Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 40

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page proposal

Somewhat to distract from one of the most controversial RfA I've seen in a while, but mostly to get opinions and stimulate interest; what do people think of the new MAIN PAGE PROPOSALS?

There are (at the moment), 3 proposals reigning. The 'Approval' tags are to see which designs are preferred, so we can focus our attention on one or two proposals instead of 3.

Proposal Approval
Ryan Cross' design 0
Jennavecia's design (grey) 1
Jennavecia's design (blue) 6

Each have their ups, their downs, and I wanted to raise awareness that these excellent ideas for prettying up (TRM will kill me for saying that) our Main Page. What opinions do people have? --Gwib -(talk)- 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I like this design the best. The introduction picture's still messing itself up, though. Ought we delete it? Minor Contributer (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Heh, I was going to throw away my proposal and possibly make up a new one. I liked LaraLove's grey design. -- RyanCross (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. I vote discussion for the blue design. Cassandra 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I like number 3 – the blue design – too. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've just noticed that the text in the "About Wikipedia" and "Selected article" panels is centered. I think this looks a little odd, and suggest that it be left aligned. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    TOT: I have justified it. Left align kind of looks bad too, IMO. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've responded under "General comments" below. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 07:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Blue design, number 3 is good. :) Kennedy (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. The blue looks best. Just somehow the extra spaces underneath the "About" and "Featured" section. The current Main Page, I mean on wide computers, doesn't have the whole white section. Also, it says "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "About Wikipedia" - these should be changed to Simple English Wikipedia, no? But I like this one best. — American Eagle (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The extra space issue should now be taken care of. -- Creol(talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Blue one looks great.--TBC 05:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. It rules. StaticFalcon Give me a shout! 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Better than RyanCross's design (no offence), because it looks more solid. Chenzw  Talk  09:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Fair. I still like Ryan's one better; this one has a bit too much color, but all are good. The good thing about it is that it has the pictures on the header. Minor or Prime 09:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments

  • Although the third proposal is just best overall for me, I think that the pictures in the title bars should be included like in proposal 1.
  • Also, in proposals 2 and 3, the top box doesn't have a line around the white box where it reaches the blue/grey. The other boxes do have lines, but if you look, they are closer to the edge in the second row of boxes (VGA row) then in the boxes below.
  • Finally, shouldn't the link (on all of the pages) to the category tree, be this not this. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • A couple fixes:
    1. The pictures are in the title bars (with the exception of the main header image). But because of the white background they fade into the background for the most part.
    2. The top box is an odd assortment of divs and a bit confusing at that.. I am not certain how to match it up with the rest or even that it really needs to be matched up as the title block should be a little different for emphasis. The other boxes are nested tables (three layers - no less confusion in there). The coding on the tables was a little off, and the borders varied from layer 2 to layer 3 at times. I reset all the border to be on the same level so the lines should all match up now.
    3. I moved the link for the CatTree down even further to Main page (not Main Page). This is the top of the article side of the tree and the most likely place someone would be looking for categories (doubtful they need the link if they are looking for the wikipedia side of the Cat Tree)-- Creol(talk) 06:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I justified the text on Lara's design, it looks better that way. The centered text wasn't very nice. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The text in the two main panels used to be centred, which I thought looked odd. I suggested reverting to a left alignment, but Jonas thought this also looked odd so he made it justified. This is better than the centered text, but introduces a lot of white space between words. Perhaps the margins around the text can be widened to reduce the white space? — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 07:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The white space is what justification does. The purpose is to align the sides equally so that there is no longer or shorter lines. I'm not sure how the margins would look wider, but what does workis if you hyphenate the text to make the sides equal. Personally, I like it with the "whitespace", but you can change it anytime. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, I realize that justification on both sides works by introducing white space between words, but some of the padding looked excessive when I viewed it on my laptop's browser (it looks better on my desktop). I'd suggest that we try it with slightly wider margins to see how it looks. I'm afraid I'm not very sure how to do that myself, though. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 07:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'll try and find out (I use a desktop, so it might work differently for laptop users, who are probably in the majority). — Jonas Rand · (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could there be an additional "What is Simple English" section to clarify to new readers what simple English is?--TBC 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A comment on User:Jennavecia/Sandbox 4; what on Earth is "Write good pages, with care. The best encyclopedia pages have useful information. They are also carefully written." supposed to mean? It could say something about NPOV or verfiability, but at the moment it just seems like a meaningless space filler. —Giggy 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not sure that "carefully written" is very simple, but I advise a better writer to change it. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed the contents slightly. Be Bold, though! Don't wait for others to change it. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. There is still the subjectivity factor (how do we explain what "well" is?), but we don't have to worry about the simplification. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made these changes to the main design too. - tholly --Turnip-- 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless people think that they're meant to write articles resembling a hole filled with water in the ground, I think that 'well' has basic universal meaning. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consensus seems to be overwhelmingly be for Jennavecia's blue design. I've updated it as such..--TBC 07:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you have changed the Main Page design. Congrats! I think its nicer than the one at the EN Wikipedia. Minor or Prime 08:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another main page proposal...

