Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thailand Content Expansion Project

Greetings Simple Wikipedians! I used to have an account but perhaps it's been deactivated due to inactivity. My name is Hunter. I'm teaching a computer course in Chalermkwansatree School in Phitsanulok, Thailand and have given my students an assignment to create content that did not previously exist in Simple English Wikipedia. I have split the class into 15 article-writing groups, 4 English editors and 2 factual content editors. I wanted everybody to have an account like Chalermkwan1, Chalermkwan2, etc., CHSeditor1, etc. We were only allowed to create 6 accounts from the same IP range (we are working from a single computer lab). For this reason, I told any groups that were unable to create an account to just use the Chalermkwan13 account.

In the meantime, many of the groups have posted their articles and today our editing team was going to begin the proofreading process. I thought it would be most efficient to let them do the editing on wikipedia itself so they can experience first-hand the collaborative working experience. I didn't think any pages would be edited or deleted by moderators in such a short amount of time, so I didn't bother instructing them about what to do if someone deletes their article. Some of them panicked and reversed moderators changes, because they were afraid they would not get points for the assignment. I have instructed my students to refrain from logging in and changing anything until I am able to resolve this issue with the Simple English moderators.

Aem Fatson, I understand your initial suspicions of vandalism and reasons for blocking my students accounts and deleting their articles. But please be patient. We want to enrich Simple English Wikipedia. We have a process in place for correction. If you unblock my students and wait a week or two, I will notify you that our editing teams have finished their work. I am a native speaker and will also play a final supervisory role in the editing process should that be a concern.

FYI, here is a list of the groups and topics that they are working on:

Group 1 – Phetchabun
Group 2 – Suphanburi
Group 3 – Thai Houses
Group 4 – Yasothon
Group 5 – Phuket
Group 6 – Thai Fashion
Group 7 – Trang
Group 8 – Khorat
Group 9 – Thailand Attractions
Group 10 – Lopburi
Group 11 – Sukhothai
Group 12 – Ayudhaya
Group 13 – Pattaya
Group 14 – Thai Food
Group 15 – Thai Temples


        -Hunter (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, it is nice to see people are actually using Simple English Wikipedia in class. If you look at the Deletion policy you will find that there are few reasons why pages get "quickly deleted" (Normal deletion process takes a week). From my experience as an admin, most of the quick deletions I do are "complete nosense pages", "attack pages" (X is gay) and pages where notability is hard to judge.
Other pages that may be helpful:
Content that cannot clearly be identified as vandalism (or a personal attack) is usually not prone to quick deletion. Perhaps a cookie to your students: This Wikipedia needs articles; If they are properly formatted and give interesting (verifiable) information, there is no reason to delete the articles at all. --Eptalon (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Hunter. I have read the Phetchabun page. It is slowly getting to be a decent article. I have put some help on the talk page of the Phetchabun article. I hope this is okay. Good luck! Kennedy (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Kennedy! They are editing as we speak.
I was talking to RyanCross who had deleted the article Thai Houses a few weeks ago. He suggested that Thai Houses should not be it's own article but that the content should be included in the Thailand article. So should each topic below with the word "Thai" as the first word be part of the Thailand article instead of independent articles?
In the same vein, please let me know if any of you other admins are planning on deleting any of the above articles based on article name and what I need to do to prevent this.

-Hunter (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that they are added as a section within the Thailand article. That way, there is no chance of it being deleted.
As for the deletion, I suggest you ask your students to put "{{Classproject}}" at the top of the article. This *should* stop it being deleted, but is not guaranteed. If something is deleted, just ask the deleting admin, who can give you the content.
BG7even 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for such prompt feedback!
One of my students, Chalermkwan12, just tried to enter her article on Ayudhaya to find she has been blocked indefinitely by Cometstyles for abusing multiple accounts. Shall I have her sign in using Chalermkwan13 instead? Is it ok if many terminals are signed in and editing various articles as Chalermkwan13 at the same time? I wish each group could have their own account...

-Hunter (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be ok - you have explained why there are multiple accounts, so it's not abusing them. Unfortunately I am not an admin, but I will look if any are online and see if they can unblock the account.
On a side note - do you need more accounts? I can create them for you if you supply me with an email address - I would not know the passwords. Also, perhaps an account for yourself would be better than an IP address? Thanks, BG7even 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok all of my groups have working accounts except for Group 15 (please create Chalermkwan15, Forever_Friend--[at] and Chalermkwan12 who is blocked.

