it is a !vote. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour!


I just tried to use it and apparently I need to be approved. Where do I go to do that? Cassandra (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is just fine :). You'll have to wait for an administrator to approve you, though. Cheers, Razorflame 03:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done -- Chenzw  Talk  03:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB page

Due to the amount of requests for AWB permissions that we have been receiving lately, I would like to suggest that we create a centralized page for requests for AWB permissions like they have on the English Wikipedia. This way, all the requests would be on one page instead of spread out over the Simple talk and AN. What does everyone think about this idea? Cheers, Razorflame 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would be a idea. I also think we should transwiki the EN AWB page. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have one here Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. I suppose we could create a second page for the requests. Cassandra (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, just use Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose that the following line is removed from the CSD non-criteria or reworded to the effect "non-notable things can be removed but things that are notable but have no reason cant".

Subjects that are obviously unimportant, but claim to be important: Articles that are about obviously unimportant subjects are still not allowed for quick deletion unless the article does not say why the subject is important. If the article gives a claim that might not be true, it should be discussed more. However, articles with only content such as "This guy was like so very important!" can be deleted per QD A1 because it gives no useful information about the subject.

--  Da Punk '95  talk  05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is the right way to do it: after a sentence and period put one space or two? I have always put one. But I've seen some articles that have two. Before we get up to two million articles (half and half), should we in any way make a usual in articles? -- AmericanEagle 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally don't see any reason why we should even bother writing articles in any specific way in terms of periods. I believe that articles are just fine with either one or two periods. Although others might disagree with me.... Cheers, Razorflame 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait! Not the periods themselves, the spacing after the periods (one or two?). -- AmericanEagle 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. I meant to say spaces in my last message. Cheers, Razorflame 20:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it constrains writing style. mC8 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But does it have any effect on the look of articles? -- AmericanEagle 20:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they display the exact same way if it's one or two spaces. · Tygrrr... 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. that suites me. Thanks -- AmericanEagle 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking, most modern style guides recommend one space. Here's a long discussion about it: [1]. Zagalejo (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I add one space after a period if there is another sentence following it. However, if the period is ending the last sentence of a paragraph, I just hit Enter to go to the new paragraph. No space is needed at the end of the last sentence of the paragraph. - Huji reply 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want me to start one for Simple? Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if it's worth it... English Wikipedia is a much larger project, and if I'm honest not much happens here that would really be worth writing about. Though it wouldn't harm trying it out, I could be wrong. Majorly (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking fortnightly, or maybe monthly. With no specific editor. mC8 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll WP:BB and do it. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our ocmmunity is stil very small (Does it ever grow? - Razorflame is the newest high-yield contributor I am aware of; besides that, it is still the between 30 and 40 editors). I would therefore suggest that for the moment, this is done as a Wikiproject (i.e. in Userspace); It can always be moved to Wikipedia: namespace once it grows sufficiently popular. --Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it would become popular probably only if it is Wikipedia:Signpost. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why's that? Majorly (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we really need such a project on our Wikipedia yet? As Majorly said up there, I highly doubt that there is much stuff of import to write about on this Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindenting) Good idea, but not quite worth the effort. There's really not much to tell here. :) Cheers, --Isis(talk) 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second Isis's comment (except for the unindenting part!) - Huji reply 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interiwki bots

How do these exactly work? I'm referring to Category:PlayStation video games, where I removed everything when I tried to QD it. Razorflame put catredirect instead, and the bot readded the interwiki links. The bot apparently didn't pick up the catredirect and change the other wiki's links instead of adding all the interwikis to that category. Cassandra (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot looks at its reference copy of the IW list for a page (usually it's local copy) and then checks that each of the pages on the list have the same list. If it finds new ones on a wiki, it adds them to the list (and all other wikis) and if it finds one missing on a wiki, it adds it to that wiki. In this case, the master lists of IW links for the category has the IW for simple listed as simple:Category:PlayStation video games. When a bot looks at its local copy, it sees that and goes to the page. When it gets there, It sees no wiki-links and adds them. The bot does not look at other things on the page such as the soft redirect to the actual page. The best way to stop the bots (three in this case so far) from re-adding the IW links is to go to the bots local copy (cs:, ru:, and zh: in this case) and correct their versions. I made the changes there as well as the en: copy so hopefully these will be propagated through the other wikis and this should stop. -- Creol(talk) 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much thanks for your help, Creol. Cassandra (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am working in an ESL (English as a second language) classroom and love making use of simple English Wikipedia. As it is still quite new and many subjects are not covered, I am often unable to use this great resource. As we go through the year’s topics and encounter articles that have not yet been created, I am considering uploading articles that my students create as group activities. I am wondering if it is ok to use the articles from the main Wikipedia as the reference source.