... here. Feel free to tweak. It's probably going to be my last proposal. The only (major-ish) problem I see it the "See the pages of the Wikimedia Foundation too." at the top of the introduction section. I made a temporary removal of it at Main Page/Introduction, but there was some space left. Could someone fix that? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't the boxes a little crammed? You ought to fix that. Minor Contributer (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, no, it's supposed to be that way. I call it, "style". ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure? It looks a bit strange. Aren't the boxes supoosed to occupy the entire space? Minor Contributer (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that. I'll see what I can do. Thanks! -- RyanCross (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may need to cater for folks with smaller screens. I am using a smaller screen at work, and because there is not enough space for both columns, the right hand column sits underneath the left one. This probably doesn't help much, as I have no idea how to fix it. Grant Kennedy (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're looking at a regular screen. Can you see the current main page normally? Minor Contributer (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main page is fine. And I should maybe clarify. It is not a smaller screen, only not a big screen. Grant Kennedy (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. Can we we use it after it gets fixed?--   ChristianMan16  20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to see a combination of the main page proposals User:RyanCross/Sandbox4 and User:Jennavecia/Sandbox 4, which previously commanded a fair amount of support. My comments are as follows:

  • I feel that the layout of User:Jennavecia/Sandbox 4 is better. I don't like the way the left column is longer than the right column in User:RyanCross/Sandbox4, and the fact that the headings are not aligned (the position of the phrase "See the pages of the Wikimedia Foundation too" is really jarring). Also, on my laptop it's the left column that sits under the right column, with the result that the right end of all the headings is chopped off.
  • However, I like the curved box and heading outlines in User:RyanCross/Sandbox4. Is it possible to combine them in some way with the light blue box borders used in User:Jennavecia/Sandbox 4?
  • I still find the centred text in the "Selected article" section really odd.

— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also find centered text odd. Wikipedia doesn't use centered text, with no exception to the main page. Minor or Prime 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Wikiproject

As mentioned above, we need a Wikiproject focusing on our most viewed articles. Luckily (or unluckily), pretty much all of these are to do with sex. I've made a Wikiproject in my userspace:

Wikiproject Sexual Anatomy

just for you guys!

Join up. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't this WikiProject have a more general name, like "WikiProject Human Sexuality"? "Anatomy" is a very specific term that only covers the study of the parts of the human body. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even cover human physiology (how the body works), so even topics like "erection" and "orgasm" would be excluded, much less wider topics like "homosexuality". — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, sexual anatomy is a small subset of the topics which ought to be covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Anatomy" seems very complex... Cassandra talk 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "WikiProject Sexuality"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I suppose we don't have to mention "human sexuality" since it's unlikely that there would be a WikiProject about plant sexuality or animal sexuality. :-) — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I needed a Wikiproject covering the most viewed articles on Simple Wiki. Those articles are mostly (as quoted above):

Sexuality (LGBT articles) are way down the most viewed list, whilst sexual anatomy was extremely high up. That's why I chose anatomy as a title rather than simply sexuality in general.