-Hunter (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that account is created - password sent to the email address.
I am still looking to getting the account unblocked.
Below is all your accounts, with their current status. This should enable us to keep an eye on things, if you don't mind.
Username Status Blank
Chalermkwan1 Blocked
Chalermkwan10 Blocked
Chalermkwan11 Blocked
Chalermkwan12 Blocked
Chalermkwan13 Unblocked
Chalermkwan15 Unblocked
Chalermkwan2 Blocked
Chalermkwan30 Unblocked
Chalermkwan34 Unblocked
Chalermkwan35 Unblocked
Chalermkwan5 Blocked
Chalermkwan6 Unblocked
Chalermkwan7 Unblocked
ChalermkwanN&C Unblocked
Chalermkwansatree1 Unblocked
Chalermkwansatree10 Unblocked
Chalermkwansatree2 Unblocked
Chalermkwansatree3 Blocked
Chalermkwansatree8 Unblocked
By the looks of it a lot have been blocked for sockpuppetery (I know this isnt the intention!)
Before continuing, I suggest you add a tag to each user saying that it's part of the project, and then just re-outline it here. I will get some admins to look at this so they know what is going on.
Thanks, BG7even 03:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All listed accounts should now be unblocked. If there are any further issues with blocking, please let me know on my talk page or contact another administrator (from this list). -- Creol(talk) 08:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created a template {{classproject}} that can be added to the articles created (all at the top). It tells other people to basically discuss changes on the article talk page. This should limit thechanges from the users other than the school-appointed ones. Thanks for the contributions. --Eptalon (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My impersonation

First of all I' like to thank PeterSymonds for pointing me to it or I would have never known. Second, I just got an email back from Alison, and she confirmed I was being impersonated. I got the email mere seconds after I withdrew my nomination...I'd love to unwithdraw since I now have this sorted but I think that would be too much trouble to ask of the community. Just please next ime you gonna use socks against me...make sure you can prove their mine and not meant for impersonation. Thank you.--   ChristianMan16  19:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not sorted out. We need confirmation that this is true. Show us a diff to where she says this "on wiki". Please. Synergy 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed, because there were multiple different oppose rationales. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It is necessary cause people thought I was socking again. Shariros, I'm sorry and don't mean ANY offense by this but you don't know me nor my history on enWP.--   ChristianMan16  19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
CM16, yes i actually do know your history. You are banned there (just stating the fact), and that wasn't the only oppose rationale in the RFA, correct me if the discussion point has shifted. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I as checkuser can confirm that neither of those two accounts on the English Wikipedia are related to ChristianMan16. Aaron contacted me by email this morning, in a panic. I ran a check and both accounts are in California and were created on an iPhone. So not ChristianMan16 :) - Alison 19:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to tell us Alison. Synergy 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for Songs or Albums


I have recently seen stubs of the form XXX is a song by YYY. ZZZZ covered it on their new album AAA. While Wikipedia is not paper, I wonder whether we could get any "guidelines" or "criteria" for including such items?

These are of course just my thoughts. We also have notability guiidleines/criteria for other items, why not also for songs and artits/bands? --Eptalon (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably best looking to see if they have been signed by a record label. Are their songs available to purchase in the major outlets (HMV, Virgin, Woolworths etc)? If not, then not notable. Not every high school "band" can be listed. My $0.02 Kennedy (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Kennedy it is quite hard getting Heavy Metal CDs at large outlets, but they are quite notable in the subculture. If signed with a record Label, then they're notable. Thats my 0,02 monetary units. The life of brian (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. One or the other then. If they are either available to buy, or signed by a record label? Kennedy (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But a musician is usually signed with a record label, before one can buy his CDs :p The life of brian (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant a major (notable) record label... Although that seems to be going round in circles to be honest. Just ignore me. I'm not thinking straight :P Busy, stressfull day... Kennedy (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Attracting new editors..

Hello, I was just thinking about how to attract new editors:

  • Francisco de Goya, Salvador Dalí and Pablo Picasso were all painters; at different periods in time. I am not an art historian, but each of them probably influenced the time he lived in a great deal. Many articles on painters we don't have, some we do have, but they are stubs.
  • We do not have any articles (to my knowledge) on 20th century photographers
  • How many 20th century Russian authors of books od we have? 20th century composers?
  • What are the differences between Expressionism and Impressionism?

