Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 4

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a copy of old messages from Simple Talk. They were moved here on December 2, 2006.

Simple English Phrase Book?

Do we have one? I have been going through and translating English into simpl english on an excel sheet. (Kind of reminds me of NewSpeak)

Board of Trustees elections

The elections will begin soon for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.

Here's the timeline:

Candidate entries:

  • Begins on Tuesday, 0:00 August 1, 2006 (UTC)
  • Ends on Monday, 23:59 August 28, 2006 (UTC)


  • Begins on Friday, 0:00 September 1, 2006 (UTC)
  • Ends on Thursday, 23:59 September 21, 2006 (UTC)

Voting is via Special:Boardvote. For more info see meta:Election. Archer7 - talk 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 000 articles

We now have 10 000 articles! Congratulations to everyone that has helped us get to this stage.

I've had us moved up a category on the multi-language portal ([1], so I think we are going to get a lot more traffic now. Archer7 - talk 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest helping patrol Special:Shortpages before we pat ourselves on the back. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. When Simple English WP had 9,995 articles, I decided to make five more, so that the 10,000th article would be the article I created. When I created Answerbag, I checked the Statistics and it said there were exactly 10,000 articles on this WP. If Answerbag isn't officially the 10,000th article, what is and why? Thanks, --E.N.G. 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not contributing here for the right reasons. I've deleted that page because it it way outside of our Core article philosophy, and was created hastily just to try and hit that arbitrary goal. I'll also look at those other five pages you made. -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact definition of the "official" 10,000th article, so I don't really know how to determine it. Looking at the current article count and new pages list, there seems to be an argument for Ida Saxton McKinley (or maybe Ellen Louise Wilson or biotechnology) being the 10,000th article. Dragging everyone thru a pissing contest to determine whether the first "10,000th article" or the last "10,000th article" is the "official" one I feel would be beneath Wikipedia's dignity, as well as a waste of people's valuable time. Freshstart 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then, how was Jordanhill Railway Station determined as the 1,000,000th article for sure on en? --E.N.G. 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There are many pages which have the word "alot" rather than "a lot". Should these be changed or are they allowed in Simple English? 0L1 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should be changed. There are several common mistakes throughout Simple. This just seem to be one of them. -- Psy guy 09:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, "Alot" is not even a word that appears in a standard dictionary. I think these should be changed. Billz (Talk) 09:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed all of the pages than come up in a search for "alot" but I think that there are many more. 0L1 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing this and helping Simple English Wikipedia. Billz (Talk) 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahad change it this is what the world is all about.

"Alot" is not a word in the dictionary. It is in common use. "A lot" has an EXTREMELY different meaning from "alot" however. "A lot" means a parcel of land. Any other use of "a lot" is just as incorrect as alot. "Alot" as it is used in common English would probably be best changed to "many." Huadpe 01:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my WordWeb program: Adverb: a lot 1. To a very great degree or extent; Synonyms: a great deal, much, very much.
On the other hand, "lot" can mean (paraphrased): Noun 1. a large number 2. a parcel of land 3. overall circumstances 4.any collection in its entirety 5. anthing chosen at random 6. Lot: [Old Testament] nephew of Abraham Verb: 1. divide into lots 2. administer
Also: Here is the main Wiktionary entry: en:a lot, and there is a pretty good entry for en:alot.
From that Wiktionary entry "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) also compares alot to awhile. It states alot to be “still regarded as nonstandard” and notes 50 appearances in the British National Corpus, “almost entirely from three sources: e-mail, TV autocue data, and TV newscripts.” It suggests that some usages of alot in typewritten use are to be considered merely typoes of the standard a lot though its appearance in handwriting and typescript is “more significant, as the shadow of things to come.”" [2] I would say given its transitory status (from non-word into more accepted usage) and the simple english guidline to not "use bad English: This is Simple English, not Bad English," [3] that "alot" and "a lot" should not be used. Huadpe 23:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and one of my personal bête noires, the use of "noone" for "en:no one", shows up in several Simple Wikipedia articles, so I will correct those. BlankVerse 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thijs!bot: bot request

Hello, I placed a request on Wikipedia talk:Bots to get a bot flag for Thijs!bot, my bot which adds interwiki-links on currently more than 25 wikipedia's, among which en, fr, de, es, it, pt, sv, and nl, i.e. alle major West-European languages, and a lot of small ones. I ran the bot for a while some time ago, it's changes can be seen on [4]. I would like to ask the community for approval for a bot flag. 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Thijs!

Cross references..

Hello all,

If there is an article about something, and that there are multiple names for the thing the article is about, those less common names should be linked (with REDIRECT) to the more common term. Just stubled upon Orkney (after writing Orkney Islands) and Shetland (after writing Shetlands).

Would be good if we could avoid such things in the future -- Eptalon 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{inuse}} template

Hello all, I copied the {{inuse}} template form the English wikipedia, since it may be useful to prevent edit conflicts. Since this has not been discussed, I commented out the official policy flags and the categories at the bottom. Unfortunately, the template refers to text that is not there (yet), so please help me rewrite the inuse template to not refer to this text.

Should editing help (and generally help pages) not link to the English wp, if they are not there in the simple one?

-- Eptalon 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing SE Wiktionary Within SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia

If I were not a native english speaker, what I would really like from a SE Wikibook or Wikipedia article would be to be able to look up any word I don't know without having to navigate away from the article I'm reading. What I've noticed in SE Wikipedia is that links get created for terms that need explanation. That's great. But unless a full article is written, people get upset that a stub has been created. The reader loses out because there is a term that needs explanation that has none.