If deemed necessary to include sexuality-related articles (some I've already posted on the Wikiproject page), then alright. But the main goals should be the anatomical ones. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What part of your anatomy is masturbation, sex or intercourse? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion about the scope of the WikiProject should take place on the WikiProject's talk page, but I shall just say briefly here in support of a name change for the WikiProject that I feel more emphasis should be given to improving sexuality-related topics that readers of the Simple English Wikipedia are more likely to look up (like "Safe sex", which I can't believe doesn't even exist) than rather arcane anatomical structures (like "Internal pudendal artery" – which I seriously doubt needs to be created here). — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have crearted Safe sex listed above; however it is just a stub, and probably needs extending. --Eptalon (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Here's to reaching new levels of low. I won't post a message on talk pages, but I'm not above spamming ST. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are many in-depth articles in Simple English, since its meant for children, at Wikijunior, a part of Wikibooks. Is it a good idea to copy them directly here? Minor or Prime 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't do it wholesale, but it's worth taking a selective approach for good WikiJunior articles. Are they properly referenced, though? — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 13:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the books there are featured books, (I think), but I understand your point. The articles are not properly formatted to be on Wikipedia. The way ideas are put accross is also different. Minor or Prime 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has come to my attention that there has been a lot of ownership problems here. One being RazorFlame being accused of that. I don't know why this is a problem and such a big deal. WP:OWN is not a policy or a guideline. So what's this all about. This whole thing has just bugged me and I wanted to bring it up. Opinions? SwirlBoy39 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is an official policy over on the English Wikipeida. Cassandra talk 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You exaggerate slightly, the only one which has come up so far is Razorflame's, unless I missed one. --Gwib -(talk)- 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an official policy on the English Wikipedia like Cassandra said, but also, it is one of the things that Wikipedia was founded upon. It was meant to be a place where everyone can edit anything, and therefore, is very vital towards our existance. Cheers, Razorflame 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then why isn't it a guideline or policy here? SwirlBoy39 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't have a tag on it because the page did not exist 24 hours ago. Up to that point, it fell under our basic "If we don't have a page on it, follow the en:wp idea on the topic" (we are missing many pages on basic policy and tend to just refer to the English version if it does not directly go against our policies - we do not even have a page on civility but it is still policy to be civil). The page was copied over and lightly simplified but much of it is highly wiki-language and hard to put in SE. -- Creol(talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindenting) I stuck a {{complex}} tag on it; do you think it is worth simplifying? --Eptalon (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do polices need to be simple also? Not just articles? -- RyanCross (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with RazorFlame. If WP:OWN is not already a policy at Simple English, then it needs to be as it is one of the foundational philosophies of Wikipedia. The idea is that articles are better if different people work on them, since each person brings his or her own perspective and may also spot errors that others have missed or be able to contribute in ways that others cannot. If editors were allowed to own articles and reject changes from others, we would soon see a lot of POV-pushing and that would be detrimental to the project generally.
As for RyanCross's question, it comes down to whether we see Simple English as written by people whose English is pretty good for readers who are children and people who learn English as a second language, or expect such people to themselves contribute towards the project. My feeling is that we should cater for the latter, and therefore try and use simple English in all Simple Wikipedia content (category usage notes, guidelines and policies, help pages, template documentation pages, etc.), except perhaps for talk pages unless needed. — Cheers, Truth's Out There 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I basically wanted to say above: As it is now, WP:OWN is more or less a copy of EnWP. I believe few people think it should not apply here, as it seems to be one of the foudations of working together. Nonetheless, if we want to make it guideline or policy (with the official tag), it should be set in a language that our target group can understand - It needs to be copyedited thorougly. --Eptalon (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All done, may need fine-tuning. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to simplify it more and rework some things to make it easier to understand. I added some things about consensus because I think that WP:OWN is based on that. Please let me know what you think. I also strongly believe that policies should be in Simple English. Staeiou (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair Use Proposal