In your opinion, how easy would it be to attract people to write/simplify artists about these kinds of subjects? - In theory, there are many more people interested in say, the arts, than there are in say Pokemon monsters

My idea would be to get a team of say 5-10 people together that were able to provide articles on such subjects..

What do you think?--Eptalon (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea! I can't help personally as I have no knowledge in the areas (and i'm already doing Transport and Derbyshire!) but I can cast a gaze over pages etc for typos, copyediting etc.
BG7even 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

5000 word spellchecker installers

Hello! I just finished spellchecker installers for Mozilla (Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey) and OpenOffice 3.0, with about 5000 words. They mix the wordlists of SIMPLE.dic and Rick Harrison's Universal Language Dictionary, and fixed a bug in the file simple.aff; Rick's wordlist includes several common words for food, plants and animals, and even body parts missing in the other dictionaries (about 250 words not present in simple.dic). I want to post the installers on the websites of those programs and then add links in these pages, but I'd like to have an opinion from other users. Lwyx (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also BE 850 to look at for simple clusters of verbs, nouns etc. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello all, there is a tool (on proposed VGA page) that can calculate some measure of readabilty; I did some tests on current VGAs, and I found values between 61.0 and 70.0 for Flesch Reading Ease. Before we go and believe in numbers:

  • Flesch Reading ease measures how difficult a text is to understand; it does this based on indicators like word length (number of syllables per word), and number of words per sentence (in general higher values are better). It does not use a dictionary to look up what words actually mean (and that sometimes shorter words are more difficult to understand)
  • Please note that a science article is harder to understand than an "edutainment" one. (Evolution is as FRE 61.0, as an example.
  • It is therefore no good to attache a "complex" tag to the article (based on a purely statistical analysis how many syllables there are in an average sentence.

Thanks for understanding.--Eptalon (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate numberitis, but I ran the tool through a few of the plots I wrote out (see my contributions). The plot summaries ranged from 70-89, 89 being the Temple of Doom. Have I, perhaps, reached a point where my articles are too simple? I always worry if my plots are too long (Die Hard 2, X2 come to mind) and now, whether they are too simple. I could use some feedback. alexandra (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of tools to measure readability. Readability is a very important consideration for us here at Simple wikipedia - it is our reason for existence - otherwise there is an English wikipedia and there is no reason to replicate English wikipedias as per the current deletion debate at meta.
An article with poor readability scores is certainly not written in Basic English - but articles here do not have to be. Simplified English is a form that has a special purpose and is not relevant to many articles, though possibly to science articles. Perhaps we need to explore the guidelines for relating to science articles more.
Special English has some applicability for looking at targets in readability. Its aim [1] is

On October 19, 1959, the Voice of America broadcast the first Special English program. It was an experiment. The goal was to communicate by radio in clear and simple English with people whose native language was not English. Special English programs quickly became some of the most popular on VOA. They still are. Special English continues to communicate with people who are not fluent in English. Over the years, its role has expanded. It helps people learn American English while they learn about American life and stay informed about world news and developments in science. It provides listeners with information they cannot find elsewhere.
Three Elements Make Special English Unique
It has a core vocabulary of 1500 words. Most are simple words that describe objects, actions or emotions. Some words are more difficult. They are used for reporting world events and describing discoveries in medicine and science.
Special English writers use short, simple sentences that contain only one idea. They use active voice. They do not use idioms.
Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.

Speaking slowly is of course not applicable. However the aims are congruent with our project as is the use of a limited vocabulary and short,simple sentences, active voice, no idioms etc.
I had a look at one of their articles: Treating Anxiety Disorders in Children | Long-Term Risks of Teen Alcohol Use - would seem to me to fit the science topic which Eptalon suggested might be harder to understand and I assume therefore might get higher scores. Using just the text of the article (ie from Children's mental health ... to ... following three years) the scores from were :
Flesch reading ease score: medium 59.3; Automated readability index: medium 9.8; Flesch-Kincaid grade level: low 8.4 ; Coleman-Liau index: medium 12.5; Gunning fog index: medium 12.6; SMOG index: medium 11.5;
there seemed to be unavoidably long complex words including alcohol, therapy, medicine, paediatrics, ... It is also a realtively short article (only 355 words) so they have not expanded to define those words (wikilinks would also be an option but not all of the option)
Elsewhere Eptalon has challenged where I got the aim of US Grade level 8 from. As per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Complex articles, I confirmed what I know from my working experience from [2] which states You should aim for a [Flesch] score of 60 or higher. and You should aim for a Grade 8 or lower reading level. (a reading age of around 12 years according to elsewhere in the document) This was in the context of Participant Information Documents for clinical trials - ie a need to communicate with the public on matters of some importance. They in turn referenced Harvard School of Public Heath materials and say this document talks about According to the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, some 90 million American adults-- about 47 percent of the U.S. population-- demonstrate low levels of literacy. Specifically they state

