Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 33

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Spurgeon

Regarding this article's good status, I have gone and revoked it's good status because the person who closed it didn't read the criteria for good articles. It states that you need 5 named editors in support of it in order for it to become a good article (see here (#3)). Because of this, I have decided to remove it's good status. Cheers, Razorflame 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need 5 total (named) votes for a good article. Of these 70% must be in support. We had 1 oppose vote, this makes 80% support for the article. Congratulations to those who contributed to the now new good article. --Eptalon (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that. I almost thanked ChristianMan16 for his oppose of the article. JK -- AmericanEagle 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realized this as soon as I removed its status and I am pretty sure that I reverted my own changes. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with good article page

Hello, the page WP:GA has a section that says: Currently, there are 14 good articles, from of a total of 28,709 articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Thus, about one in 2,200 articles is listed here. - The problem is that 28.709 divided by 14 is 2051, rounded to the closest whole number. Ideas? --Eptalon (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what your saying.--   ChristianMan16  03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That 28,709 divided by 14 is about 2051 and not 2200 and something should be done about this problem... -- Creol(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
has been fixed, both for VGA and GA page --Eptalon (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP article Creation

I would like to propose something to make IPs not create articles like enWP does. Mainly cause when they are they are often well malformed and inaccurate like Total Nonstop Action Wrestling was (it was also at the wrong location). Thoughts?--   ChristianMan16  04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-WP:POINT. Simple is ridiculously...simple, it's not a heavy workload for people to review and fix/delete articles. Cassandra (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say often not always. I do think it's best for the community...if an IP whats an article created all that person would have to do is ask.--   ChristianMan16  06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this project is big enough to really need that... What would all those admins do if they could no longer delete ip-vandal created articles? --Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of pages create by IPs are also useful. It is not hard to do cleanup, wikifying, categorizing if needed, and deleting if it does meet QD criteria. As Eptalon said, this project isn't big enough to ban IP article creation.--  Lights  talk  11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Lights on this situation. We simply don't have enough of a user base to ban IP addresses from creating pages on here. The other thing about this is that it goes against what the Foundation wants (censorship). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and if you ban IP's from creating pages, then that is censorship. Cheers, Razorflame 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No hostility intended, but then why don't you tell that to enWP.--   ChristianMan16  16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we "tell that to enWP"? This is not English Wikipedia. We do things differently here. Banning IPs from creating articles is detrimental to the wiki process. It isn't difficult to delete a page, and malformed pages aren't a reason to delete a page. Most IP creations are good ones. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the request. I think IPs should continue creating pages here. We have enough admins to deal with page creation vandalism. The rest of the created pages are useful and important. It is the nature of a wiki to let everyone edit it. - Huji reply 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn.--   ChristianMan16  18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that. Nanochip08 Microchip08 onWHEELS  <font color=User:Microchip08/Randomcolor Lol! Random colour! 08:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can not say "hmm.. sorry, I can see by your opinions that my suggesting might not be the best idea and could present problems so I withdraw it." ?? Why can he not say that? and even more importantly why do you have the right to not only tell him what he is not allowed to say, but to also strike his comments? And side point, seriously.. get a signature that is under 1K long. This one takes up half a page (8 lines+ of text) and is annoying to have to read around when editing. So much so that there is policy against it (and yes, Christianman16 needs to fix his 'again - mainly the border - as it is too large but that is another ongoing issue..). That thing gets any longer and we will have to archive a page every time you decide to post a reply. -- Creol(talk) 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his signature is 9.5 lines long. :) Razorflame 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sig corrected.--   ChristianMan16  17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal cannot happen; just because the person that thought up the idea said "Nah, not worth it" doesn't mean he has a veto. mC8 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikiquote is staying open

There was a proposal to close Simple English Wikiquote, but now it will be kept. Simple English Wikiquote will continue! Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Nice work! Cheers, Razorflame 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm very happy about it! Coppertwig (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my LCD display I can hardly see the difference in color between the links I visited before and those I haven't.

Is there a way to change the my settings so I can make this difference better visible? JurgenG (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link colors are set via CSS in most cases. The defaults here (set in either Commons.css or monobook.css} are red (no link), blue (normal link) and dark blue (visited link). As each page is loaded in a specific order (common.css then the style css for your preferences (likely monobook.css), then your personal common.css and style css) making changes to your personal style css would be loaded last and override all other settings thus giving you the colors you chose.
short answer: set the css in your monobook.css file to set visited links (ie: A.visited {color:#ff00ff;}) to a color you can tell apart from the normal color scheme. -- Creol(talk) 09:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I needed, thanks! (now find a color a little less "pink" :-)) JurgenG (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers from the United States

I would like to suggest that we move this category from Category:Writers from the United States to Category:American writers. Does anyone else here agree with me on this suggested change? Cheers, Razorflame 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I've applied the Wikipedia rule Be bold and decided to change the categories. Cheers, Razorflame 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just perhaps a small side-issue: Is Gabriel García Márquez (Nobel prize-winning writer from Colombia) an American Writer? What about en:Gabriela Mistral (Nobel prize winner, born in Chile, died in New York)?
I believe that we can keep the Category:Writers from the United States around just for those kinds of writers, but I believe that we need to create the Category:American writers category as well, as the majority of the pages that have been created are for American writers. Cheers, Razorflame 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose the two categories where disjunctive. That is, if a writer is part of them he / she is only part of one, and not of the other. How would you then determine which category they belong to? - Or did you mean "People who wrote about subjects that likely interest American readers more than European or Asian ones"? - In which case we only shift the problem. If on the other hand they were not disjuctive then the American Writers category would contain Canadian, Mexican, Chilean, Cuban, ... writers as well as those from the United States? - In other words, it would be a category for categories, not for single entries. --Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could always break it down even further into different categories like Category:American-Chilean writers, Category:American-Cuban writers and so on, couldn't we? Cheers, Razorflame 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the idea of grouping writers by the continent they were born on, since A.) "America" would have to be subdivided into North America and South America anyway, and 2.) Some countries, like Russia, are on more than one continent,so distinguishing a person as "Asian" or "European" would be meaningless in this sense. U.S. writers may make more sense for this category, but I still don't know what politically correct term you could use for African American writers. Inclusive disjunction (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with this entire area is the ambiguity of the term "American". It's most common use in the English language would be "Something from the United States of America" but it can also be used as "Something from The Americas". This second usage is very rare, and often mistaken ("America" would have to be subdivided into North America and South America anyway - actually America does not actually exist - it is the "Americas": North America and South America.. well there is a band America and a bunch of other things, but geographically speaking..). To use the term American to refer to someone from South America or non-US North American, would be seen as worse than saying British people are "Eurasian". Both are equally valid as Europe is part of the "super-continent" Eurasia. (and lets not even get into why all people from the United Kingdom are called British when Great Britain is only part of the Kingdom and a sizable chunk of people are actually Irish even though it does kind of apply here or the fact that all British people are considered European even though some have never even seen the continent - citizens of oversea dependencies, children of citizens living abroad, etc. ) In practical usage, American (and America by usage) nearly always refers to just one definition even though it has others. Most of the comparable categories on en:wp use American ..blank.. over ..Blank.. from the United States (most, not all).
Our geographic category breakdown is using the seven-ish continents (iffy with Oceania/Australia). We don't use the three super-continent groupings (Americas, Eurasia, the huge Afroeurasia) and as such the term American has no other use geopolically than one specific country unless used as part of a term (North American, South American, Native American). For consistency, easy in placement, reduction of redundant categories needed deletion, all categories referring to things or people from the United States should be named with the most commonly used description for them. This would be American ..blank.. -- Creol(talk) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


After talking to en:User:Soxred93 over on the English Wikipedia, he has agreed to modify his en:User:SoxBotV for use here, giving users the ability to have a bot account change your status from online to offline automatically so you don't have to keep changing it yourself manually. I believe that there would be a net positive if we allow this kind of account on here. Cheers, Razorflame 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the request, but I am a little unsure about bringing it here without community agreement. Soxred93 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does the community think of my suggestion of asking Soxred93 to bring StatusBot over here? Cheers, Razorflame 21:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a StatusBot here is nice, but this being a small community, we already know roughly when someone is online. For example, I am mostly on from 7am to 11am GMT. Chenzw  Talk  23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you that it might not be needed, but why not get it out of the way now instead of later, when we might be undergoing many changes? Cheers, Razorflame 01:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get what out of the way? The bot? Chenzw  Talk  01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant when I said get out of the way was to get the bot up and running. Sorry for the misunderstanding! Cheers, Razorflame 01:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question, who is hosting the bot? Otherwise, the idea is fine with me; we just need more users to look at this post. Chenzw  Talk  01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
en:User:Soxred93, who is the current StatusBot owner over at the English Wikipedia. Razorflame 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Music