Hello. I propose that we start allowing Fair Use media to bring our policy into line with ENWP, as well as the above discussion. Please see User:Da Punk '08/Sandbox/FU. Thank you --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YESSSSSS!! Thankyou very much. I totally agree. It's been bugging me for weeks now especially things like albums and video games that it's practically impossible to find an image of their cover on commons, when the cover art would very much improve the article! Good news for me. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would mean for local uploads of images...which I'm all for...LET'S DO IT!!!!--   ChristianMan16  00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given Gwib's latest Wikiproject, I have a terrible feeling the first 100 uploads will be of penises... MindTheGap (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not exactly sure if this is the best thing to do for our Wikipedia. This would put much more strain on administrators, and given that we have only 15-20 active administrators currently, I am not sure if they would be able to handle it. Also, I agree with MindTheGap. I do not believe that this is a good time to ask for this right now. Cheers, Razorflame 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it needs to be given the chance. Admins aren't the only ones who can nominate for deletion nor are the only ones who patrol these pages...While they are the only one who can delete, I don't see the problem with giving it at least a month trial.--   ChristianMan16  01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be serious for a moment, there are not enough admins to ensure a 24/7 safety-net. What if someone decided to upload thousands of pictures of child pornography when no admins were around? The potential repercussions are serious MindTheGap (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My latest Wikiproject? My only Wikiproject. I honestly think that Wiki Commons is sufficient for image uploads. If no image is found there, get one. Find suitable copyrights and then upload it. Commons is made specially for images, and just because an image isn't there doesn't mean you can't put it up there. Simple isn't suited to upload images yet, whilst at Commons, you'll find lots of copyright-hungry drooling editors just looking for new image uploads. --Gwib -(talk)- 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with fair use on Simple Wiki. We're supposed to be the free encyclopedia, not the "nearly free" encyclopedia. Free images are fine. Majorly talk 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if it passes, I'd make sure to do an image check couple times a day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, if we are not going to allow fair use images, then there is no point allowing image uploads. We can get free images from Commons. Fair use uploads will have to wait. Chenzw  Talk  06:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Majorly said, "Free" is not "Free (or sort of free when we feel like it)". Including images here creates not only problems for us, but with part of the main goal of the project - creating a basis for easy translation. Look at the problems we already have when translating en:wp articles and their missing images because en:wp did not use free images. This just means we pass that identical problem on to others. I also have diffuculty understanding how we need a picture of a game box to tell people the history of a game, or an album cover to describe the album.
People have brought up this as a simple deletion solves the day in case of problems, but this is hardly the case. Basic understanding of both US and International Fair Use laws (which only a select number of countries have) as well as the foundation policy need to be dealt with constantly. Each image needs to be checked for not just reasoning and about 10 other criteria, but its usage has to be strictly monitored and efforts have to be taken to try and find free replacements as well as justify its need. People with experience in dealing with all the legalities of Fair Use laws from multiple countries need to take a strong part in the process to protect the WMF. Every image would have to be verified that it is not only FU, but also not free as those would need to be moved to Commons, all the licening info generated and then deleted here.
And all this is needed just to put a picture on an article about a video game or a thirty year old album.. Keep it Free! -- Creol(talk) 07:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Majorly. EnWP has nightmares due to its silly policy of allowing fair use. We should be a free encyclopedia, so please let's not do this. —Giggy 07:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe uploads should be restricted to Autocomfirmed (4 days / 1 edit / 0 blocks) users. Even if we even further restrict FU (maybe NO text or sound, images must be less than 20cm square, they must be tasteful (removing the penis concern)). Another option was that only Admins can upload ANYTHING, but this would further strain admins. A variation of this is a new user class is created, and is given the power to upload (along with admins), but this would be too hard on the developers. The Trusted User status on Commons being loaded here is another option, and proberly our best. Trusted users and Admins (meaning myself, CM16, Giggy, Mind the Gap, RF (if his RfA fails would be candidates) would have the power to upload images. Only ideas. I am aware of the WMF's aim to be 100% free, and for this to be possible we need to have as little FU as possible. Thanks --  Da Punk '08  talk  08:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you can upload things at the moment if you're autoconfirmed, just they're deleted pretty quick because we don't do images. - tholly --Turnip-- 08:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I'd hate to shoot those of you down who said you agreed with Majorly but the statement "the free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" refers the the fact the Wikipedia is free of charge to join not images; as put to example by EN. And I agree with Da Punk. I come up with this idea awhile ago that there should be something like an RFA that people vote users into powers that allow them to upload images.--   ChristianMan16  15:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not agree. There are two meanings of free, and Wikipedia is both: free like "free food" and free like "free speech." The first is about cost, but the second is about copyright, that is, the freedom to control and publish our articles. The reason we release everything under the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar free license is to make sure that we are free in both ways. You are not allowed to change and re-distribute most books or websites that are given to you free of charge. You are allowed to change and re-distribute Wikipedia, which is what makes us special. It is not just about cost - it is about giving our readers the freedom to change distribute Wikipedia in any way they want, as long as they give everyone else this same freedom. EN only gives people the right to do this with their text, not all their images. I think this is a mistake, but it is even worse for an international wiki like Simple. (see my post below) Staeiou (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not think we should allow fair use images. The short version is that we’re our own project and are more international than EN. Fair use is a U.S. concept and may cause problems for our international readers and editors.
The long version (wow, this is really long): I think that doing it "to bring our policy into line with ENWP" is not a good reason, for me at least. I think we should not allow fair use to keep our policy in line with the French, German, Polish, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish Wikipedias.  :) While I think it is a good idea to look at the lessons EN has learned, we are our own project and have different goals than EN. For example, we are far more international than EN. We are here for people who are learning English, and we were created so that new language versions of Wikipedia could get started by translating from our simpler articles.
Fair use is a really difficult legal concept even if you are only in the United States. In the U.S., there is no objective or standard process for "validating" whether or not a certain use is fair. The only way is for the copyright holder to sue the person who used the image, and then a judge decides if the use was fair or not. There are four vague guidelines which are supposed to be used by judges, but everyone has their own idea of what is fair. I'm not even going to get into how this process works in other countries, and not all countries even have a concept of fair use (like France).
This is important. We - even more than en - are supposed to be an encyclopedia that everyone around the world can freely read and re-distribute to others. Even if we are sure that an image would be fair use in the U.S. (which we can't), that only applies in the U.S. Even reading an article with a fair use image could be a copyright violation in a country that has does not allow for fair use or has a stricter view of what is fair. While it is not likely that someone would get in trouble for this, it is the principle that matters. If we really want everyone around to world to use Simple, we need to make sure that everything on Simple is freely licensed. This way, we can say with confidence that no matter who you are or where you live, you are completely free to read and re-distribute the entire Simple English Wikipedia (as long as you say it was from Wikipedia and give others this right).
Also, fair use only protects us, or should I say, the Wikimedia Foundation. It does not protect our readers who want to take our articles and re-distribute them. Because the Foundation is a non-profit, judges are probably more willing to say that using copyrighted images on Wikipedia is fair use. However, if one of our readers (even in the U.S.) prints out an article with a fair use image and gives it to someone else, a judge may not be as willing to see that as fair use. You also have to realize that if the Foundation is sued for using a copyrighted image, we have a lawyer hired and money saved away to protect ourselves. Most of our readers are probably not prepared for that. So even if reusing our images is fair use for our readers, they may have to prove that in court. We should not put them at risk.
However, if we decide that we want to allow fair use images, we have to stay within these guidelines set by the Foundation. This means we have to create an “Exemption Doctrine Policy” which says what rules and processes we will have to decide what is and is not fair use. Staeiou (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.k. There have been valid points raised. I only suggested Fair Use to make our lives easier. But it just made mine harder and proberly will affect any RfA I have. I think it we will pretty safe to close the discussion with motion not carried. --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would make describing articles soooo much easier.--   ChristianMan16  18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Creol pointed out above, there are many problems raised by using fair use images, also since we are a bit short on users, I don't think the few we have should spend their time checking licensing of images. In short, I don't think we should allow fair use images at this time. --Eptalon (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave Messages on my Other Account