Federal agencies often rely on print materials to tell people about health information and social services. Many of these materials are written at the 10th grade reading level and above. These materials are not useful to people with limited-literacy skills.

At [3] they state ... a third to fifth grade level frequently is very appropriate for low-literate readers.
The UK has a plain English campaign with a verification symbol of Crystal mark [4]. What they are looking for to certify plain English is :
  1. a good average sentence length (about 15 to 20 words)
  2. plenty of 'active' verbs (instead of 'passive' ones)
  3. everyday English
  4. words like 'we' and 'you' instead of 'the insured', 'the applicant', 'the society' and so on;
  5. conciseness
  6. clear, helpful headings with consistent and suitable ways of making them stand out from the text;
  7. a good typesize and clear typeface
  8. plenty of answer space and a logical flow (on forms).
Point number 7 is not relevant to us but otherwise, except that they are aiming at an audience targetted by business of native speakers and no limitations on educational attainment ... Their examples are quite good but are mainly to do with business: [5] Their guide is at .
On readability they state:

Do you recommend the FOG index or the Flesch test?
The FOG index was a very rough measure of readability, created in the 1940s by a man named Robert Gunning. We used it in our first report, 'Small Print', in the early 1980s. However, we do not recommend it, or any other mathematical formula for measuring readability. You cannot give a document a score for plain English - either it is crystal-clear or it isn't. There is no substitute for testing a document on real people.
If you use Microsoft Word, you may have seen the 'Flesch reading ease' score. This is based on sentence length and how many syllables there are in the words used. Rudolf Flesch, who created the system, warned that "Some readers, I am afraid, will expect a magic formula for good writing and will be disappointed with my simple yardstick. Others, with a passion for accuracy, will wallow in the little rules and computations but lose sight of the principles of plain English. What I hope for are readers who won't take the formula too seriously and won't expect from it more than a rough estimate."

What you need to understand though is that when they say There is no substitute for testing a document on real people. their audience is organisations and organisations generally market test products, including written information and forms (for example see [6] )- we as voluntary editors do not do that systematically and so we need something else. At [7] they state

As you may know, we don't recommend using readability formulas as a definitive assessment of clarity. However, the Flesch test (which takes into account average sentence length and syllables per word) is useful for a very 'rough and ready' assessment of simplicity, if not clarity.
Applying the test shows Labour leader Tony Blair's speech (with a 'readability score' of 70.5) edging a narrow lead over Conservative Iain Duncan Smith (69.5), and Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats (65.5) in third place. Mr Kennedy used slightly shorter sentences than his two opponents, but longer words. Interestingly all three men used shorter average sentence lengths than the 15 to 25 words we recommend for public information.

To conclude, from the article on enwp on Readability:

Nearly all of today's blockbuster writers write at the 7th-grade level, including John Grisham, Stephen King, J. K. Rowling, and Dan Brown. Experts today recommend writing legal and health information at the 7th-grade level. Laws often require writing medical and safety information at the 5th-grade level[6]. Learning to write for a class of readers other than one's own is very difficult. It takes method, training, and lots of practice. As Jacques Barzun wrote, "Simple English is no person's native tongue."

I can see no justification for scores of > US grade 8. it is not the only measure of a good article but I think it is an adequate justification for a {{complex}} tag. --Matilda (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Hello there. A readability score is a number calculated, based on a "formula", and the following assumptions (for FRE/Flesh-Kincaid)

  • Words with fewer syllables are better.
  • Sentences with fewer words are better.

Depending on which of the indices you take, there are also some (language-specific) constants which enter these formulae. Note however:

  • There is no lexical or semantic analysis. In other words, this is a pure numbers game; it does not look if the words or sentences are meaningful.
  • You need a certain minimal corpus (ie. text length). This depends on the method used. Depending on the index used there are other drawbacks.
  • Scientific texts are written for a different audience; the indices we have do not allow us to adapt the audience.