I have seen the suggestion of putting alternate words or definitions in parentheses, but that doesn't take advantage of our database. Here's what I'd like to see: Could a window be put inside SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia for people to access SE Wiktionary definitions? --HSTutorials 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year categories

An IP has made hundreds of year categories (like 1347) with just one article in, the article of the year. It created a template with just the word 'category' in it, so I am assuming this was meant as disruption. Am I right that we don't need them and they should be deleted? Archer7 - talk 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete them - I'm sure they were never meant to be disruption, but we have no use for them until we get more articles of specific years, and even then we should only have few specific year categories. However it is going to be quite a job to delete them all. You might need to get a few more admins involved. T. Moitie|Talk|Esperanza 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First proposal
Second proposal

As many of you probably feel, the text in the current logo is not anti-aliased and is in need of repair to give the Simple English Wikipedia a more professional and welcoming look. I've created two draft proposals for a new logo.

The first proposal builds on a design proposed by Eloquence when the current logo was put in place, while the second uses the current format albeit with a different font. Both have been rasterized from the best quality sources I could find on Meta.

I'd like to know what everyone feels about this, and if anybody has better ideas, I'd be happy to incorporate them. Cheers, Tangotango 18:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ooh, I like these. I would be happy if we used either of them. I think I like the second one a little more -- "Simple English Wikipedia" somehow seems a little bit more professional/official than "Wikipedia in Simple English." But, either is good. :) Luna Santin 09:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales spoke to me and he said he likes the second one. But both were nice, as he claimed.

[20:46] <Tdxiang> a new logo proposal, sir 
[20:46] <Tdxiang> for the Simple English Wikipedia 
[20:46] <Tdxiang> which one would you pick? 
[20:46] <jwales> nice I like the 2nd one better 
[20:46] <jwales> but both are nice 
[20:47] <Tdxiang> thank you,sir 

-- Tdxiang 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New variation

Proposed logo, third variation

I've made a third variation per Netoholic's suggestion. I've also uploaded new versions of the two previous proposals, using a new globe with the diacritics that were missing. - Tangotango 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really like this version because of the way it repeats Wikipedia. Billz (Talk) 09:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked him to word it ""Simple English Encyclopedia" - just a simple mistake. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I've re-uploaded the proper version over the old one. Cheers, Tangotango 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, sry. This version is not really my favourite one, I have to agree Tangotangos speech. mfg --- ארגה · · Manecke 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like 'Encyclopedia' that much. But it's no big deal, it's much better than what we've got. Archer7 - talk 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do we do now? Can we have a more formal vote before the discussion goes too stale :P? Cheers, Tangotango 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the week?

English Wikipedia has a collaboration of the week and it is very useful to them. I was thinking, maybe we could make a similar system for this Wikipedia. It would give us the ability to concentrate on the core topics and hopefully we would be able to get a lot of core articles to Very Good status (52 a year!). Once we have this going it would demonstrate the quality of articles this Wikipedia can achieve. T. Moitie|Talk|Esperanza 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds like a great idea! Blockinblox 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't much of a response, but I'm going to go ahead and do it, and if it isn't the right direction for Simple English Wikipedia, an admin can rollback and delete the page. T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a page listing perhaps 2-3 articles that need the most work (simplification, extending, etc) would be a good thing to have. There are enough candidates for such articles around. -- Eptalon 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone using informal English?

I see loads of articles that use "don't" instead of "do not" or "they're" instead of "they are". This is even encouraged in the Simple English guide and I can't imagine why you people are using it. Most languages are taught formally on paper - words like "they're" only appear in written speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have noticed this on pages, and I agree, its not good, but could you please refer to where it is encouraged in the guide so we can change it. Cheers, T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with too. Billz (Talk) 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest running a bot to fix these, but I'd be afraid of impacting titles and quotes instead of just the prose. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Netoholic, i´ve to agree with you. mfg --- ארגה · · Manecke 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Madonna singles page, dispute really

I am an avid Madonna follower and get a lot of information from Wikipedia. I understand that anyone can go in and change a sales figure for example. I am referring to her hit single Hung Up. It was number one if 41 countries, that so far is undisputed. The sales figure has shown about the 8.6 to 8.9 million copy range which seems right. I go in today and it shows 5 million which there is no way it undersold her single for Sorry. In fact, I will say that Hung Up, since it set hit records world wide would be her most successful selling single. I'm just bringing this to your attention because someone is messing with the page. Whoever has the actual fact, please put it up and block any further changes.

Its a very good comment you are making here. Usually, what we want in Wikipedia, also the simple one, is hard facts. So the correct way to report this figure, would problably be, according to ... (insert link) 'Hung up' has sold ... copies. I odnt konw how many were sold, but I also have bought a copy of 'Confessions on the Dancefloor' - Eptalon 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire schools

All schools across the county of Lancashire in the UK have been unable to access Simple for several weeks now, due to Simple being blocked in their content filtering system. I've contacted the admininstrator of the system, and we are now on their allow list, which I know will help out at least 3 of our contributors, and hopefully a few more students that need us for reference. Everyone will have access from tomorrow.