Hello All. I haven't actually spoken to hardly ay of you since i've been back. So, Just Hi to all. And to those new users, just to inform you of Simple WikiProject Music, if that's what you're into and all. : )

IuseRosary? (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Who around here is good at making sigs? I have had the boring "AmericanEagle" for awhile now, and I really want one that is a keeper. Is there any way to incorporate "Red, White and Blue" into it? I tried, but it wasn't right. If anybody could help me out that has experience with the topic, I'd like some assistance in working on it. Thanks -- AmericanEagle 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this:


--  Lights  talk  02:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The first box looks good, the second looks strange... -- AmericanEagle 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second box removed:


--  Lights  talk  11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a little tweaking, but I think that this is a go. --  AmericanEagle  23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


One of the aspects about en that I liked the most was the collaborative aspect. There would be dozens of editors working on an article, even if some 80% of it was unconstrucive and needed reverting. But here...nobody, like, even seems to dare to touch the articles that I write. Eventually, when enough time passes, I work on them again, but it seems disconcering that this happens. As a result, GA is impossible since a requirement is that many editors have to have worked on it. So where's the simple's eqivalant of the collaborative effort that stems from the popularity of en? Cassandra (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English wikipedia has about 2.3 million articles and over 7 million registered accounts. That is about 3 accounts per article average. Here with only 28K articles and 18K users, we have about .6 accounts per article. We also have at any given time at most 50 active contributors where en:wp is more likely in the hundreds of thousands. It is easy to get 10-20 people out of a couple hundred thousand who share and interest in a specific topic. This is much less likely in a group of 40-50. Collaborations do happen (Billy Graham and several history topics for example), but only when people look for help from others and find people who share interest in the topic. Larger topics (say history based ones) are more likely to get more group attention as there are several people here with that shared interest. If memory serves me right, your main area of interest in video games. Not a lot of people in this group share a very strong interest with you there (much like Christianman16 and wrestling or me and the Whedonverse). Occasionally new people pop in and help out or others stop by randomly and do some cleaning, but with so small of a group this is not a common occurrence (Imagine my surprise when Joss Whedon got nominated for GA.. I didn't even think anyone other than me even knew the article existed). Most often the help from others seems to pop up once the article gets suggested for GA status. At that point, the others notice it exists (they were too busy working on their own interests to see it before - where was the collaboration from you on the Billy Graham article after all?) and may toss in some help. Peer review was originally used for things like this, but it tends to get neglected a lot as again, most people already have a lot on their plate when it comes to their contributions here.
We constantly get "Why aren't people helping me with my article" comments. The simple fact is, we only have so many people to do the work. Each of these people are all volunteering their effort and as such contribute in the way they feel best doing it. Many are very willing to help other people with "their" articles but even they may not always have the time free to do so and they may not even know there is a specific need for their help. They will often be out there doing the 500 other things that need their attention also (see Category:Complex pages, Category:Articles that need to be wikified, Category:Category needed, Category:Cleanup needed, etc) -- Creol(talk) 06:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am repeating myself here, but I'll be optimistic, and say we have 40 active editors (of what I see, there are probably less than that). When you look at the article history of almost any article you will see that it is written by 2-3 people who steadily work on it as most. I see two ways out of this: One is to incite more editors to come here; most that are here are already doing all they can. The other way would be to work more task-based, in the form I want article soandso to get to Good Article status within 2 months, who wants to help? --Eptalon (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just ot clarify, the top 20 editors (by the number of edits, number of articles edited) for some months of 2008 can be found here. --Eptalon (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants help on a specific thing or article, I have extra time. We really need to either revive PR, or create a new message board or such (without cluttering this page) for specific requests of help or assistance. Cassandra or others for now you may ask for help from me on something. Should we try to "steal"a couple of good editors that en:WP has. They have so many editors. I could think of some I could invite. We have hard working editors and admins, we just need more. Cheers --  AmericanEagle  23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote counting in votes for Good articles/Very good articles

Just as a matter of interest: Is it the general consensus that voting for GAs/VGAs in principle follows mostly the same rules as laid out in the CfA, in particular:

  • Votes by users with very few edits or those made by banned users are perhaps not counted.
  • Votes by sockpuppets are definitely not counted.

Would the general criteria for those categories perhaps need modification to include that? --Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no banned users or socks in the definite category, and possibly no account created after voting started (to limit canvasing all your friends to create an account just to support "your" article.) Single purpose accounts are not really that dangerous with these as there is less of an impact if a bad one sneaks through (compared to requests for permissions) although if thier vote is based entirely against the criteria for selection (say supporting a VGA with no references, 25 red links and is only 1K long counting the IW's), then there should be some mention of discretion as to striking such obviously silly votes (which may apply to certain longer term users with a history of very odd/disruptive voting habits). -- Creol(talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the banned users: If a user who is later banned gives a sensible vote (ie. supporting an article that in general meets the criteria, opposing one that obviously does not), I see no reason to not count their vote. I am bringing this up because of Baseball16s vote for a good article, just to clarify. --Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on banned(/indef blocked) users is that there is either a long term period of questionable activity (older account), or their entire time here was questionable (new accounts). Either way, if they got themselves banned, I do not feel it is very likely that this entire problem was entirely contained in the maximum of seven days from when the voting started until the time they got banned. Odds are, their behaviour was just as questionable a week ago. For the new accounts that get banned, they are usually a ban on sight, vandal only account anyway and would fall under the "Created after voting started" clause. Given the general history of account types here, it is far less likely to get a banned user who just completely snapped in such a short period (without a couple of "cool-off" blocks to eat up the time during the vote) than some user who pops in, writes a heartfelt and compelling endorsement of vote then decided gets banned for replacing pages with "POOP IS U MOM!!1!". As to the particular case in question, I would wait until the 25th to see if either he makes notable contributions or if someone else votes and makes it a moot point especially as there is not actual policy on the books to cover it at this time. With no policy, there is no reason he should not be counted. Banned users tend to fall into the "your opinion no longer matters" category, and Socks tend to get both that one (as they are likely banned for being a puppetter anyway) as well as the abusive voting sockpuppet school of thought. Other cases should need a stated policy (or atleast a generally accepted practice which CfA procedures might be applicable as, but better to have something you can point to and say "That's why I did it.") to enforce to dictate exclusion. -- Creol(talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I hear We need a guideline on voting there? --Eptalon (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users and sockpuppets should both not be allowed to vote in GAs and VGAs. We can consider them to have had their voting rights rescinded on the Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to be careful how we worded it. Guidelines are sometimes used to further a personal goal rather than to help figure out problems and a guideline on voting would certainly be used to justify pointless/useless votes depending on how it's worded. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) True; If we hada guideline, it should be there to set down how votings are currently done; wruiting such a guideline would certainly not be easy, as a difference need to be made between voting in an RfA (or RfB, or similar), simply supoorting or opposing an idea, and voting in other thinga like the popositions for (V)GAs. I is certanly easiest to fix the criteria first, if that is needed and only do a guidleine at a later stage, if wanted at all. --Eptalon (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can create one in my userspace and I'll edit it every now and again (as can anyone who wishes) and we'll stick a "NOT A GUIDELINE" tag on it until it's perfect? We could also merge into it that guideline; "Don't vote for everything" if needs be. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the moment it is more importantto determine if we want to change the criteria for (V)GAs as proposed; we can always do the guideline later, if need be. --Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would just like to say that any regular editor who seems to recieve a test4im warning from me should first look at your page's history to make sure that it is in fact me giving you that warning. We've had a rash of people that have copypasted a warning that I gave them and then have been inserting it into people's talk pages. Please watch out for these as I would never give out such a warning to regular editors. Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine, the only user doing it in bulk was MDCCIX and all have been reverted. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I said this was just in case anymore socks of this user pop up in the future. Thanks anyways for the blocking and reversions of his/her edits! Cheers, Razorflame 21:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've got time and interest to do some edits - but would be good to have a list of articles that regular simplewikipedians feel are a priority. let me know ideas here on on my talk page.Favouritesnail (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If were not allowed to create userboxes and such out of our own namespace, what is this? Also, are image boxes supposed to have a period (.) at the end of a sentence. Thanks --  AmericanEagle  05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 80,854 pages, it is somewhat possible that a couple mistakes have slipped through the cracks. (/sarcasm). Our editors and admins can not be expected to catch every single questionable edit. That one has been noted, moved to the user space, relinked on the user page and the redirect has been deleted. -- Creol(talk) 09:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks --  AmericanEagle  18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question: How come my edit count in my settings is two hundred less than this count? Is because of deleted edits or something? I don't get it. Cheers --  AmericanEagle  18:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I second that. But with me it is the other way round...The life of brian (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this is because most edit counters do not count deleted edits. My edit count in my preferences are actually several thousand less than my edit count says, but that's only because of my more than 2,000 deleted edits. Cheers, Razorflame 21:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, mine is the other way around too. So I have about 250 deleted edits. That's cool. The sig still wasn't quite right. I'll go to en:WP and look for ideas. Cheers -- AmericanEagle 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Geography