Instead of relying on old methodolgy (Flesch is from 1948, Flesh-Kincaid from 1956, SMOG from like 1975) we should get a more recent (less than 10 years old) testing methodology, that ideally also does either lexical or semantic analysis (if possible). The next step is then to go over the 40.000 articles; from those that apply (article length of pure text) calculatuate mean, median and mode of the score. Ideally we thern base our "age group" on the median of what we get there. Once we have determined a mathematical distribution, we can then numerically score each article; based on where it sits in that distribution. This is much better than simply noting "complex"; We than know that an article of complexity 4.8 needs less work than one of complexity 5. Articles that I have found thast might be useful:

Some ideas:

  • Indices that only rely on sentence/word length will rate the following sentences the same:
  • The cat sat on a mat
  • A mat the cat sat on
  • On a mat sat the cat
  • On a cat sat the mat
  • A cat on map sat the

Problem: the last one is semantic nonsense (not a valid sentence), the second last has a different meaning. If all you do is count words and syllables, and mingle them up in a formula (as the indices we can automatically calculate with the script do) you will not be able to recognise such things. If you do a frequency analysis, you will see that words like "a" and "the" add little information.

Comments are of course welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Readability scores are of course only one dimension. Other dimensions critical for us are verifiability and no bias (and of course that it makes sense - garbage is garbage and a readability score doesn't filter nonsense). You do not however, propose an alternative to measure compliance with this project's stated aims and differentiation with enwp. Until you do, I think these scores, easily measured should be used. Our criteria for allowing VGAs and GAs seems to have been not very vigorous and not in accord with the stated aim of this wikipedia if they are too complex to read and no assessment was done of readability. It would appear that VGA is perhaps not good enough. Can you show for any of these measured above where discussion in the promotion to GA or VGA was discussed (except in those very few discussions where I have participated and raised the issue)? Enwp has also reviewed Featured articles over time that made the grade at one stage but didn't later - insufficient references etc. Readability has to be a core criterion for this wikipedia to differentiate it from en. I am not tagging to be malicious, I take the processing of reviewing nominations seriously. That OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a criterion for allowing something though - how do you propose to test that articles are in Simple English. Market testing for readability (and I have observed it done in my real life!) is not available to this voluntary project dispersed world wide. In my view, if we have no measure then I do not see how we asess ourselves as meeting the project's aims and there is no justification for Simple wikipedia - we are not serious about Simple English being another language - we are just a refuge for wikipedians who have been banned from enwp - is that what you want?--Matilda (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I responded to a message from Matilda at "Talk:Semen" but thought that I should also put a posting here as it is relevant to the discussion. Matilda subjected the article "Semen" to an automated readability test and found it to be complex. However, I thought I had been quite careful in creating sentences that were simple. "Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles#Think about your readers" says "The language is simple, but the ideas don't have to be." I'm wondering whether the article shows up as complex because of the anatomical and physiological terminology used, which is unavoidable. For example, in the lead there is this sentence: "This probably allows the sperm in the semen to move through the vagina and into the woman's uterus and Fallopian tubes to try and fertilize an ovum (egg cell)." The sentence itself is not complex, but uses the words uterus, Fallopian tubes, fertilize and ovum. Automated readability tests are helpful, but ultimately a human editor needs to review articles that are flagged to see if they are really complex. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replied at the relevant talk page giving an example of how it was indeed possible to improve that sentence with before and after scores. Two things are going on travel and then fertilisation - give the 2 activities a sentence each.--Matilda (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear enough: Those readability scores proposed by the script (most notably FRE and FC) sipmly rely on a count of syllables and a count of words per sentence. They do not analyse the grammatical or lexical structure, they do not do a statistical analysis of word frequencies (to check how much information is actually added by a given word). The words "do" and "make" are largely synonymous; using do instead of make will get you a better score though, because the word is shorter. Hence a model that ONLY relies on counting word and syllable counts (and some language-specific constants) is too simple for us to use here. "Beautiful" and "pretty" are largely synonymous; I let you guess which of the two is better known and therefore better to use. Look at hanami (According to the stats I did below, this is the least-understandable VGA we have) to see how these readability tests fail.--Eptalon (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not proposing a model that ONLY relies on counting word and syllable counts (and some language-specific constants) - I am proposing a model that looks at a variety of things including verifiability, not biassed and readability. Readability is not merely of course a score but the article has to be read to see it makes sense - utter nonsense is obviously deleted or edited for improvement. Poor expression can be simple but still needs to be edited. A readable article will however meet the scores in most cases: if it doesn't some effort can be made to explain why - for example in the case of Oklahoma, where substituting the state's name for a single syllable word got rid of the distractingly long and frequently mentioned subject to focus on areas of improvement. Our reason for existing as distinct from enwp is to have readable articles. --Matilda (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--)Is there a problem with the current V/GAs over that particular limit? Would they now fail? I can't see why they would. Granted, readability should be taken into account, but to rigorously adhere to Flesch-Kincaid isn't desirable. Instead of simply tagging, it might be best to assess on a case-by-case basis; it's the human eye that is needed, not this sort of method. Judge complexity for yourself, and not for what a method says it is. That should also be taken into account. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have alredy pointed this out on Matilda's talk page: it is extremely difficult to automatically tell if a given text is easy to understand for a given target group; even more so when the modeling used only relies on counting words and syllables. However, a skilled Wikipedia editor will probably be able to tell you if a given text is hard to understand. If we decide to rely on automatic modelling as one criterion (of several) we should look at what recent (read 1990s, 2000s) models are available and rely on such a model, rather than use modelling that is over 50 years old, as this modelling will give us little information. Note that in those times models were done to be done by hand, today we have computers.--Eptalon (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good articles