However, this does have a downside. We did have a bit of vandalism from school IPs in Lancashire operated by CLEO. I think I've managed to label every CLEO IP on it's talk page, but if other administrators find one causing trouble, please only block anonymous users, and try and keep blocks to 24 hours at a time. Archer7 - talk 16:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement of the Month

I thought the best way to get some of the core articles off their feet would be to have a similar system to English Wikipedia's Article Creation and Improvement Drive. So I'd like to announce Simple English Wikipedia's Article Improvement of the Month! I've created this here, and I hope that it can find it's feet pretty quickly so we can get some really good contributions to articles through it. Feel free to discuss changes on the project talk page, and hopefully I'll see you all there. T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I'd feel better about this complex procedure if it had come from someone who'd actually worked on an article in any major way. Until then, focus efforts on the EXISTING Project:Peer review. -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I have worked on an article in a major way, and that Peer review is a completely different thing with completely different aims. The idea of AIM is to get articles worked on and then submitted for peer review where a separate process would make it a Very good article. Also I'd like to ask why you got the decision to delete without any kind of consensus. Why are you better than everyone else? T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate relaity is that experienced users often come here from their native language wikipedias, and try to bring complex procedures with them - often, like this case, without establishing consensus to create or even establishing the basic need for the process. What we really need is less "organization" and "process" and more work. The only article I think you've sginificantly worked on is Linux, and, while minor corrections and stub/unsimple/cleanup tagging have their purpose, down-and-dirty article work is what's needed. -- Netoholic @ 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that, but again, I come back to the point of you having the privileges to delete what you see fit, which shouldn't be the case. Speedy delete should be reserved for vandalism, and your's and the admin's say is the final say, but it shouldn't be the only say. T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My say is not final, which is why I'm here talking to you. Your page was complex and duplicated existing resources. There are already SEVERAL ways to find articles for improvement - Project:Peer review, Project:Recentchanges ("Improvement"), categories for Category:Complex pages and others. Admins have the responsibility to keep things orderly, so that people can work on the articles here without worrying about such things. People also come here because they dislike the way their own native language wikis have devolved into process and complexity. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Simple does not need to just refer to the words used on the articles. -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New logo (2)

Hi, just a reminder that there is an updated version of a third proposal in the #New logo section above. At the moment the majority of people seem to like the second version; please tell us what you think of the third version. Thanks, Tangotango 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a unified sign-in between wikis?

I often find myself jumping between WikiTravel, WikiSource, Wikipedia, etc since an entry in one can be useful in the other, with some tweeking. Could the the big wikis get together and have a shared username system?

This is a good idea, but I doubt it will ever happen. You can make each one remember you by ticking the box during log in, so that you do not have a to log into each project. Billz (Talk) 07:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All wikis hosted by the Wikimedia Foundatio will have a shared username system in a few weeks. All wikis hosted by Wikia already have it. Archer7 - talk 11:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay!! --BenMcLean 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



my question is short "Why arne#t there any protals in the simple:english" i would love to begin one and the other. mfg ---- ארגה · · Manecke 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple Wikipedia is still too small and not as active enough for there to be Portals or WikiProjects.--TBCΦtalk? 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, but never say never again! mfg --- ארגה · · Manecke 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm new to Simple English Wikipedia. Does "popups" exist in this wiki? (See Popups)

--Myselfalso 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, I believe you can use the same code as on EN. Archer7 - talk 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they work in the simple.pedia. mfg...ארגה · · Manecke 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11,000 articles, A new milestone

Dear users.

the simple.pedia has now over 11,000 articles, next step is 12,000 so let´s go work!

mfg --- ארגה · · Manecke 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to play Sudoku

I can't figure it out anywhere, and the original Wikipedia's article is far too long. I simply don't have the time to learn how to play the game by reading such a long article.

Therefore, can someone make a Sudoku article here, please? I'd like to know how to play it quick-and-easy. --E.N.G. 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.N.G.: simple.pedia doesn´t mean simple articles, it means articles in simple english.
mfg -- ארגה · · Manecke 11:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently created an article on Sudoku [5]. Cheers, --TBCΦtalk? 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized templates

I've started categorizing templates in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates, as they are done on the English Wikipedia and (I suspect) a lot of other wikis. This is important because although we only have a small number of templates today, the number grows every day, making remembering the names of all the templates difficult or impossible. Also, tomorrow's users won't necessarily know all these templates, so I think it's crucial that we begin this categorization process now. There are still some things to decide (e.g., Do we need a subcategory for all the various types of infoboxes, or will a simple "Category:Infoboxes" suffice?) For now, I've created a list of uncategorized templates at User:Tangotango/Uncategorized templates from the toolserver, so please start categorizing templates if you have time :) Cheers, Tangotango 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I've categorized around 80% of the templates [6], but it's getting late so I'll work on the rest tomorrow.--TBCΦtalk? 08:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TBC! :) I've updated the list with the latest information from the database. This time I've removed redirects in the Template namespace, as they don't need categories. Cheers, Tangotango

Vandalism templates

There are currently nine vandalism warning templates [7] (not including the block or advert tempates). Of these templates, most are very similar, thus some need to either be merged, redirected, or deleted. Any thoughts on this? --TBCΦtalk? 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should lessen the number. Nine is just way more than necessary. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