Thanks in advance Nssesl (added --Cethegus (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

You can use any source you want to as reference. However you mustn't copy any text word for word from non-free sources (most websites). Also you shouldn't copy articles directly from en:wp as they're to difficult for this wiki. See here on how to write an article in Simple English. The life of brian (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you use material from en:WP you should use the template {{Enwp based}} as is explained here --Cethegus (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again" -- Razorflame.

"And it is only about one month from your previous nomination, so may be it is too soon for a change to take place. So for now, I'm not sure if we should give you access to admin tools" -- Huji | That's not a reason, just a conspiracy.

"Huji has stated some very valid reasons" -- Eptalon | Ditto to above.

"The exchanges we have had on our user talks make it seem like this is your own personal wiki" -- Microchip08 | He openly said he did not feel that way.

"you just had an RfA a couple of weeks ago which shows that you think this is a game and getting adminship is what you crave for... I will never support any of your RfA's in the future if this continues" -- Cometstyles | He believes he could do a good job, and that he has now cleaned up his act.

"Making 500 minor edits a day isn't really helping anyone" -- Isis | Have you ever made 500 edits in a day?

These are just some of the reasons given when denying Razorflame his 6th RfA. Even though he has the second most edits of any user. I am now very depressed that some (not all) users will keep denying him, without good reason, except "you just had an RfA a couple of weeks ago" and "making 500 minor edits a day isn't really helping anyone." I am not trying to cause trouble with this, only to show that myself, a month old user who hasn't had problems with Razorflame, thinks of the coldness that he (a faithful editor) has been shown. Regardless of all the work that he has done in trying to become a better editor while he has been on Simple. Now he is not wanting to ever try again. Coincidence? -- AmericanEagle 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFA is partly political. As the number of nominations increase, the more it becomes a liability. Over on en, I believe TenPoundHammer is being denied adminship because he's been at it so much. That's why I didn't nominate myself until nearly three years after I first started editing en. Cassandra (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes the most active people are unsuited to adminship. Not saying that Razorflame isn't suited, but he's way too impatient for the tools, and it's kind of annoying seeing his RfA there every other week. You know, it is possible to edit without being an admin. Majorly (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He has, 20,000 times. Now it's time to finally be given your first chance at a higher power. If you fail, you are demoted. But if you are a success, then it would have been a mistake in being denied. -- AmericanEagle 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I felt that way, and thus, in good conscience, could not Support. Anyway, if he does come around next time, having been nominated by someone else, I see no other reason to Oppose. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jep, I'd second that. I generally don't like self nominations. (By the way has anybody had 6 rfa's yet?) If he gets nominated by an experienced editor of admin and the next Rfa comes in 2 months at the earliest I'll definately Support. The life of brian (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmericanEagle: I appreciate your efforts here; I understand that your view is some people have declined to give admin tools to Razorflame (including me) and I understand that you think it is unfair (although you use a rather harsh word for it: conspiracy). However, I believe the situation has made you a little impatient and you might have missed the point some of us made. I didn't vote in oppose of Razorflame's adminship because of his nominating himself for the sixth time. I did so because the last times he nominated himself, people made valid points things he didn't do right, and I expected him to nominate himself for the next time when he has really learned those points. You see: it is fine in my view for a person to nominate himself for 6th (or 10th) time; I don't repeat my vote every time, I really reconsider the RfA as if it was the 2nd nomination. All previous nominations build up part of the information based on which I vote. Even if the person hasn't had previous nominations, but has been warned on his talk page or elsewhere about making mistakes, I still act the same: I consider whether the user has took his lessons from what he has been told about, or not.

It is true that adminship can act as a "higher" level of permissions. However, (may be because I'm a MediaWiki developer and have seen the software being used in other situations) I believe that being a "sysop" only gives you some "new" tools. These tools are not given to every user, because people may mess up with them if they don't have the experience and understanding in the first place. This is particularly important with big wikis like Wikipedias (and many other Wikimedia wikis). If a user still messes up with the commonly available tools (that is, tools available to him as a "normal" user), it is not time for him to be given other, more sensitive, tools. I think Razorflame is a good user, but still makes some mistakes which can be avoided if he pays a little more attention to what he does and to what others do (and learn from them). As long as I feel he makes more mistakes than an average experienced user, I prefer these mistakes to take place with regards to the common tools, not the more sensitive tools. (This exactly why we hardly allow a person to become a checkuser; a single mistake at the checkuser level can result in lots of headache).

Unlike Nanochip08 and The life of Brian, the fact that Razorflame's RfA was a "self"-nomination had the least effect on my decision. If he is (self)-nominated for the seventh time and I find him really ready for the job, I'll surely vote in his support. Until then, I wish him to continue as a good editor here and to build up more experience.