There are currently 23 VGAs, I did a little statistics on them: Flesch Reading Ease ranges from 44.4 to 70.2 (Mean: 57.3, Median: 58.7; no mode); Flesch-Kincaid: 12.9-6.9 (Mean: 9.18, Median: 9.1, Mode: 10.1)

Top three (FRE)

  1. Red Hot Chili Peppers (FRE 70.2/ FC 6.9)
  2. Jimi Hendrix (69.6/ 7.8)
  3. Nickel Creek (66.3 /8.3)

If we take Flesch-Kincaid, we get Charles Spurgeon (FRE 65.2/FC 7,8) together with the Chili Peppers on second place. Pope John Paul II (FRE 64.3/ FC 8.1) is number 3.

The bottom of the list (FRE)

  1. Hanami (FRE 44.4/FC 12.9)
  2. Midwestern United States (48.3/10.1)
  3. Ana Ivanovic (53.6/10.2)

Same game, FC:

  • Ana Ivanovic at number 2,
  • Third place, with same rating, shared between Midwestern US, and Cuban Missile Crisis (FRE 54.1/FC 10.1)

The article taken for the Median (of FRE) is Violin, for the mean, you have Violin slightly below, and American Airlines Flight 11 (FRE 59.9/FC 8.7) sligtly above. For FC, you have Violin and Oklahoma (FRE 54.2/FC 9.1) sligntly below the mean/at the median; and Powderfinger (57.8/9.4) slightly above.

Should I do the same thing for good articles? --Eptalon (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good articles

I couldn't resist, and this the same as above for good articles. There are currently 19.

Flesch Reading Ease: 78.1-53 (Mean/Avg: 66; Median 66.4; Mode: none) Flesch-Kincaid: 12.1-6 (Mean: 8.16; Median 8.1; Mode 8.1)

Top 3 (FRE)

  1. Little Red Riding Hood (FRE 78.1/FK 6)
  2. Coffee (74.7/6.7)
  3. Mouthpiece (brass) (71.4/9.2)

For FK: MouthPiece replaced by Giant Panda (69.1/6.9) on 3rd place.

Bottom 3 (FRE)

  1. Scottish Premier League (53/12.1)
  2. Powderfinger (57.8/9.4)
  3. Lenzburg (60.2/8.3)

For FK: Mouthpiece replaces Lenzburg.

Jupiter (66/7.4) is average, for FRE; for the median, Jupiter slighlty below, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (66.7/7.4) above the median. For FK: Kurt Warner (68.2/8.1) and Caffeine (65.9/8.1) are both at the median; For the mode, Kitzmiller and Jupiter; Muhammad (63.9/8.2) is the first above the mean; Kurt and Caffeine are the first below.