Hello all! I would just like to say that I have made the WikiProject Geography, and I have merged the WikiProject Switzerland into it, as well as the creation of WikiProjects United States, Romania, Scotland, and the Dominican Republic. If you are interested in Geography or any of the WikiProjects for the countries that are listed, or you would like to add a WikiProject for the country of your choice, feel free to join the WikiProject Geography! The main WikiProject's page can be found at User:Razorflame/Wikiproject Geography. Cheers, Razorflame 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please block!


can some admin block this user ASAP?


 Done. If no admin seems to be online, then use WP:VIP next time.--  Lights  talk  12:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Influx

In the short space of less than 2 hours, I had to block 17 accounts indefinitely ([1]) and delete the same amount of nonsense pages ([2]). I'm asking, could a checkuser get the IP's of the last accounts on my Block Log, find the IP and hard block it for a few months?

I'm open to other methods and lengths of time, but after wasting almost 2 hours cleaning up the mess, I think a hard block is necessary if it came from a specific or shared IP address. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large documents on Wikepedia

Seeking advice: A few years ago, I successfully completed my PhD in Australia at UNE. Being in my 60s, I have not pursued an academic career and so the thesis has just sat on my bookshelf. I have attempted to do some private follow up research but have experienced frustrations in a lack of access to academic journals, not being a member of a university staff. I admire the concept of Wikipedia and its content very much and would like to add my findings to it so that my work is then freely available to who ever can make use of it. Essentially, it consists of a large spreadsheet of about 2000 fields and 8 columns, about a 600 entry bibliography and edited down but with footnotes, the text would be about 10,000 words.(The original was about 90,000!) The attraction for going this way is that my work becomes easily searchable in the public domain.

Advice, please? Thanks John Davies

I don't think Wikipedia is not a suitable place, as your thesis is very long and may not be appropriate to be in an encyclopedia. We have a sister project, Wikibooks, that may be more suitable. Chenzw  Talk  06:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing weirdness

Laptop#History has the sentence "I see The first laptop was probably invented in [[1969]] by [[en:Bill Moggridge]]." But I see it as "I see The first laptop was probably invented in 1969 by." on two browsers. I was going to ask if it was just me seeing this glitch on User talk:Chenzw, but then I clicked "Show preview" and I could see the en: link! So I decided to ask here instead.

On this page, I can't see the link on preview or after saving. Do you see it in my previous sentence? TransUtopian (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you check the interwiki links, you will notice there is a link there under English to Bill Moggridge even though it is not listed at the bottom with any other interwiki links. The problem is due to the formatting of that link. [[en:Bill Moggridge]] is an interwiki link, to wiki-link to the article directly, [[:en:Bill Moggridge]] must be used. The leading colon tells the software that it is a wiki-link to another project and not an interwiki link. You will notice even in your edit, in the second paragraph the link to the article is not listed and at the bottom of the iw links there is an extra English link to this particular article.
  2. The article should not be linking to another project anyway.. It should be linked to our article (or redlinked to it). -- Creol(talk) 10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, on both points. Thanks! TransUtopian (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timberlake demoted

It is now a regular article again; I did thisbased obn a 2:1 (3 votes decision). Nothing has been done on the article in the last three weeks. --Eptalon (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page cannot be displayed error

I was just wondering, but has anyone else been getting the page cannot be displayed error after almost every edit that they try to do? Razorflame 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was happening for me as well. I found clicking Back in my browser and then clicking Save page again saved the changes more often than just reloading the error page. I haven't had any problem in the past few hours though. TransUtopian (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified login

As of today, all users may now merge their accounts for unified login! Archer7 - talk 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but some body on the nl Wikipedia stole the only other "American Eagle". That is so frusterating. Is there anything I can do? Cheers -- AmericanEagle 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could change your name on every project you're registered on and then merge that name, but you may not want to do that. I doubt the other American Eagle will want to change theirs either, and you can't request usurpation of that name in this case. Archer7 - talk 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug, but can I just not unify that Wikipedia? -- AmericanEagle 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. (It's benniguy here; i'm gonna be requesting for unblock soon btw :] ) Right, you can still have a unified login as American Eagle. It will tell you, when you make it, that the creation is "incomplete", because of that dutch account. However, this does not stop the usernames on every other wikipedia working, and you will still have a unified login; it just won't work on one of the wikipedias (the dutch one), although eventually, you could request usurption on their account there? (I know I'm blocked, but please don't remove this comment, as it is valid help to someone) (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually you'll be able to have that account, if it's all but one project. But that's sometime in the distant future yet. Majorly talk 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any Idea what this means for me an enWP?--   ChristianMan16 
You're going to have to tell me a little more, ChristianMan16. What exactly is the problem? Archer7 - talk 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must be the only one that doesn't know...I'm banned as Hornetman16 on there.--   ChristianMan16  23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't look at me differently cause I'm trying to straighten my self out and avoid socks so I can be Unbanned.--   ChristianMan16  23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully.--   ChristianMan16  23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have already started the process and the name does not exist there, I would suggest asking one of our admins who are admin there also to move the user page and talk page to the new name, log in (just to auto-create the account), and have them block the account with the same duration as the old account with them leaving a note as to why this all happened. Being entirely open in doing this removes the questions about socking. Having an admin do most of the heavy lifting also helps in the same way. If the process hasn't been started, have (the same en/simple admin) someone make a request for renaming and verify the request and reasoning for it on your page here. -- Creol(talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One major thing to point out. Users should not start the unification process before checking that they own the name on any wiki where they have contributions. Requests for usurping can not be done on accounts where the SUL process has been started. Once the process starts, the name is totally protected on all wiki's. This means Bureaucrats cannot rename your old account to the global name. Steward help is needed to delete the global name (un-SUL it) before the account can be usurped. This is realy only a problem if you have an account on a specific wiki under another name and need to take control of your main account name and have the other account moved to it.

When making requests for usurption, I would advise leaving an easy to see notice on your userpage or talk page on your main wiki stating you are which wikis and what account you are requesting and providing the location of this info with your request to help verify that it is indeed you requesting it.

DO NOT CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT to request usurption unless specifically asked to do so by the local wiki's usurption policy. The new account is just a throw-away since it usually can not be merged to the global name. Just request the name be cleared as an IP (B'crats can rename the local version of a global name so it is no longer on the global account) and provide a link back to your main account which verifies the request.