Sorry for the long talk, - Huji reply 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgive me for using the word "Conspiracy", but the only other word is really "Assumption". Remember, with an Admin, edits can be undone, pages can be undeleted, etc. I think that this should be discussed over the next month or so, and then when at least most have peace with it, will consider RfA. Most believe in Second or Third Chances, how 'bout First? Like several users said above, we will see what happens in the upcoming weeks, then things should clear up. Sorry if my above message offended anyone, it's just when Razorflame said the headline above, I wanted to say something.
There is a lot of action today, yesterday was very much dead. Wishing all the best to you all, AmericanEagle 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support Razorflame in his RFA, and will not tolerate any other views on the matter, as I am sure neither will Razorflame. Razorflame is probably feeling depressed right now because of you; I can feel it, because Pluto has entered Neptune's orbital elipse. Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote that headline the way I did on purpose. It has 2 different meanings:

  1. That I will not try for administrator again
  2. That I will not self-nom myself for administrator again.

The meaning that I was hoping people would get would be the second one, but it seems to me that you all got the first one pretty easily. I am still looking forward to being an administrator, the only diffrerence is that I will now wait for someone to nominate me for it. Cheers, Razorflame 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Razorflame: Apparently someone has got inpatient and already nominated you for the seventh time. I've voted in oppose again, because as I said before, the fact that you self-nominated yourself in the previous RfAs had the least effect on my decision. I will vote in your support (no matter how the next RfA is started) when I find you are really ready for the new permissions and responsibilities.
@Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul : I support Razorflame in his RFA, and will not tolerate any other views on the matter -> I understand that Razorflame may be depressed about what has recently happened. But please add me to the list of depressed people! I'm really depressed to see that someone "can't tolerate" another view. This not only makes me sad, but also does no good for Razorflame either. - Huji reply 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A serious injustice has been done to Razor.--   ChristianMan16  21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tip of the day?

Here's something I made to replace Mediawiki:Loginsuccess. Click here to view it all... what do you think? Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not bad...but I think the writing is a bit small. And for the tip of the day there should be a wikiproject. The life of brian (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I please revive discussion on this? Just to clarify, here is the toolbar linking the various pages required, and clicking "see template" will take you to the actual replacement. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see User talk:Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul. SwirlBoy39 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please see. Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to note that this user is not Benniguy, but is his friend, apparently luseRosary, Ben and Natasha are trying to get me admin status because I've been "helping" Ben. I got this from Ben's email. I have a real sock of Ben, if you would like to know. I need to email Ben and ask him to stop this. Plus, CU said OYUFM was not a sock. SwirlBoy39 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, CU is not a magic wand which reveals the hearts and souls of evil. As a tool it is helpful, but limited as what we see we can not always say due to the privacy policy we must agree to support before a host of hoops get jumped through to finally get those permissions. Also often times we only each see part of the issue when dealing with particular individual parts of the problem. That all said, this is only dealing with the last and probably least significant part of your statement. "CU said OYUFM was not a sock" is not what was stated. Even following the policy, what was stated was that the account was connected to a user who he could not name due to the privacy policy. That inherently is stating it is a likely sock of at least one account (that which he can not name). The most disturbing part here is that apparently the user in not Ben because Ben emailed you and told you so. Ben - the same person who was responsible for a host of sockpuppets on en:wp and who was creating multiple abusive socks the entire time you were popping orange bars on my screen while I was dealing with his abuse. My AGF with him is long gone. I may be limited in what I can say due to WMF policy to anyone other than his ISP and within limits to admins to deal with the problem, but there is more than damning evidence that at least him (and likely IuR) is persistently playing this game. His word to you in email is useless. His word was that he was now medicated and a much improved person the entire time he was spamming vandalised pictures of Gwib on multiple wiki's. He will tell you what ever he thinks you will be dumb enough to believe to keep up him playing his game.
You have a real sock of Ben's.. so you are supporting his abuse by keeping his actions private? I would really question the fact that someone who has the best interest of the wiki in mind would hide the presence of a known vandal. That you would trust the word of a person you seem to know is in violation of the policies of this (and pretty much any) wiki brings strong doubts to my mind about your personal character. It is one thing to be unknowingly sucked into the game he is playing, but you seem to actually know he is playing the game and still defend his actions. -- Creol(talk) 07:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, I do care about the wiki. Very much, I just don't want him to hate me now that I've tried to help him. Who should I email about this? SwirlBoy39 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sock's been blocked. Never mind. SwirlBoy39 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been a dick

I've been a dick... I don't know why. I've been trying to contribute here, but have been for some reason I can't explain, and don't know my self, very bitter, pissed off, and generally been a dick. I apologize for my behaviour, and it certainly won't happen again. Maxim(talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apology accepted :). --Gwib -(talk)- 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about how to contribute

I am not sure about how to contribute. I'm new to wikipedia and everything seems to be a bit overwhelming to me. Though i'd like to contribute by making new pages and improving already existing ones. Is there somebody who wants to help me? Djb26 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. It is up to you in what shape or form you want to contribute. Either you can help by creating articles about things you're interested in (or not interested in^^), or you can run a bot, create templates, join or create a wikiproject, maintain the category system, revert vandalism, vote at Rfa's etc......As you see there are many possibilities, it's up to you to decide. However don't forget the simple Rules and Regulations. The life of brian (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a clue on how to make a robot or creating templates actually. But I am pretty interested in joining a wikiproject, the remaining question is which wikiproject to join of course. ;-)

Anyway thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate it. ;-)

Djb26 (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having trouble with editing wikipedia?