And of course, full stats available on req. --Eptalon (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Please show where readability was discussed for each of these articles in the promotion discussion? --Matilda (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Just in passing - Powderfinger is a VGA, not a GA. Giggy (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Powderfinger had not been struck out of the list of GAs, thats where I took it.--Eptalon (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: now that Powderfinger is out FRE (Mean:66.5, Median:66.7); FK: (Mean:8.08, Median:8.1, Mode:8.1) ; Bottom 3 FRE: Billy Graham (61/8.6) at Number 3; Lenzburg at number 2; for FK: Baseball uniform (64.1/8.9) replaces Graham, who is 4th.--Eptalon (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User scripts

Are there any user scripts for vandalism fighting, miscelaneous, etc? They were really useful in the English Wikipedia.

Thanks! - KevinJi9 (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple News out soon!

If you want to recieve the first of (hopefully many) newsletters, then simple subscribe by clicking below:

Subscribe to Simple News

Go on... you know you want to... Kennedy (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you create a page that has all the "issues" one after the other, (just trancluded), as that would be good to browse in the future when there are more issues. A preload template would be good for starting the next issue (I can't find one - is there one, if not I could make one). And finally if there would be an option to have it delivered in a "minimised" box to save space on your talk page I would subscribe. Good work so far! - tholly --Talk-- 15:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tholly!
Glad you like it!
To answer your questions, is Wikipedia:Simple News/Dates what you are looking for? Or a page where the actual issues are displayed? I can set one up if needed.
Second, how do you mean "preload template"? As in to create the next issue? The easiest way is just to create something in the form Wikipedia:Simple News/Your Username and base the articles off that as subpages, /1 etc.
Thirdly, we can add further delievery options if people would like them. These could be things like a collapsible box, the current format and also just a link to the latest issue - what do people think?
And finally... we need more people to help!!! If you have an idea, let us know at Wikipedia talk:Simple News and let the community comment... or, just write an article and tell us!
BG7even 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:Simple News/Preload. If this is copied (not preloaded in the URL, I haven't done the right <includeonly>s for that) to the start of the next month's issue page, and the sections filled in, it should work. I've corrected a bit of other formatting too (Like actually ending the table with |} - people might have some troubles with the current one). I've also correct the NUMBEROFEDITS etc. issues (don't touch these now please) so that they will SUBST:. In response to BG7: Wikipedia:Simple News/Dates is fine although I think one where they are transcluded too would be good. And delivery options sounds like a great idea! Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi tholly,
I'm not actually totally convinced that a pre-load is needed. Considering it's me and Kennedy at the moment, we won't have an issue with needing a preload, because we can either start the new issue after the press date (if we ever have one), copying from the last one (which should, in theory, be good to use) or after the bot has delivered the current one.
As for the options, I will add a page shortly and also update with delivery options. But at the moment i'm article writing ;).
BG7even 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Tholly: Could you possibly add the changes that you made to the next issue at Wikipedia:Simple News/13-12-08? And also, i've added the delivery options at Wikipedia:Simple News/Subscribe but perhaps you could tidy it up a little? Thanks, BG7even 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason I created the preload was to fix the issues in the current template. If you copy from the preload it will be exactly the same as from the last issue, but already blank and definitely correct. Otherwise an error could be in a few issues before anyone noticed. That is why I did it. I'll look at the delivery options, but I don't get what you mean by the fixes - it's too late now as they've all been deliverd. - tholly --Talk-- 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, point taken with the preload ;). But I can actually see some errors on the preload - bullets not rendering for example. As i've alread started the next issue, could you possibly add the fixes there? As for fixes, it just looks a bit untidy how i've done it, and the options are definitely not in simple terms! Thanks, BG7even 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

What can I say? I made some mistakes, and it cost me 'cratship. Isn't that what voting is for anyway? :)

I won't resort to StaticFalconisms and retire over a defeat, and I would like to say that I will still obviously be editing as frequently as before here. I don't think any differently towards those who voted oppose or support. To quote Rudyard Kipling, "If you can meet with triumph and disaster. And treat those two imposters just the same; You'll be a man, my son".

To clear up issues, the deletion of Manchester was a complete mistake on my part. I saw a long article, read a few sentences and thought it had been copy-pasted from ENWP. As for the RfD, I counted votes, calculated there was about 55 - 60% support for deletion which was too close to a 50/50 vote for my liking, so I closed as keep (I was not aware of the existence of {{no consensus}}).