The whole thing has had several bug report and is currently at a point where the work-around of stewards deleting the SUL account was put into place. Making certain things are ready to go before hand will help simplify the process for everyone involved. -- Creol(talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an Admin or Bureaucrat please help me out on Meta a antagonistic old enemy has started attacking my request.--   ChristianMan16  02:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a (rather wordy) reply. While Angela is one of the last resorts I would personally have turned to to help resolve the issue, the fact that such a simple issue spun up as such is realy a scary matter. You personally try to man up and accept/deal with issues and somehow we get people who would prefer sockpuppettry and more work for their own CU's.. -- Creol(talk) 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love that I've changed enough to look like a respectful editor in the community's view...or starting to, whichever.--   ChristianMan16  06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers with that. I still don't know how to create a unified login with the Dutch Wikipedia deing taken. Help? --  AmericanEagle  06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Man, I can't help you there...I'm going to bed..Talk to y'all tomorrow.--   ChristianMan16  06:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanEagle, this is what you do:
  • Go to [3] on a wiki where you already have an account.
  • The wiki with the most contributions will become your "home" wiki.
  • In order to verify the other accounts are yours, you will be asked to give your password at Special:MergeAccount. (This is how the system knows that the Dutch AmericanEagle is not yours.
  • And that's it. You've made a global account - but the Dutch one doesn't come under you, if that makes sense?
By the way, I notice that lots of impersonations etc have been going on recently, and several users seem to think IuseRosary and myself are behind it all. I can't explain on here, but to answer, no, it's not directly from us. However, I did use this: User:, meaning I actually transferred a whole policy page across and simplified it (WP:POINT), so I hope you understand that if I did that, what would be the point in me vandalizing, as some think I have on other accounts? And additionally, do people think that if IuseRosary or myself was going to make sockpuppets for IuseRosary, we would really be stupid enough to name them "IuseRosary 2", "IuseRosary3", etc? It was obviously an impersonation - I know who from, but I am not going to say on here.
And I'm working @ Wiktionary (under a different account name), and @ Simple Wiktionary (under Benniguy), and I'm doing ok on both.
Hope that helps AmericanEagle:) (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know you ban evaded again.--   ChristianMan16  13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just logged in and saw that it said it logged me in to other Wiki's too. It worked! Cheers --  AmericanEagle  17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that go away after several days or weeks of being an editor? It would be annoying if every time I insert a reference, or revert something that reinserts an external link, I have to type a captcha. TransUtopian (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will stop once your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old and 10 edits). This will also let you edit semiprotected pages and move pages.--Werdan7T @ 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. TransUtopian (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The last paragraph of League of Nations is currently an essay of sorts that an anonymous editor added. I know essays aren't material which can be added without modification to WP and are discouraged as POV, but does anyone want to incorporate some of the information into the article, or is preferred policy here just to delete it? TransUtopian (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection templates

Should the protection template(s) be used on pages? They were nominated for deletion last time but were kept as there was not enough consensus. Chenzw  Talk  03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the Day

Can I please resurrect discussion on Tip of The Day? Methinks it would be a good change to the "You are successfully logged in to Wikipedia as $1" text. mC8 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about it?--   ChristianMan16  16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather prefer to see the you have successfully logged into Wikipedia message than something else because I wouldn't know if I logged in correctly. Cheers, Razorflame 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Razorflame: It's incorporated in at the top; at    ChristianMan16 : Click on "see template". That's what I thought we could have instead of the simple default text. mC8 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Support doing this, and we had better not hear the common "we're such a small wiki." Having this, in my opinion is a good idea, and mC8 has already started it and it looks good. Cheers --  AmericanEagle  17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep both.--   ChristianMan16  17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? mC8 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean keep what's there now but add also the tip of the day cause it can be useful but I still think what's there now is needed.--   ChristianMan16  17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with C-man on this one. I still want to see the default message, but I wouldn't mind this as well. Cheers, Razorflame 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind tips (in addition to the default as stated), espcially if there's something useful I don't know about. :) TransUtopian (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) What's wrong with the "You are now logged in" section of the new proposal? We don't need the default one and the new one; otherwise it duplicates itself. mC8 10:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a bit more, bumping it on everyone's watchlists &c: Anyway, my version includes the phrase from the default, so we don't need both. All it really is is the default being embezzled slightly to get to a new one. And it looks better. Microchip 09:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have we killed the Very Good Article?

Hello community, I am just wondering if we killed the Very Good Article. As far as I know they have been no promotions since the new rules came into effect. As a proof of concept - that means it is doable, I would suggest we try and get a new very good article. I am open as to the article to promote (Good articles probably have a better chance). I would therefore suggest we get a candidate through the process - If we are unable to do that, then we need to look at the guidelines for Very good articles again (because then they are too strict). As to the article, I still want to rule out a few:

Other than that, I am open to suggestions.--Eptalon (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is fully ready, but Charles Spurgeon is a future candidate also. --  AmericanEagle  21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to get some interest in the process again. FWIW, I don't think the criteria are too strict, I think interest faded during the hiatus and has yet to fully recover. I hope this helps. · Tygrrr... 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting something to VGA status is a considerable amount of work (esp. the comprehensiveness clause). We should therefore pick an article we agree has a reasonable chance of passing, given about 2-3 weeks improvement. What I personally dislike (and see happening quite often is that part of a (good) article is simply a listing of things (publications, speeches, of the particular person). If that list is like more than 10-15 percent of the article, visually, this puts me of (I do no longer think that those articles where we put most of our effort in should have such sections. Perhaps list two or three of those publications (etc) in the article, and link to a full list? - Other musings: If we promote a good article that will probably be less work, but it will be one good article less, for one more VGA. That said, good articles seem to be promoted quite easily,... - I really don't know. Of the good articles, Pipe organ looks like a promising candidate too (Probably needs a few more refs?) - I think possible candidates should be at lest 12-15k (all inclusive) - editing for VGA might drastically change the article. I wpuöd therefore propose we compile a list (of 4-5) candidates, from which we pick the most promising? --Eptalon (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with you on the fact that Pipe organ is the most promising of all the GA's to be promoted to VGA status. I know that American Eagle is currently working on getting both Charles Spurgeon and Billy Graham up to VGA status, but that might be hard because, in my opinion, I think that articles about people are just hard enough to get to GA status. I am currently working on getting Romania to GA status, but its been slow going. As for other possible candidates for VGA status, I would have to add these to my list of promising candidates:
  • World History:Even though it isn't ready yet, once it is, this will be one of the most promising candidates for VGA status.
  • Giant Panda:Massive amounts of work has been put into this article, and to tell you the truth, I think that this would be a very good candidate for VGA status. As for other articles, I will leave that up to other people who post here. Cheers, Razorflame 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been focused mostly as my project of Charles Spurgeon (I don't even want to think of all the work Billy Graham will need), but I will help on another article to get that promoted instead. As I went through the GAs, and aside from my two and the two that Razorflame wrote about right above, I think that most will agree that Pipe organ is both the best in length and structure, and has the most promise. Romania is looking better, but still needs work and has several important red links. About biographical articles being hard to promote, Pope John Paul II and Jimi Hendrix made it. So I'll get them, eventually. Anyway, I think that Pipe organ has the most potential. --  AmericanEagle  20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest problem is you have a deadline. That's really unjust, why should an article of the needed quality be denied placement on the Main Page because of a time limit? Maxim(talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a deadline for a number of reasons. It's one thing to get enough support votes in a week and another thing entirely to muster enough support votes after a month of posting. A truly very good article should be fairly self-evident pretty quickly. Also, if a person actually follows the process from beginning to end (which I would recommend) there are 2 weeks to discuss possible improvements and by the time the article is moved to the voting section, votes should be pretty easily attained in a week. Also, the deadline is in place as a defined ending. When end dates are not clearly defined, postings around here tend to just sit there and collect dust. So therefore, I think the current process when followed properly allows plenty of time for improvements and votes. (Just as a sidenote, the only GA or VGA to not have enough votes in the last 2 months was your second posting of Giant Panda as a VGA. People may have been put off by you posting it a mere week after it failed a PVGA, especially while it was simultaneously undergoing a vote for GA and may not have voted for that reason. But I'm just speculating.) · Tygrrr... 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your removed it for because of that deadline, and I felt that there was still discussion going on, so I readded it back, following your process as another nom. What else do you want me to do?? Maxim(talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, the first one was not closed because of the deadline. It was closed because it didn't have a high enough support percentage to pass. Since you're so confused about the process, maybe you should try reading the criteria for GA and VGA articles and the top of the PGA and PVGA pages. · Tygrrr... 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya need to be so condescending, do you? Maxim(talk) 21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How am I being condescending? Perhaps you're too sensitive... · Tygrrr... 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's either "Teaching Maxim this" or "Maxim is very confused that". I have my ways of doing stuff, I'm really not a fan of bureaucracy so I try to have as little as possible; you seem to follow process really strictly and consider those that don't uneducated. I'm sorry, but I'm going to avoid interactions with you now because they are pointless and end up as bickering and arguments. I hope you do the same. Maxim(talk) 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what an interesting opinion... I've actually already been avoiding you because you don't listen to reason. You point out WP:IAR but I don't think you've even read it because it says only to ignore the rules if they're messing things up. But actually you're the one messing things up, as the process as it stands makes a lot of sense (if you'd actually try following it from beginning to end I think you might agree). And clearly you haven't been around here long if you think I blindly follow the rules. Stick around for a while and you'll learn what I'm like. Just a tip, do with it what you will: maybe you should try giving people a chance instead of making blind accusations. I thought you were going to try to be less of a dick (your words, not mine). · Tygrrr... 00:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you closed the first one because it went stale, too. Maxim(talk) 21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no I didn't. · Tygrrr... 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deadline is there basically to avoid the situation we had with Wikipedia:Peer review, namely that articles/nominations silently collect dust.Articles should be listed when they are ready. Three weeks is enough to fix a few minor issues. Of course, if you propose something that is not ready yet, you will probably be working very hard, and might still miss the deadline. One of the reasons I oppose World History being listed for either category is that I know that it will not be possible to turn it into a good article, let alone a very good one, in three weeks time.--Eptalon (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) The deadline seems to be ok for GA's. It might turn out to be too short (for the comprehensiveness check) - This is one of the reasons I want to successfully get one article through the VGA process. That way we see what is wrong, if anything. --Eptalon (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I believe that we should all pull together and work on Pipe organ to get it through the VGA process as I believe that that would be a)The easiest article to get to VGA status, and b)It is the closest to VGA status. Anyone want to try to help get it to VGA status? Cheers, Razorflame 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll work at Pipe organ a too. --  AmericanEagle  23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help. I've found a typo I can correct already...-heads off to do just that- TheWolf 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename requests