The Simple wiki currently has over 11,000 articles, so isn't it about time that we have some sort of featured article process?--TBCΦtalk? 17:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even though we don't have many articles worthy of "featured" notation, it might prove as an incentive to make better articles before making new ones. PullToOpen π/φ 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not many of our articles are up to the standard required for being a featured article, to be honest, so I would wait until Simple English Wikipedia grows before we have featured articles. Billz (Talk) 10:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, as PullToOpen mentioned, wouldn't a "featured article" process create more of an incentive for users to create better articles? Also, the Simple Wiki's FA standards don't have to be as strict as those on the main Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an outline for the page on User:TBC/Featured article--TBCΦtalk? 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see the existing Project:Peer review (to turn pages into Category:Very good articles) be used before jumping all the way to a Featured article procedure. -- Netoholic @ 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PR states that "if you see an excellent article here, add {{vgood}} to the page", meaning that anyone can tag an article as "very good", regardless of what the consensus of the Peer Review was. Becuase of this, this process isn't very effective for determining the quality of an article.--TBCΦtalk? 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting more members

To help advertise the existence of the Simple Wikipedia, we could add a link on the default welcome templates used by the main English Wikipedia. After all, if one has enough knowledge of English to edit the main Wikipedia, then one should also be able to edit the simple Wikipedia as well. Any thoughts on this?--TBCΦtalk? 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would never be accepted. And possibly rather confusing for new users. Archer7 - talk 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about mentioning it under the "Things to do section" on the Community Portal?--TBCΦtalk? 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're two different projects, and I think that distinction is important. Someone who values sources and accuracy at En.WP will not necessarily like the, well, simple approach we take here, and may not prove to be a very good Simple.WP editor. Although we can probably improve our visibility in other places (such as at meta, mailing lists and other "international" venues where more experienced users hang out), I personally don't think En.WP is the right place. - Tangotango 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Woes

For whatever reason, I can't access #simple-wikipedia IRC from the links posted around the site. The client I use for IRC, called Trillian, requires two things to sign on to IRC: a Server Alias, and a number in the form of "". Any help in getting these two values would be much appreciated. Thanks. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mIRC seems to work. You can always download that client.--TBCΦtalk? 08:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used Trillian, but I guess the server alias can be anything. The "number in the form of..." you want is "" (are you sure you need two colons?) Cheers, Tangotango 09:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New logo vote

I would like to initiate a vote to choose our new logo, as discussed above at #New logo. Please leave your signature under a heading here if you support that proposal. The vote will run for one week, until 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC). Please vote even if you have commented in the section above. Thank you, Tangotango 14:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

Proposal 1

Proposal 2 (improved status quo)

Proposal 2
  1. Our present logo was a result of a blog post which complained that Wikipedia's quality was poor. They had accidently found their way to Simple English Wikipedia and thought it was the "real" one. The current logo is a result of this, because the Foundation wanted to make Simple visually distinct from EN. I like #3, so the above is the only reason I am voting for #2. It seems like a nice clean-up for our current logo and so I've uploaded it for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 07:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this logo!!! It's simple...the important word....and after wikipedia :-) --Vector (write to me please) 08:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's just something about it that works. Archer7 - talk 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Simplest. ...Aurora... 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks nice and simple Ksbrown 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like, but I think the "A" should be made the same size as the other letters. Having a big "A" makes sense and looks good on the main site, but here it doesn't seem right. People are going to be spelling it WikipediA instead of Wikipedia. --BenMcLean 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like how the simple english is before wikipedia. It does not look right when it says wikipedia in simple english.--Sir James Paul 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

Proposal 3
  1. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs
  2. TBCΦtalk?
  3. Luna Santin 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I understand the Foundation's concerns, as noted by Netoholic, but I have a feeling that having text above the "WikipediA" makes the logo a bit visually distracting, and hence unprofessional. - Tangotango 08:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I support this cause for a logo change.-- Tdxiang @ 09:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per User:Tangotango. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of w:WP:ANI#Editor_who_self-indentifies_as_14_with_massive_amounts_of_personal_data. Thanks, commons:User:pfctdayelise 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW this page is kinda painful to find, from this native English speaker's perspective. Linking it more prominently on Wikipedia:Community Portal might help. commons:User:pfctdayelise 08:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In relation to this, User:'s actions seem highly suspect. Please see its contributions to see what I mean. Cheers, Tangotango 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably just a hunch, but I get a feeling that the Anita vandals and Kimberly may have been in it together. It could be that Kimberly was engaging in sort of a pointless "puppet fight", with herself controlling both sides, creating and removing vandalism. Also, the IP linked above by Tangotango is listed on Kimberly's vandal section. Sometime before, another user (Possibly Tdxiang?) was wondering if Kimberly "personally knew Anita". I suppose Kimberly would want to increase her "respect", of sorts, in removing vandalism by making the problem and then be the person solving it. Its just a theory, and may very well be totally wrong, but I think it may be worth throwing out. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the user who questioned Kimmy about her knowledge of the identity of Anita was me. It seemed that this "Anita" charater was sort of a bully to Kimmy, causing trouble to her.-- Tdxiang @ 03:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the more likely scenario. Kid A says to his friends at the school library/computer lab "Hey, check out this Wikipedia where you can change the pages!". Kids B-E all jump on and start messing around. Kid A feels bad and starts fixing whatever damage his/her friends did. Replace Kid A with Teacher A (showing the class about Wikipedia) and it works much the same, except no one goes and fixes things. This exact thing has happened at least a dozen times that I know of. It is something to simply accept and deal with when it happens - its the cost of being openly editable. -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a chance that the user is neither a female or a child (after all, this is the interweb). o_O But then again, due to the anonymity of Wikipedian users, I suppose anything is possible....--TBCΦtalk? 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta bot request

I'm on Wikipedia as SBHarris, and just discovered Simple English Wikipedia. Kick me if this has been suggested someplace else, but it occurs to me that what Simple English Wikipedia needs, is a lot of robotic flagging of articles to see which of their component words are part of the Basic English 850, or 1500, or derivatives thereof (a much longer list). The output might give words in three different colors, for example.