Are people allowed to do this? It's just I've seen so many accounts like this pop up in the past two or three days. For users who dont have a unified login or don't use en:wiki it must be quite frustrating and annoying. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally the users who put them there don't actually have any contribs anyway, so it doesn't matter. The user is question has one - the posting of the comment. I don't know why they put it on their page though. - tholly --Turnip-- 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I notice that they usually don't have any contribs but it could cause problems/annoy people when thet all start editing as there are a lot of them. I noticed at least 8 or 9 in the past two days. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they edit actively here they shouldn't do that, but if they just drop by for (say) the occassional typo fix, chances are we won't really need to communicate with them anyway. —Giggy 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to do it a lot on other wikis. As part of my responsibility is handling SUL renames, I edit talk pages on multiple wikis asking for confirmation or informing the person the resuest is done. Leaving a link back here both kills that evil redlink as well as gives them a direct link back should there be any issues that need to be dealt with. As long as the user has any edits (other than the link back) there realy should be no problem with it (so long as it is not a straight redirect since they don't work cross-wiki). -- Creol(talk) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick note

We've just hit 3 milestones at once! 35,000 articles, over 1,000,000 changes since the beginning and almost 11 changes per page. Congratulations! --Gwib -(talk)- 01:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to help out by making the 35,000th article :). Cheers, Razorflame 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations! One more; you changed the main page design! Minor or Prime 08:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not simple