I've created a new page to put all our rename requests: Wikipedia:Changing username. This is so my talk page doesn't get filled with all the SUL conflict requests that are flooding in right now, and so that any other available bureaucrats can handle any waiting requests to speed things up a bit. Archer7 - talk 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on importing EN articles

New York senators was created. w:List of New York State Senators could be copied and pasted here. Would that be desirable? TransUtopian (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure it's not a direct copy and paste...simplify it or it will get deleted. Most articles I've created started as enWP copy and paste.--   ChristianMan16  23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I had to make some templates to do so, though. Cheers --  AmericanEagle  23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AmericanEagle. :)
And I know the basic concept, ChristianMan16, though I'm still absorbing the details — like External links -> Other websites. When I saw someone doing that en masse, I frowned, until I investigated and realized (before reverting anything, thank goodness) that was the Simple standard. TransUtopian (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure cause mine have been deleted for that.--   ChristianMan16  00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


See this link here. As the header says, I don't know if this is relevant to anything at all, but it's an IP on Jimbo Wales' talk page requesting for an unban relating to matters which look quite familiar (if not identical) to the whole User:Benniguy fiasco which occurred over here, using reasons similar to the ones found here. While it may not amount to anything, I thought it might be interesting. TheWolf 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely him, he admits it. Looks like they're ready for another discussion about unbanning on EN. Perhaps it might be wise to mention the crap that's happening over here, get their CheckUsers to talk to our CheckUsers if they have any IP information on this latest round of sockpuppets. Archer7 - talk 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree. We have been dealing with massive sockpuppet creations on here that I believe would be a good idea to mention to Wales over on the English Wikipedia, as they have been causing immense amounts of trouble here. Cheers, Razorflame 16:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left a quick message. Archer7 - talk 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read your quick message, and I believe that that message is sufficient enough for the moment. Cheers, Razorflame 16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has one of our CUs over here run a check on those sockpuppet armies to see if they actually connect to him? TheWolf 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*waves this link at the CheckUsers* Microchip 17:12, Friday, May 30 2008 Utc]]

(unindenting)... Just for the sake of clarity (and to keep things together) please ask for CheckUser on the WP:RFCU page - next time. The IP listed on Jimbo's talk page is indeed from a range associated with Benniguy / Inkpen2 on simple. I cannot confirm or deny the actual address, since 65.536 of them (the last two numbers of the ipv4 address) are blocked here on simple. As far as I can tell this is indeed Benniguy.--Eptalon (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more a question of "Is this massive sockpuppet army created over the last few days likely to be him?" - do you have any information on the computer itself and the likelihood of it being him? (I realise that might be a difficult one) Archer7 - talk 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like renaming users also gets rid of the ability to do a meaningful checkuser on them (at least for vandals, who have not edited). The few I checked didn't look like Benniguy though. --Eptalon (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way that these socks could be any other bad user, like a sockpuppet of User:Novotarsky or any of the 1709 sockpuppets? Cheers, Razorflame 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can 100% confirm that the May 30 batches of created accounts (Cwib eats turd munge/^(badusername90) and GWlB EATS MAN STICK/^(badusername86) and their created accounts) are from IuseRosary. His edit at 12:18 and the IP under both proxies used to create the accounts are identical. The first batch was created, then he edited M7's page, then the second batch with him editting M7's page again at the same time. They were made from different browsers, but from the same IP at the exact same time. Past accounts have traced to both ranges, but this days work is definitely the work of one person. This IP is directly tied to a total of 9 proxy created batches. Seven other proxy created batches are directly tied to the IP IuR used a couple days before including an edit from his account using one of the proxies. I stopped checking at 10 other proxies from two more address in the same range that can not be 100% confirmed. Another 15 proxies crossed over to three adresses in Benniguys range. Of these three address, one (with 5 proxies) and another (with another 5 proxies) were both used here (under proxies) and self-identified as Benniguy. The third IP in the collection shared proxies with one of the other. Another seven proxies did not reveal any informtion. All told: IuseRosary- 16 confirmed proxies, 10 unconfirmed. Benniguy - 10 self-identified proxies, 5 unconfirmed. More likely, as there are many accounts which were not checked. total: 48 proxies, 26 indentified, 15 unconfirmed, 7 unknown. -- Creol(talk) 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this up over on the current discussion going on for the unblocking of Iamandrewrice on the administrator's noticeboard. I've given some of the details that Creol just revealed to us, and I am waiting for a response. Cheers, Razorflame 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following post has been written by an impostor of en:User:PetraSchelm. It has been kept to allow discussion.

  • Maybe you won't agree with me here, but I believe the guy should be unblocked. Give him a second chance, I mean the Willy on Wheels (WTF??) was unbanned recently. Please link on the relevant discussion over there to it. And don't tell w:en:User:SqueakBox, he's getting irked by this whole situation. I can confirm that some of Iamandrewrice's socks on the English Wikipedia were pro-pedophile activists, e.g. w:en:User:Samantha Pignez and w:en:User:Karla Lindstrom as examples. There you have it. Give the guy a trial unblock, but you should know he also had been running pro-pedophile activism sockpuppets too. --PetraSchelm (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified a point there (the unknown 7 are likely part of this, they just can not be identifed by CU as such). Also, the Checkuser list has been informed of the matter in more detail than I can say here. -- Creol(talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-paedophile activism? Doesn't sound right to me. Looking at the socks you identify, I just don't see that being a possibility - I just cannot see them being socks at all (although perhaps it's not wise to make decisions like this on a gut feeling...). Can you link to any evidence of that? Archer7 - talk 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is most definitely him, per evidence I received privately via e-mail, which I will make available on request (will enable my email on here first). These are most definitely his sockpuppets, confirmed by behavioral patterns. This should be mentioned on w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard at the current thread there, concerning him. Maybe we should get the ArbCom there involved with him. --PetraSchelm (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, Alison here. I'm one of the enwiki checkusers and have had extensive dealings with this editor(s) over there. If anyone has any further evidence or information you think we should have, can you email me, please? Good news or bad news, it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to gain some perspective on what's been going on over here since the ban on enwiki. Thanks! :) - Alison 04:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have email activated for my account, but places to read about the Benniguy/Iamandrewrice issue over here are the archives of User talk:Barliner, User talk:Gwib, and Benniguy's contributions. To see Benniguy's most recent (and denied) unblock request here, see User talk:Inkpen2. I joined this Wikipedia shortly after Benniguy was removed for good, and those are the areas I went to learn about the issue. Hope this helps! TheWolf 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the discussion on EN has been moved here. TheWolf 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even whilst banned on En Wiki, he still manages to disrupt the whole site. I wouldn't be surprised if Metawiki had a seperate hard drive to deal with all the "I'm sorry"'s, his 'insanity' pleas and his sockpuppets and open proxies.
If one can bend the rules and get as many second chances as he has been getting, then why does one have rules at all? --Gwib -(talk)- 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone for your input. Reading now ... - Alison 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary Break

Broken into sections to facilitate ease of editing Microchip 19:09, Saturday, May 31 2008 Utc]]
Notice to all Wikipedians involved in the Benniguy case: Checkuser has proven that not all accounts in question were created by Benniguy. Benniguy claims that some of the accounts were actually created by User:IuseRosary's sister, Natasha. Creol has confirmed that many of the accounts and IPs were used by User:IuseRosary (I assume while using the main account for good purposes, to appear constructive). At the English Wikipedia's Administrative Noticeboard (EWAN), Benniguy says the proxies that Creol claims he used were actually used constructively:

So we are talking about the 10 proxies I used (constructively, and you can ask AmericanEagle about that) and I openly said who I was, and then 5 unconfirmed proxies which people think might have something to do with me. I am sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption to make, and no one has made it but you Razorflame.