I'll brief you through the basics

starting a new page

To start a new page, just type in the page name in the serch box and press Go.If there is no such article, click create.If there is,try a new name.

eg 1.:You want to make an article named Merlin.Type in Merlin in the search box and click Go. There is no such article.Click create to create the page.

eg 2.:You want to make an article named Bonding.(it is something to do with chemistry)Type in Bonding in the search box and click Go.There is already such an article.As the bonding is related to chemistry,type Bonding(chemistry) in the search box instead and press Go.Click create to create that article.

editing a page

simple.just click the change this page/edit page button at the top to edit the article.

creating a hyperlink

now i'm going to create a hyperlink to the main page.Click change button on the right>>>

  • for this article to see how i do it.

eg 3.Main Page

the name on the left side is the address for that page.the name on the right side is the name of the hyperlink.

creating a topic

to create a topic type ==(topic name here)== to create a sub-topic type ===(sub-topic name here)===

creating a bullet

to see how i create a bullet click edit button on the right>>>

  • to see how i do it.


  • *<<<include this to add a bullet

hope it helps,

sq (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on article Animal Farm.

hihi all. working on article animal farm by George Orwell I have some trouble with the storyline here. Can anyone who knows the story add on to this stub article? Thank you.

I once got banned for trying to edit Animal Farm on english wikipedia by DreadStar. userpage is I'm new to wikipedia, so can you not ban me please if I make an error in this article?

And ty for whoever admin who taught me to add stub/cleanup templates at the bottom of an article,not the top.


Click here to go to the Animal Farm article. Comment added by user: The life of brian (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about registering first? Then you have an own account and people can communicate more easiliy with you and may help you with your project...The life of brian (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

really?how 2 create?):


In the right upper corner, first hit login, then register. And please see this on how to write a simple english article. Thanks. The life of brian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, just adknowledging.I checked my user box.Thank you American Eagle for that remeinder



Someone with ip keeps on committing vandalism. Pages like leap year are now destroyed by this user. So I believe that measures have to be taken against this user.

Djb26 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user has already been blocked for a month by User:EchoBravo on 13th May. We'll see if they come back after that. If vandalism is happening while you're online and seems to have carried on for a while (after the user has received several warnings), you can report them on WP:VIP. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information on how to deal with it. Archer7 - talk 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ya...something to report too.Some silly person deleted a page on the defination of original i tried creating. sq - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Okay thanks for your help. Djb26 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to, an administrator (User:Creol) deleted that article, as it did not meet our requirements for an article. As an encyclopedia, we don't allow definitions - these can be added to our sister project, Wiktionary. See Help:Contents for more about what we're looking for. Archer7 - talk 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English version of WP:POINT?

Hello, after looking at the history of Razorflame's 7th RfA, I wonder if there is a version of WP:POINT here that can be quoted in cases of future disruption. --Kyoko 17:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will get onto translating the English one into simple english for this wikipedia if people would like? :) (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kinda made some of it for you so far :) WP:Do not prove a point (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone please rename the article to: Wikipedia:Do not make problems to prove something, which is more in keeping with the content of the page, and with the title over on English ("Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"). Thankeees. I'm almost done with the page now; just got a couple more things to do. Hope people think its ok. (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done--  Lights  talk  21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, but I think something needs to be added to this article. I'm posting here rather than the talk page in order to get more feedback. I think the guideline needs something about how people may unintentionally cause problems because they don't understand that what they are doing is disruptive. I'm trying to figure out how to word this. Something like:
Sometimes people who are upset cause problems, even though they do not want to. If other people say that these edits cause more problems, then the edits probably are disruptive.
This still doesn't sound quite right. I hope I'm not being disruptive in bringing this up. --Kyoko 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that would be ironic ;) Majorly (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My talk page says that I have vandalised lst year even though I have only edited today. Could someone fix that. (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the problems with not creating an account is that your IP address may be shared by many different people. There has been vandalism from your IP address dating back to September 2006. The best way to deal with this problem would be to create a personal account so that the only messages on your talk page are meant for you and not the actions of other people. -- Creol(talk) 12:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done IANAV (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]