It would be most useful if a user had some way of running the `bot repetitively on an article, while editing it. The best place for the bot to run in the background, would obviously be to have it run every time the user did a "show preview." Results would come up very much like the "linked" or "unlinked" colors now used for THOSE purposes.

For this reason, such a "bot" would really ideally be part of the mediawiki software that runs this place. But anything would help.

Without a lot of experience, it's quite difficult for the average native English speaker to tell if words below a certain complexity are part of the BE 850 or 1500. However, with these things automatically flagged by bot, it IS easy even for inexperienced people to spot target words outside basic English, and then to make a decision if there is some shorter and more basic replacement that works as well, or if the word needs to stand "as is."

Won't one of your considerate 'bot makers (or you software mogels who did the original programming for this Version) consider working on this? It really would change everything here.

Sharris 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (SBHarris on Wikipedia).[reply]

I sugget either commenting on Wikipedia:Bots or contacting an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done it. We'll see what happens. Sharris 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Simple English is eerily reminiscent of Newspeak, of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four - —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that doubleplusgood comment. Would you like to contribute to this Wikipedia? We do, incidentally, have an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four, which you may like to improve. Cheers, Tangotango 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have noticed the similarity, and Orwell/Blair may well have been criticisig or parodying Basic English in his description of Newspeak [8]. Blair spent a long time communicating in pidgin English (sort of a precursor to Basic English) in places like Burma, and came to associate that speech perhaps with imperialism, which he really hated. Orwell really didn't know the Soviet Union that well, so his novel 1984 could be characterized as British Imperialism Gone Mad, complete with linguistic excesses, which (as a writer) Orwell must have found odious. But you have to learn to separate the politics from the action, hard though it may be. To Orwell, pidgin was the language of imperialism. It doesn't HAVE to be. Sharris 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole goal here is to help people learn better normal English though - not to eliminate words. --BenMcLean 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a native English speaker, I find much of this encyclopedia awkward to read. If the goal is to help people learn correct English, perhaps more care should be taken with how the articles are written.
For example (from the Main page): "Read the help pages and other good pages to learn how to write pages for here". This does not sound like how any native English speaker would speak or write. A better option might be "Read the help pages and other useful pages to learn how to write your own pages for this encyclopedia". I don't think that's any less "simple," and it sounds a lot less awkward.
My point is really this: The goal of the simple English Wikipedia is to be easier to read for those with a lesser command of the language, but this doesn't mean it should be harder to read for native speakers. This is what I find when I read it, because of the awkwardness of the language.
Sometimes when translating from "regular" English to simple English, more may be required than just changing long/difficult words into simpler ones. The sentence and paragraph structure may need to be modified or rewritten to make the sentences and paragraphs flow well. 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia

I just came across Simple English Wikipedia from an interwiki link. And I just want to say I think it is wonderful that such a thing exists. English is one of the hardest of the world's major languages to learn, and this is, hopefully and theoretically, a wonderful way for people to practice. Now if only there were a Simple Japanese Wikipedia.... LordAmeth 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]


See User:Mewhar/Return to Simple English Wikipedia.Mewhar 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. While you were gone, the Wikipedia:Esperanza project was created (similar to the one on the English Wikipedia), so feel free to join. :) --TBCΦtalk? 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Miagop and User talk:Reri Horlockon. Archer7 - talk 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an English teacher, and new to Wikipedia. Simple Wikipedia is wonderful. But I suggest you make a prominent suggestion to contributors who are English learners to identify themselves as learners. People use this site to learn English, but there are several articles I have seen written in very poor English, by people who are obviously foreigners. I will correct what I see, but I won't be able to do much. I suggest a prominent hint to slow down the rate at which bad English is put before unsuspecting learners. And English teachers, tell your students to let you correct their work! donthegrammarian 13 11 2006

Audio recordings of articles?

Hi. I'm mainly a enWiki editor, but was thinking that simple might benefit from something like en:Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Does anybody have any input on this? Is there already a similar project here? I'd be willing to do quite a few recordings for simple. Cheers! --Storkk 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I know, Archer7 is heading up work on spoken articles here. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Grammar?

I know that the Simple English Wikipedia was created to help people learn English. However, it seems that the only measure of "simplicity" that we use here now is how complicated the words are. English grammar can be extremely difficult to understand (even for a native speaker like me). So, should Simple English have simple(r) grammar and sentence structure as well? PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea, but could you clarify on how simple "Simple grammar" should be? For example, should tenses still be used?--TBCΦtalk? 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis of the current vogue of referring to Richard I of England as Richard Lion Heart rather than the older Richard the Lionhearted. As a translation of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, it seems a petty distinction. Enlighten me! Thanks BillKass 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Everyone who wants to hep to increase the quality of our articles can now use the category, to watch every {stub} article. mfg --- ארגה · · Manecke 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeatedly rejcted the category. Use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub. -- Netoholic @ 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I want to open the simple:wikinews, but first i wanted to ask you if there is any interest for such a project. mfg ---- ארגה · · Manecke 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to wait until Simple Wikibooks, Simple Wikiquotes, and Simple Wikitionary get larger before starting another wiki.--TBCΦtalk? 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're talking about closing all Simple projects except Wikipedia on Meta at the moment, another one is not going to go down well. Archer7 - talk 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fish

While I love the game description here in Simple English, it is hardly accurate. Perhaps it could be left in as a variation on the game's real rules, but for now I will have to go elsewhere to learn how to play ... Go Fish

I fixed it. ONUnicorn 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request

There has been a CheckUser request to check users Tangotango and Geeksluvpi. I wanted to announce, that neither Tangotango, nor Geeksluvpi have been using any sockpuppets on the Simple Wikipedia, nor are they sockpuppets of themselves.