However, Creol now states that Benniguy used 8 other proxies unconstructively and did not admit he used them:

Actual proof such as him self-identifying as using two specific proxies to answer a question by User:American Eagle (both self-identified in the message and he states right above that he did this) and that the proxies show the underlying IP address; one of which was used to create 10 accounts using other proxies and the other created 25? Yep, got it. How about another IP he has admitted to which was used to revert the removal of a disruptive RfA (created by IuseRosary no less) and then vote on it? Got that proof also. Edit patterns and the fact that before he showed up we had virtually zero traffic from this IP range and now we get literly hundreds of edits each week from through proxies (the range has been soft-blocked for months) just helps round out the picture of the sitution, but direct ties between the vandalism and him do exist. I did state that they are two seperate people, but given their activities and personal statements as being friends, there is little doubt to me that they are working in conjuction playing their little game.

I thought that proxies don't show the underlying IP address, and that all the checkusers could find out was whether the proxy was used by an account with a home IP on it. I believe that the IPs that were vandalising were IuseRosary, especially the one who reverted the removal of the disruptive RfA. Notice how Creol uses his belief that Ben and IuseRosary are "working in conjunction" as an excuse for the ridiculous accusations. I find it wrong that people at the ENWP are not allowing to defend himself at the EWAN against ridiculous accusations like those by PetraSchelm of having a pro-pedophilia account, or lies about his behavior. We should unprotect User talk:Inkpen2 and set an example for the English Wikipedia.

I also propose that a checkuser other than Creol check the IPs to confirm that what Creol says is true. This can be an involved checkuser, like Alison, or a completely uninvolved one. If the checkuser turns up recent disruptive accounts from User:IuseRosary, give him a final warning.

Yours, Nobodyhome (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Information:The user who made the above comment is a suspected sockpuppet of Benniguy. Microchip 19:09, Saturday, May 31 2008 Utc]][reply]

Eptalon and M/ are always free to verify my findings, that is one of the reasons we have multiple CU's. As for Alison, since she is not a CU here, she can not verify but as she is covered by the privacy policy by being CU in other places, sharing the findings with her due to cross-wiki issues(especially when they deal with a case on a wiki under her watch) is expected. As such, she has been kept informed on several checks proving ties between Bennyboy and the mass creations and disruptive actions in RfAs (the mass IuR clones voting for IuR and the reverting and voting for IuR's creation of a 7th Razorflame RfA). In fact, the entire CU community was informed of findings of proxies to the real IPs behind them be make certain all en: CU's were aware. Proxies are a funny thing.. for instance the proxies used for this account (2 of them) have a history of use - Both were used to block evade by only a single account (and a new account that claims to be the same account) and all share a particular addon to the browser which is not commonly seen. Many proxies are even more forthcoming with information. With enough proxy use, there is more than enough information to make a comprehensive ISP abuse report with. Proxies may bypass certain things, but they rarely keep you safe from being identified. Think about it, most the open proxies out there are computers where the software was set up wrong. If they set it up wrong, what are the odds they screwed it up in a way that protects your identity? Sometimes you get lucky, but most times you are screaming your identity to anyone who chooses to look.
Could that be a sock above?--   ChristianMan16  19:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the userpage, maybe. I've added a tag. Microchip 19:12, Saturday, May 31 2008 Utc]]
Not the old "sister/brother" sock excuse?! *sigh* And for interest, when dealing with proxies or gateways, checkusers often have access to XFF headers and certain other records, so it's often quite possible to know who's doing what behind a proxy - Alison 19:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was either his sister did it or his dog did it while eating his homework.. He flipped a coin and decided to blame the sister. -- Creol(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That IuseRosary's "sister" would suddenly begin creating sock armies out of the blue seems...well, out of the blue. I've left a note on IuR's talkpage linking to this discussion, in case he isn't aware of it yet. TheWolf 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And she seems to specifically hate Gwib, just like he did! Archer7 - talk 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyber-hate is almost trivial (Note: my best friend's sister is called Natasha as well! Coincidence?). --Gwib -(talk)- 20:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the comment here, Nobodyshome actually seems a little more like Ionas68224, and matches the writing style. Could be just paranoia... Archer7 - talk 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No paranoia there unless Ionas is sharing this previously used proxyies (those only used by him) with other people. -- Creol(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea this would become such a huge topic when I introduced this, wow. Also, what are we trying to achieve now? It seems that we are debating whether or not Benniguy or IuR are responsible for the sockpuppet deluge, and what action should be taken. There's a practically nill chance of Benniguy being unblocked here, and any concerns about it on EN should be taken to EN's admin noticeboard topic. However, if IuR were involved...we'd need to decide on a course of action to affect him here. Based on the information provided we need to decide what we're going to do and then do it, so that this conversation doesn't go on forever and possibly derail. TheWolf 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled over this whole thing trying to find evidence for my own ban appeal (on EN to Jimbo). Benniguy, I belived, until now, would be a fine Wikipedian. HOWEVER, this whole fiasco in the last two days has changed my thought on the matter. If Benniguy is going to continue the way he is (going up quite frequenly trying to get unbanned; and the 100 (AT LEAST) sockpuppets here and sixty-one across the street), he should remain banned indefintally, and if it keeps up - a ISP report and a WMF-Wide ban. Just my $0.02 worth. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following post has been written by an impostor of en:User:PetraSchelm. It has been kept to allow discussion.

Per the discussion on EN, he's not getting unblocked there any time soon. And as I said there, this discussion needs to end. We've brought up so much (as PetraSchelm so aptly puts it) damning evidence, we should be able to do something by now. IuseRosary hasn't replied to my comment on my talk page or be very active the last few days, which coincidentally were the days of the sockpuppet invasion. This may be ungrounded, but it seems to me that he is lying low. TheWolf 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Second break to make editing and reading easier. TheWolf 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Ben, Jonas, luseRosary and TheEyesAreTheWindowToTheSoul are all buddies. Ben emailed me and said that he told the Eyes to nom me for RFA and I'm assuming they talked and luseRosary decided to nom RF for RFA. You probably knew all this but honestly, this is getting annoying. I think Ben, Luse, and TEATWTTS, who apparently is named Natasha (I learned that via email), should stop and remain blocked/banned and in luse's case in my opinion he should be blocked. SwirlBoy39 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to interfere with your decisions I'll just clarify that banning Iamandrewrice and friends would make your ban simular to ours. None of them are welcome across the street. EconomicsGuy II (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tash, myself and Ben all know each other in real life (Yes Cinema Club!) But we do not know Jonas in real life, although i know that ben has had corespondance with him vias email and how he lives in america or something.
I would like to point out that NONE of the recent account creations here at the simple are me or Ben, they are my sister (well, step-sister).
I would like to build up the picture in you mind that me, ben and tash used to be very good friends, we would not be seen without each other, we practically live round each other's houses. Lately Ben and Tash have fallen out because Ben tried making out with Tash's boyfriend. Anyway, Tash made every single one of the recent vandal accounts, I have already explained this to Gwib via email and he understands. I suspect, that "the petra account" maybe linked to her, but i do not know, maybe a checkuser?
People seem to think that I am "Lying-Low" here due to recent events, but that is not the case. I am currently in the middle of a hectic A-level exam period (I am so going to fail film studies exam tomorrow!!).
I have spoken to my parents about Natasha's activities, and they have assured me that they will try to prevent her from accessing Wikipedia, but they cann't prevent her form accessing it elsewhere. Although none of the recent vandilism was me, I would like to apologise on behalf of my sister and myself for her actions and me introducing Simple Wikipedia to her. But, I believe that her Vandal accoutns may have been an attempt to frame or upset ben to get back at him for trying to make out with her bofriend.
Thanks for reading Y'all!
IuseRosary? (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that at all. Gwib, can you send some confirmation for me (if it's not suitable for on-wiki posting) if you do believe it? Archer7 - talk 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I cannot tell you what to believe and what not to believe, It just means that your picture of what you believe is the truth is quite majorly obscured. IuseRosary? (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MESSAGE TO ALL: I never claimed to understand that... Besides, why would she name them variants of "IuseRosary" if she's 'fallen out' with Ben? --Gwib -(talk)- 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bit of brohter sister rivalry, maybe because i didn't take her side in her argument against Ben. Maybe because she knew you'd think this. I have no Idea!!!
Why would i make sockpuppets? I have no reason to, I have an account which I can edit from. If i didn't make socks when I was blocked for a month, Why would I now?