The language in Horseshoe crab isn't simple at all. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the {{complex}} tag to the article to denote it as an unsimple article. Please feel free to simplify the words used in the article if you feel that it is too hard to understand. Cheers, Razorflame 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Taking a tip from TRM... ;-)) Hello everyone. I've put Powderfinger up for PVGA voting. You can vote here. Thanks. —Giggy 05:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are special links to other sister projects such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc. But there are two links which are not around; the Wikiversity link and Wikijunior one. May I request for these special templates? I'm not sure how to do it on my own. Minor or Prime 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of bureaucrat flag

OK guys, I'm now "resigning" from my bureaucrat duties. No relation to the big thing on RfA if that's what you're thinking, I just don't think I'm really active enough to justify keeping them. Thought I'd be able to pick up my editing again in the near future, but I'm very busy and I'm not sure that's really going to happen very soon. Creol, Vector and Eptalon can handle pretty much everything very well, and Blockinblox makes an excellent "reserve bureaucrat", but there's no need for two of them :) I should still be lurking around here like normal though. Archer7 - talk 10:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, your choice. You do know that your an administrator on Simple English Wikiquote, right? -- RyanCross (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that although standards have been rising, you can still remain a bureaucrat. No need to announce your "resignition". Minor or Prime 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a shame. Best of luck in your endevours, Archer. —Giggy 11:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archer, no need to do this. Even one 'crat action a year is better than no 'crat actions. But it's your call. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm just wondering why rollback isn't enabled on this Wiki. A search for "rollback" in the search bar didn't turn up the rationale for disabling it. Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason why rollback for non-administrators on this Wikipedia is disabled is because there is not enough vandalism to warrant it at this time. If, in the future, more vandalism starts to occur, then after we discuss it as a community, we may decide to enable non-administrator rollback, but at this time, there just is not enough vandalism to make it useful at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check out Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 38#Rollback proposal. —Giggy 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks guys. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Da Punk '08 RFA controversy

Relevant links: Da Punk's RFA, RFCU, Cometstyles' RFA, admission of sockpuppetry

Note: User:Da Punk '08 has previously been named Punk Boi 8, Spiderpig0001, and Da Punk '95

At a time when I was banned and wasn't watching SEW, there was a controversy at Da Punk '95's RFA, linked above. Cometstyles mentioned the checkuser request of User:Sam24. Sam24 voted against User:Cometstyles in his request for adminship, and so did Da Punk (Spiderpig0001). The result of the CU request came back inconclusive, showing that the IP behind Sam24 was an open proxy. On Da Punk's RFA, Comet pointed out that en:User:Punk Boi 8 is supposedly a sockpuppeteer, but Da Punk denied the sockpuppetry. Cometstyles also stated that Da Punk lied about sockpuppetry, stating it as if he was definitely certain that Da Punk was actually sockpuppeteering.

Supporting sockpupeteery is basically breaking one of the policies of adminship, mainly people who support sockpupeteers knowingly are sockpupeteers themselves, and NO, I already knew he was a sock a long time ago But I didn't do anything because he was helping the wiki but I had to oppose his RfA just because no matter how useful he is as an editor, his previous RfA's 1 , 2 and 3 shows that he is determined to be an admin and will do anything to be one and this type of editors are neevr beneficial to any project and he previously lied about his socking as well..--Cometstyles 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the allegations of local sockpuppetry are completely wrong; I confessed to sockpuppetry in a blurb that is still on Archer7's user talk page (linked above). I did use the Sam24 sock to vote on Cometstyles' RFA. Please disregard that he sockpuppeteered. I did not mean to frame Da Punk, it was caused by Comet's not researching the case (not to say anything against Cometstyles, just that he didn't fully know about this). — Jonas Rand · (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to admonish Ionas68224 for making this confession. However, there is still the question of the RfA that needs to be answered. I am going to refile it, immedially. Thank you --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admonish me for vandalism or for admitting to it and linking to my previous confession? — Jonas Rand · (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose that would all depend on the definition. According to Webster, it could mean 'To Encourage' or 'To Disapprove' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Can an admin please visit Requests for Deletion please as their is a massive backlog and some requests that should have been closed over a week ago. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jupiter for VGA

Hey everyone I'm taking a lead from TRM and RyanCross and posting the fact that Jupiter is now up for VGA here. Its better than spamming everyone's talk pages isnt it? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]