And, uh... That's all. Thank you for your attention. Datrio 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a Wikipedia:Civility policy proposal. Any thoughts and/or suggestions?--TBCΦtalk? 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to Wikipedia:Be kind. "Civility" isn't a simple word, and we can easily avoid using it. Also, I like the directive (tell people what to do) title "be kind" rather than just a descriptive (tell people what it is) title. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to Wikipedia:Be helpful instead. The word "Kind" has many different definitions, which may confuse readers who don't know a lot of English. Also, "Be Kind" is a very vague title, and does not accurately describe the purpose of the page.--TBCΦtalk? 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking "Be gentle" would be more faithful to the original meaning, although "Be helpful" is even better advice, it still doesn't mean exactly the same as "Be nice"... Blockinblox 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Kind" is a BE 850 word and works. "Nice" is a city in France. -- Netoholic @ 07:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about "Be helpful"? Help is also listed as a BE 850 word.--TBCΦtalk? 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can be helpful to a Wiki without being civil. -- Netoholic @ 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touche, though one can also technically be civil without being kind. Anyhow, let's keep it at "Be Kind" then, since it does't really matter if it's either "Be Helpful" or "Be Kind", as both are great advice. --TBCΦtalk? 03:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Instead of simply deleting old RfD nominations, should we archive them? After all, this way it would be easier to keep track of what the previous consensus for an article is when it is nominated for deletion a second time.--TBCΦtalk? 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are already two archives for RfDs: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 1 and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 2. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are? Sorry, I didn't realize it....--TBCΦtalk? 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Encyclopedia per child

The "one Laptop per child" project have a page on their wiki proposing the dretion of an encyclopedia for distribution with their laptop. [[9]].

The English Wikipedia has a page discussing this too. [[10]].

These pages propose the creation of an encyclopedia based on the Simple English Wikipedia.

I would like to help with such a project. What can I do? Is anything happening here yet? Is there a page here for discussing this? Filceolaire 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is over a month late, but can everyone take a look at this? It looks interesting. Archer7 - talk 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic RfC

I have started an RfC on Meta about Netoholic. Your comments are obviously very important. Archer7 - talk 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not many

There are not many simple english wikipedia articles compared to those for english wikipedia. It makes it harder for the reader to understand or to get information to what they are looking for in a simplier form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk (talkcontribs)

If there aren't a lot of simple wiki articles, then why don't you help the project through creating more? --TBCΦtalk? 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for pages that do not exist yet

Hello, I just noticed that Record is a disambiguation page for several different kinds of records. However, none of the pages it refers to, exist. Are we really sure this is a good way to do things here, or should we start by creating one or two of those record pages first, and only then create the disambiguation? - just thoughts -- Eptalon 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was copied from the standard English page. [11] It needs to be simplified.ONUnicorn 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Special:Statistics show 92 total pageviews?

This seems very unlikely. Does anyone know what is causing this bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes. The software only counted pageviews in June and July of 2004 (or smething like that). This feature was quickly discontinued for all mediawikis because it dragged down the servers, so the number is never going to get any higher. That statistic is totally irrelevant now, so I might as well fix it so it doesn't even show up any more. Blockinblox 12:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Question

I am in the process of making my own wikipedia bot. However, I have a sinking feeling that it is going to cause total chaos and destruction if I test it here. Is there a place I can go (doesn't have to be on simple wikipedia) where I can test my bot without causing any major damage? Thanks. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 22:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got the robot to work. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you need a test site in the future, I think that's what this wiki is for. zephyr2k 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of bug in there, apparently. It shows pages which haven't been created at all...-- Tdxiang @ 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a while for Special:Deadendpages to update, so its entirely possible that the dead end pages in question were deleted before Special:Deadendpages could be updated again.--TBCΦtalk? 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Lounge Games

Ok, what is the policy for playing games in the Coffee Lounge? Have we even had a discussion concerning the topic? (And if there has been, can somebody tell me where?) PullToOpen Talk 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Change this page"

As a non-native English speaker I find it very offending that people here assume we don't know a simple word like "edit". Umh, hello? We're not stupid! ばか外人・・・ --現実の戦士 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we have to account for all non-native speakers (e.g. first-year students) who might not know the word "edit". Here, we try to use words from the Basic English alphabetical wordlist to keep the english as simple as possible. "Edit" is not among those words, but "change" is. PullToOpen Talk 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is no slur against you or any individual. The point is to make these pages as simple as possible so that as many people as possible can understand them. Did you look at the Basic English vocabulary of 850 words? That is what people are aiming for when they try to write these articles in simple English. No one is saying you personally are stupid. -- 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2007 Team Bulletin

Published by the Wikimania 2007 Taipei Team, Wikimania 2007 Team Bulletin provides the latest news of the Team's organizing work to everyone who is interested in Wikimania; it also gives the Team chances to announce calls for help/participation, so assistance in human and other resources can be sought in a wider range. Team Bulletin is published at the official website of Wikimania 2007 and released to the public domain. Issue 1 and Issue 2 has already published.-- 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot determine why I've been blocked.