AND, do you really think that I am stupid enough to make socks named after my own account? That was an impersonation of me!

Quote, an email from Gwib
"It would be in your best interests if she stopped creating duplicate accounts under your name. It hurts both your reputation and Benniguy's reputation." - Here, you acknowledge that the accounts are made my Natasha.
IuseRosary? (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare put words in my mouth.
"Those accounts do more than "show links to you", they ARE YOU as far as I'm concerned. If you really want Natasha to stop creating accounts, then stop her yourself. She is only making your situation AND Ben's situation worse. "
That's the real quote. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing! You said those words with your own keyboard, I copied and pasted that strait from my email accoutnt. Once again, Do you really think i'm stupid enough to make up a quote when you can so easily go and check it?

You acknowledged that Natasha made those accounts when you said "if she stopped creating duplicate accounts" - I am not putting words into your mouth, I am simply saying that from the quote that I have given, that is how I (and most people) would understand what you said to acknowlegde that you believe that Natasha made the accounts, unless you are now suggesting that you did not say that?

If any users would like to see the entire email convosation between Gwib and I, I would have no reservations in forwarding it to anyone.

IuseRosary? (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be the time for that "heated debate" tag...IuseRosary, has your sister confirmed to you or anybody else that she is the creator of those accounts? TheWolf 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I confronted her about them. When i saw the rash of creations- i suspected her, I checked the history of her computer and found that it was her. Then, I confronted her, she said it was her, but would not tell me anything else. IuseRosary? (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me Rupert, how are the A-level exams going? It must be pretty hard at 14, seeing as you haven't even completed your GCSEs yet, and won't for another 2 years. Then you'll sit your AS levels the year after, before sitting A2s. It's not particularly wrong to create an Internet identity for yourself, but so many of your stories don't match up. To everyone else that thinks Natasha might have actually done it - think how much techical knowledge she must have had to conduct the attack, and how we've never seen her here before. The story is totally crazy once you start to think about it. She even knew our names. Archer7 - talk 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tasha knew your names, because, as i explained above, we were all best of friends, and she heard convosations between Ben and I about Simple and often asked questions about users and the webiste when we spoke about it. She has a knowledge of wikipedia, because of her account, Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul, when me and Ben helped her learn aboiut Wikipedia and how to edit beofre she went a bit OTT. She has also previously edited on enWiki.

And Yes, I do use an Internet Identity after haveing bad experiences on Social networking websites and I do not wish for my full identity toi be reveiled, just incase something were to happen. I know that i have let some infomation slip about my real identity, but i would rather that it were not brought up again for reasons that I have explained.

Also, you may be interested to see that Benniguy has commented again on the convosation on the AN at en:Wiki - Evading his ban again, I believe.

IuseRosary? (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange that Tash would seem so intent on slamming users such as User:Gwib. Personally I am not going to believe that she made the endless "GWIB IS A..." accounts (what did she have against him?). And I did see the comment from Ben, he apparently wants to exercise his 'right to vanish'. TheWolf 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, As you all know, Both Ben and Myslef have a clash in personalities (to put it nicely) with Gwib, and therefor, when we had our convoations with each other, with Tash there, she obveously assumed that Gwib was not a nice person. AND, lets remember how Ben and Tash fell out, she may have wanted to frame him. IuseRosary? (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Just be aware that it really doesn't sound convincing, as "my brother/sister did it" excuses are very common. And to everybody else, I see no reason why IuseRosary would jeopardize his account and standing in order to make a sock army, knowing full well that a Checkuser could easily trace it back to him. Either something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or I'm blind. TheWolf 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing that she knows how to bypass account creation limits - she must have memorised your proxy addresses while you weren't looking, wrote them down later and saved it as "Just In Case Ben Tries To Make Out With My Boyfriend.txt". The behaviours shown in the account creation do not fit that of an impulsive action. They were planned, and they require more knowledge than you seem to realise. Although the actions themselves are quite simple, they require knowledge that makes it impossible for someone like her to have done it. How many girls do you know that would actually do this? Look at the usernames people - it doesn't take a genius to tell that they're created by a male. This is clearly ridiculous, and we shouldn't have even started this conversation after the CheckUser results. If anyone disagrees with me (other than IuR) and would like to discuss this further, speak now and we will. Otherwise, let's discuss ban times. Archer7 - talk
i'm sorry, but I didn't actaully understand the beginning of that. Account Creation limits? Proxy Adresses? Is that like an open proxy?

- And... tbh, Ben did try to make out with her bf like a month ago, maybe she did plan it. She always was a vile little child. OMG, she once put salt on a slug and then put it iun my orange juice, that was grsss as! As i said, she's edited en:Wiki alot in the past... But, whatever you say... Isn't this supposed to be a democricy? with conscensus? If i disagree, then that isn't consensus. If my opinion isn't counted, that that isn't democricy! IuseRosary? (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find amazing is that "your sister" not only did all of the above, but that she did all that and was editing from your house and from Ben's, she also edited from both places at the same time and while she was playing around she made edits from your account seemingly from her computer. Also, consensus is general agreement not unanimous agreement. You can disagree all you want and there can still be consensus. -- Creol(talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Times

Indef BAN for IuR and Ben per countless sockpuppets, evasion, personal attacks and persistent debating. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Archer7 - talk 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The End. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think we're supposed to wait for a lot of opinions before we decide on ban times actually Gwib, but I think it's pretty certain that you won't need to lift that block. Anyone else? Archer7 - talk 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but this way he won't be able to protest his innocence. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent. -  EchoBravo  contribs  19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His sub-pages will be deleted then? Because the Music wikiproject was actually fairly useful. TheWolf 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to take over, feel free to move it to your userspace. Archer7 - talk 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to move them to your userspace? --Gwib -(talk)- 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not too much trouble and if anybody else still uses it (besides me), that would be great. Otherwise, I'll just copypaste the 'to-do' list for it into a subpage. TheWolf 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent ban for both. End of story. Razorflame 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it? I may just be paranoid, but the writing style does seem rather familiar to me. Also, there is no user with that name on EN. Apologies to everyone, especially to Have Some Priest, if I am just being paranoid. TheWolf 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that as well, perhaps we're both paranoid. Definitely looks like him. Archer7 - talk 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expected worse, to tell you the truth. I just checked my e-mail and they (IuR and Ben) had subscribed me to a dozen 'less than reputable' sites. I got flooded with "CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL" e-mails. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you got those same emails? I've gotten over 15 emails from websites that claim that I signed up for their services when that isn't the case. It is them?? Razorflame 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lovely. That's chased away the last of my poorly-grounded doubts. TheWolf 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are being paranoid - Have Some Priest has is innoncent (see RFCU) Stricken per below comment vy Creol -  Da Punk '95  talk  06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be highly suspicious of claims of him being paranoid. CU results as stated can not confirm that the user is directly tied to the Dimwited Duo, but that does not mean that the account is not. CU is not a magic wand that sees all. While it can find concrete proof of a yes answer, certain cases block it from seeing enough information to say yes and a no answer has to be given. Other information is covered by the privacy policy all CU's must be bound by and we can not give full answers to a lot of questions. In this case, there is not direct tie between the two accounts that the tools available to a CU can show. There is also other information about the situation that is in a grey area about what we can say that brings strong doubts about if the account actually belongs to an en:wp user in good standing or if it belongs to a puppetmaster using proxies to pretent to be a real user. CU info says that we can not possitively confirm a connection. That is all that it says. We can not 100% say yes. This is not the same as the fact that we are saying no, only that we do not see positive proof which we can back up with details. The account may or may not be highly suspect, but there is no definitive proof that it is directly tied to one specific account. With a good proxy, definitive proof is hard to get. With a bad one, it is easier, but a good one is hard to call. There is also a minor issue on our basic acceptance of en:wp policy where we do not have a stated one and this account editing in violation of en:wp/meta policy. It is hardly innocent as it has broken at least one major policy in its editing, but is covered by policy on stating what exactly it has done without further infractions. Personally - I would be unconfortable accepting anything this account says without a lot of background info (for instance, the account seems not to registered on en:wp though he says he used to edit there.. [source?]... -- Creol(talk) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation of PetraSchelm