Academic Challenger has blocked me, saying that FIGON has been using my IP address. I do not know enough about your system to be able to challenge that allegation. I'm not a computer genius, not even close, but I should be able to follow the directions about asking to be unblocked. I've spent more than 30 minutes trying to contact Academic Challenger, and cannot, and that's all the time I'm willing to give on a wild goosechase. I've contributed a certain amount of knowledge so far, and I do resent being blocked and unable to get unblocked without spending hours. So, I give up, and concede victory to the person calling himself/herself Academic Challenger. Marsha Huie, law professor

Basic English 850 word list

I try to aim at having my articles written in Basic English with the word list of 850 words. However, when comparing two of these word lists, I notice that they are not the same. For example, the word list here includes the words "please" and "pleasure" but the word list here does not include the words "please" and "pleasure". What am I missing? --Filll 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either there are no articles for "please" and "pleasure" or someone hasn't added the articles to the category. The list is more complete than the category. zephyr2k 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand. Is the word "please" part of the list of 850 Basic English words or not? Or is it true that the vertical alphabetical list only includes those words in the list of 850 with their own articles? --Filll 20:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the vertical list is a category. It only includes those with articles for the word that has been added to the category. zephyr2k 04:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic English Pictures

We have a library of 200 pictures for some of the 850 words in Basic English here. Are we allowed to use these pictures in our articles?--Filll 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you can. PullToOpen Talk 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SE Wiktionary integration

Now that the simple english wiktionary is off its vote for deletion and has over 1,000 entries, I think we should begin to begin to weave the projects together. Instead of defining the BE850 articles here, it would be easier (and personally, more effective) to define them all on wiktionary. Also, about half of the BE850 entries are done there anyway. For example, we could change the "wiktionary has an entry on this..." so that it links to SE wiktionary instead of english. I would gladly spearhead this if anybody wants to try. PullToOpen Talk 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to integrate SE Wiktionary here for a long time. I have been only actively opposed by User:Netoholic. Hopefully, this can actually happen now. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic Request to Stewards

Netoholic has been put on a request to Stewards on Meta. Your commments on this issue are needed.-- Tdxiang 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kid-friendly simple wikipedia

I've recently asked Netoholic whether this WP is kid-friendly or not. Knowing that our target readers include children, I thought this WP would already be and that I would be directed to a page regarding it. But he replied that right now, Simple WP is not yet kid-friendly and that there is no official policy or guideline making it such. So the question is, should Simple WP become kid-friendly? Or should it follow the steps of its EN counterpart of being uncensored? zephyr2k 06:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the mission of this Wikipedia as a tool to help those who learn the language (mainly as a foreign language), and those who translate from one language to another. Sure, it might also appeal to the younger audience. I do however not think that we should specially treat the information (to remove profanity, allusions to sex, etc) from it. Kids that do not know such things yet will find out themselves, or they (hopefully) will be told by their parents how such things work. Besides, if the kids can use WP, they will also be able to use a search engine to find such information online. So if parents want to keep their kids from finding out, a client-based filter is better suited. -- Eptalon 11:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are assuming that zephyr2k was suggesting something too extreme. No one suggested that we remove all profanity, etc. I think it this is an important discussion we need to have, so please don't start by assuming things that no one has said.
I think we can all agree that EN Wikipedia is censored to some degree. No, it is not censored for kids, but it is censored by the editors who generally agree that some content is to be avoided. What we on Simple need to do is define that line for ourselves. Personally, I think that we should not ignore tha potential usefulness of Simple in a school environment. We have the flexibility to set our line a little more towards that audience because EN wikipedia is less censored. Yes, that information is out there for any kid who has internet access, but what we should do is make sure that every article which could potentially be useful to a teacher in a school (Wikipedia:Core articles) is appropriate for that use. Articles about sex and anatomy (for example) would not show any more than a kid would find looking in their own library. But we can still leave pages on explicit subjects as they are, because those would not be be used by a teacher.
In short, Simple Wikipedia "on the whole" is not censored, but we should be tasteful on our Core articles. How does that sound as a start. -- Netoholic @ 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this thread here, but I gave my thoughts on this at User_talk:Zephyr2k#Kid_friendly.3F already, when probably I should have posted them here... Blockinblox 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree that we ourselves should use our better sense to define the line of what is appropriate. The 'line' does not have to rest on a literally defined policy, that people might be inclined to push against (such is human nature). We should also keep in mind that probably many schools or public libraries won't even pull up the pages that have some profanity, because of blocking software. Blockinblox 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the discussion is basically if a certain image is good to illustrate a given article; For most schools they will probably use filter software anyway. -- Eptalon 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that blocking software is used in developing countries. I live in the Philippines and I haven't known any school or parent here that has installed blocking software on their PCs. zephyr2k 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the United States, and any blocking protocol that I have seen only blocks pages that are specifically chosen to be blocked (like MySpace,, etc.), and doesn't automatically block the pages according to the content. I believe that only pictures should be censored, but all the information in question should still be there. PullToOpen Talk 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, pictures shouldn't be censored, but only if no other, less offending picture is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.--TBCΦtalk? 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think I would ever be for censoring, but looking at the section on reproductive system I would have to say that a "Clinical diagram" type image may be a much better idea for use than a close up vagina picture. Compare the image selection for hymen to those of clitoris and vulva. -- Creol 08:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple guides on what to do on certain pages?