I thought it didn't sound right - I emailed PetraSchelm at his EN email address today to request this "damning evidence", and he told me that he is being impersonated, and that he has never even used the Simple English Wikipedia. I don't believe that Benniguy had any connection to the pro-paedophilia accounts. Archer7 - talk 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't this PetraSchelm impersonater be blocked straight off if the actual one has confirmed that it isn't him? TheWolf 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real PetraSchelm has now created a global account to protect his/her identity, so now if User:PetraSchelm posts again, it's now the real one :) Archer7 - talk 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account renaming

Left Arrow The comments that were in this section have been moved to a different place at Wikipedia:Changing username. Left Arrow


Ok, it seems the old section was archived. I'd still like a final consensus before bringing my StatusBot (which is already running on the English Wikipedia) over. What do people think of this bot? Soxred93 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally quite like the StatusBots, and was wondering just the other day when somebody would bring one over here. I think it's a fantastic idea; it helps other users know who is on, and in the case of admins, who could be consulted with a problem. TheWolf 12:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead! Oh, and try and pursuade Chris G as well! Microchip 14:36, Saturday, May 31 2008 Utc]] 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who asked Soxred93 to bring it over here, and therefore, I support the idea of bringing over the StatusBot is it is much more accurate than Chenzw's status thing (no offense intended). Cheers, Razorflame 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I know I tend to forget to change the status :) Chenzw  Talk  07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I'll ask for approval later tonight. Soxred93 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that StatusBot/SoxBot V was blocked on EN. Will that block carry over to here? The reason given for the block there really didn't seem to make sense. TheWolf 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for the block? Razorflame 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many edits, it was blocked by Brion Vibber. I've blocked it here as well now, big scary message on it's EN talk page says not to run a clone without permission of the server admins. I think that probably means just on the big wikis, but I think we'd better wait for clarification. Archer7 - talk 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Y'all have known me for a while now and most of you know that I'm banned on enWP. While I've been banned I've created socks in the past to get around it, something of which I'm not proud of. Lately I've not done that yet somebody is impersonating me and creating socks that get marked as mine even though the only thing they got like me is naming....they don't even talk like me. So why I'm doing this is to find out if the only one that thinks they don't talk like me. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and if you think this is a bad idea ignore this thread. The socks are (these links take you to their contribution): Hornetchild16, Hornetwoman17, HornetUncle, HornetFather19, Florida16. Again if you think this is a bad idea just ignore this thread.--   ChristianMan16  06:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can now state for the record that checkuser shows that Hornetchild16, HornetFather19 and HornetUncle are unrelated to Hornetman16 on enwiki. It's more than one joker playing around, but definitely not you. Hornetwoman17 is unknowable as data is now stale, as is Florida16‎ - Alison 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth stating, Alison, that in a previous CHU that Hornetwoman17 was proved not mine.--   ChristianMan16  07:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's here.--   ChristianMan16  07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - I'd run that checkuser myself :) Fine so, another one gone from the list - Alison 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still listed.--   ChristianMan16  17:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Alison 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for Peer review?

Hello community,

what do you think of introducing a deadline of one month for Wikipedia:Peer Review. Currently, the requests go back to last year, meaning more than 5 months.

A deadline would permit easier archival. Artices actively being worked on can be re-listed without much of a problem.--Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that page existed! I'll try to improve the articles as will have lots of spare time coming up. After having barely any for a few months, teachers usually go easy on us for another few months. Watch out, New Changes! --Gwib -(talk)- 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Login woes?

Hello all,

This is simple english wikipedia, I would therefore like to uphold the policy of only permitting latin-character usernames. Since this probably goes against Unified Login, is there away to adapt it so that "mappings" can be defined from non-latin character names to latin character names? --Eptalon (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to edit?

Hello. I once saw the button to edit text as "change" but why has it now become "edit" like in English Wikipedia? Does everyone now see it that waay, or is it only me? Admins, did you do something? If anyone can answer me, I would be grateful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Contributer (talkcontribs)

It says "change this page" on one of the tabs at the top of the article, as opposed to "edit this page" on En Wiki. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that it USED to be "change" but now it is "edit". Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Contributer (talkcontribs)

Every now and then the software .."hiccups".. and reverts back to the default settings for a short time. This normally just affects the sidebar ("Getting around") but occasionally other fuctions are affected. It usually corrects itself after a short period. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. -- Creol(talk) 11:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll sign of next time. But it's still "edit". Prime Contributer (talk) Prime Contributer


I thought you lot might be interested to see this:

The Evolution of Simple Wikipedia's Main Page
- 478 changes narrowed down to 7 -

The beginning

First redesign

Second redesign

Layout change

Third redesign

Fourth redesign

Fifth redesign (and finally protected by Archer)

Sixth (and final) redesign

--Gwib -(talk)- 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh.....history.--   ChristianMan16  18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. It looks a lot better now. Cheers --  AmericanEagle  19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, is the link to second redesign really correct? - Is that one of your sublime messages, Gwib? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, an IP address took it upon himself to 'redesign' our dear Main Page and should be in the history of it :P. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd hard at the second redesign. Cassandra (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benniguy contacted me...

...and left this message to me on MySpace.

i need you to get the people on simple to run a chekuser on "Nobodyhome‎" and me.

The user is NOT me, but I think (and it's only a guess) it is Jonass Rand.

Can you please get them to do this quickly, since I am not allowed to talk on either English OR simple, meaning I have no way of explaining anything to them.


So what do we do?--   ChristianMan16  21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am logging into MySpace as I speak. Would it be possible if I can be emailed the link to see what happened? In my book it would be off-wiki horassment, and MySpace should be told immedially --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, get it into your head that requests for Checkusers go to theWP:RFCU page. From now on, I will only treat requests there. And secondly, NobodyHome connects from a different place than Benniguy. --Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be off-wiki horassment; but it would be impersonation. I still think action should be taken against this. --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about 75% sure Nobodyshome is Ionas68224 (Jonas Rand), and pretty certain it's not Benniguy. The writing style fits him perfectly, along with his ability to accept the worst excuses without question. Ionas68224 seems to be watching everything at the moment, and keeps sending us unban requests regularly. I wouldn't report this to MySpace either - ChristianMan16 has published his MySpace address on Wikipedia, and there was no part of that message which could be taken as harassment. If you no longer wish to talk to him, just block him on MySpace. Archer7 - talk 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages containing requests to do a checkUser..

Hello all,

there recently have been requests to do a checkuser listed here. Please list all requests to do a checkuser on the RFCU page. This will also make archiving and search easier. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Merging

I have recently noticed so many pages that are Nominated to be merged. These articles should not be there that long. Most of them were never discussed, but that doesn't mean they should stay that way for a year or two. Thoughts? --  AmericanEagle  05:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They will have to be looked at, one by one. Some can certainly be merged (like yet another, differently-colored pokemon into the pokemon article). Others should my opinion stay separate articles, such as AIDS (the disease), and HIV, the virus that causes it. Still others probably need discussion (like zero and 0 (number)). Going through the list and merging/not merging and removing the template would certainly be a worthwile task. --Eptalon (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello all, Our Category:Saints is getting rather full, I would therefore like to split it in subcategories:

  • Early Christian Saints (Up to one of the Ecumenical councils, if so, which one?)
  • Saints recognised by the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics,... (which of the Churches do we include?)

As far as I know the Protestants, Lutherans (etc) do not have the same concept of Saint

In general we have:

  • Greek hagios (άγιoς), Latin sanctus: Those selected by god, The Saints, but also the Holy Ghost
  • Greek hosios (όσιoς): Those acting according to the Commandments/Instructions of God
  • Greek hieros (ιερός), Latin sacer: Filled with divine might/power, or pertaining to it. Latin sacerdos means priest.

As always, open for suggestions.--Eptalon (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really against big categories, but if we really want to split up Saints, we could have Category:Male Saints and Category:Female Saints or Category:Martyrs? --Gwib -(talk)- 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from EN Wikipedia

Can we simply copy information from the English Wikipedia and put it onto Simple Wikipedia? Of course, editing it to make it simpler. Is it okay to do so? Prime Contributer (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so long as it is edited and sourced appropriately and simplified so that the sentences read easier, not just the words. TheWolf 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few books in Wikijunior written for children, in other words, it is simple. Can we copy text from there directly, adknowleging Wikijunior of course?Prime Contributer (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]