Hello, SimpleWP may serve as a guide on what to do in situations where there is little or no time to react (that is to say: emergencies). I have tried to put a what to do section on medical emergency. This is largely based on the enlgish WP. I have now written a short stub on Resuscitation (what EnWP has as . There are several issues though:

  1. In my opinion the english one is too long to be of use in such a situation.
  2. There are links to Wikibooks on the subject. Those wikibooks may however be too hard for simple users to understand.
  3. All emergency numbers on all such pages are a nightmare to keep up to date.

Therefore, the basic question is, what to do. Do we drop all such info, do we centralise it in simple wikibooks on the subject, or should we leave the situation as is? -- Eptalon 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to either reword the section so it doesn't sound like a guide or to move the section to the Simple English version of WikiBooks.--TBCΦtalk? 08:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


On Administrators page a vote is being held to see if there is consensus on simple.wikipedia to keep o to remove Netoholic as bureaucrat. Other administrators can put their own candidature as well. --M7 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before talking about removing our current bureaucrat, we should perhaps consider the alternatives. I know that dispute, User:Archer7 is talking about, I tried to mediate (bring the parties together). Being a Bureaucrat has a lot to do with trust, and being sure that the person who holds these powers will not abuse them. I agree that User:Netoholic may not be the ideal candidate, but before voting for someone, who has held the admin privilege for less than a month, I prefer to keep the current structure (also for lack of an alternative). I therefore think, this poll should be dropped, unless we are given real alternatives. -- Eptalon 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>But that wouldn't allow M7 to keep attacking me for perceived wrongs!</sarcasm> -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked all other administrators to give a supporting hand. After all, if helped by someone else, even Netoholic might be able to continue in his work, since he could mediate decisions with other people. Let's see if someone else voluteers in doing bureaucrat chores and please remember that, in defect, this role can be demanded to Wikimedia Stewards. --M7 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never had any problem if someone else wanted to become a bureaucrat as well. Do not punish me because no one else has really stood up. It is a difficult position, and I can undertand why anyone seeing the recent problems you've caused would not want the pressure of such a position. I have performed as a bureaucrat for many months without any problem. Tangotango's promotion was delayed only because I was away, and I made a judgement call on Tdxiang. You cannot judge all of my work just because you disagreed with those. -- Netoholic @ 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only that. You've had a long history of cases of uncivility [12][13][14]. Though I do agree that you've contributed a lot to the project, you've been repeatedly told to improve, yet you don't seem to do so. --TBCΦtalk? 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12, 000 articles

We've reached another milestone, 12,000 articles! Great job everyone, and keep up the good work.--TBCΦtalk? 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should start some sort of outreach towards schools. We already have a system for schools to follow (Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide), a schools portal and a student tutorial. I think we need a way of letting people know we're here. Any ideas? Archer7 - talk 12:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At schools, be it primary, secondary, or university, teachers tend to warn students not to use Wikipedia, due to concerns over Wikipedia usefulness as a reference.--TBCΦtalk? 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things dumped from enwiki

What should be done with things like Car rental? These pages are clearly just copies and pastes of the content from the English Wikipedia, with no simplification and no changes to show that it's taken from there. That makes it a violation of the GFDL because it's not attributing the true authors at enwiki. Should these be deleted and rewritten in a way that fits with policy? Just simplified and a link given to enwiki saying that the information came from there? Should a message be sent to the creator telling them why it's bad to do this? --Rory096 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it depends on the origional cut and paste. In the article in question atleas the person thought enough to get the actually wiki-text to cut and paste rather than the un-marked up text that gets displayed. A short cleanup (bad templates, redirecting links, re-catagorize ) and light simplification (or heavy depending on subject..) and it should be fine here. Most times when I create, I start with the en:wiki version and reword/simp/trim content from there to get a simple:wiki version. This helps ensure correct info as best as possible without having to totally research an article. All Wiki articles are (to the best of my knowledge) open source. Pick a popular topic on en:wiki and google the first line of it and you are likely to find 3-4 other sites mirroring wiki articles. The only problem with En:wiki articles here seems to be the need to simplify them (and add the Inwiki link back to en:wiki) as best as possible before including them. -- Creol 07:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're free to reproduce, but the GFDL (which articles are licensed under) requires attribution of the authors. This is usually done, at least on mirror sites, by linking back to the original Wikipedia page (where the history is kept). --Rory096 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Archer7 - talk 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple english phrases

I doubt if we have a book for this. Do let me know if you find one.--Darrendeng 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for English sayings

Hi does someone have a good source for old English sayings?--Johnhardcastl 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't but Wikiquote might.--TBCΦtalk? 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is probably a dumb question, but I may as well ask it anyway. Is this Wikipedia censored? J Di 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above entitled 'A kid-friendly simple Wikipedia' for our recent discussion on the level of censoring. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist text

I couldn't find any pages for getting administrators' attention, so I'm just putting this here. Is there a reason why talk is capitalised in MediaWiki:Watchdetails? J Di 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. It was probably there because it's about pages in the 'Talk' namespace, rather than describing them as talk pages, but it looks better with a lowercase 't'. You can post requests to admins in the section on Wikipedia:Administrators. Archer7 - talk 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am new to the Simple English Wikipedia, but I write and fix things a lot on the regular English Wikipedia with the same name. I think Wikipedia:Vandalism should have a {{policy}} tag on it, but I wanted to ask here first. Thanks, Dar-Ape 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]