I hope you can all mirror Kipling as I like to think I can, and don't think any differently of me either. Thanks to all who voted on my RfB! --Gwib -(talk)- 10:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I created the no consensus template after the RFD was closed, as I did see an issue, specifically, my view is that closing an RFD as keep when there's a majority of delete votes, even if it is close, is wrong. A keep close, to me, indicates a clear consensus to keep. A close of no consensus (which defaults to keep), indicates there is no clear consensus either way, therefore, it defaults to keep. There's a difference. As for the closure itself, I'm not going to continuously debate over it. I do think a proper closing summary would be appropriate. As for making mistakes, I've made more than my fair share of those, so I'm not one to judge people. Remove the log from our own eyes before we try and remove the splinter from someone else's :) ס (Samekh) Talk 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi all,

Quick question about images, I understand that uploads are not allowed, and to use commons instead... BUT - what if the image is not suitable for commons, i.e. a copyrighted logo?

The two I want (at the moment) are en:Image:BBC Children in Need.png and en:Image:CiNbbc.png. I would assume with appropriate FURs it would be ok?


BG7even 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the same thing twice man and both times they've said the same thing: "Nope, not allowed."--   ChristianMan16  17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Although not allowed I think we're getting extremely close to being active enough for local uploads.--   ChristianMan16  17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
after c/c Meh, if it isn't allowed i'm proposing a major change to the image policy. It's stupid imo. Obviously free-use is better than fair-use, but surely a fair-use is better than no image at all? Or I might just be bold and upload it... and then upload-war if it gets deleted ;) THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS A JOKE!!! ;). Cheers, BG7even 18:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
And to take your second, later point, I agree. I think free-uploads should still go to Commons, but fair-use should be allowed, and also project specific images (say diagrams in simple english or something...). Thanks, BG7even 18:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
We'll see...who knows.--   ChristianMan16  18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some kinds of logos do not have any creative output and can be uploaded, but these exceptions are very rare, such as the logo for AIG. alexandra (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. That doesn't help me. I'm on about the two that I asked for at the moment. Unless that becomes a no, in which case i'll start another argument about the overall image policy because at the moment, imo, its stupid.
Thanks, BG7even 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Did not even realize that you had two specific logos in mind since you didn't put the colon befor the "en" and it showed up as an interwiki link. alexandra (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry, my bad. No need to bite my head off, a simple "You forgot to put the colon before the "en" to make your links show up" would have sufficed. BG7even 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You're the one that said "that doesn't help me," which I regarded as biting my head off to my generalized response as to usage of logos. alexandra (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, i didn't mean for that to bite your head off. :(. It was just meant to be a comment that images in general aren't really my issue at the moment. Sorry! BG7even 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (I'm a stickler for free use, so we're going to end up butting heads if you try and get non free content allowed here (which may be a good thing...) so here goes...) Why would this Wikipedia be improved by allowing the use of non free images? Giggy (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, basically, in my opinion, every article should have an image where possible, as it the illustrates the subject. Obviously, where possible, free-use is preferable, and I think as a general rule the exisiting policy is fine. What I would like is an exception to the rule where logos that are not free can be uploaded. (Hope that convinces you ;) ) Thanks, BG7even 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral on certain logos, but that every article should have an image is mere desirability. An encyclopedia is about its text; remember, images can often be within links to official sites/external links, etc. "Where possible" should mean, in my opinion, free. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with Peter on this. An image of a logo doesn't usually add to the understanding of the topic, which is what we're trying to achieve here (right?). Or, to argue directly what you said — why do you think every article should have an image? Giggy (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) We are currently 30 regular editors here; all of them work pretty much as much all they can. Where do you think we get the resources for checking images? - Therefore: no image uploads; if you think certain logos should be ok, take that up with commons, as we do not have the resources. --Eptalon (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Amongst everything else, i'm up for it actually. So please don't jump to conclusions?
PeterSymonds: That's a fair point but I think that actually it is more vital at a simple wiki to illustrate, especially difficult topics. I must say I don't see the point in the rule tbh.
Giggy: I replied in that bit to Pete, but to elaborate, I think that images are useful a lot of the time. Whilst I know we're not en-wp, and I know I don't want us to be, but in this case I don't see anything wrong with local image uploads. It's a stupid rule imo.
BG7even 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm with BG on this one...I don't see much of a reason not to have fair use image uploads....but is there a way to do it where you have to apply for permission? That would take the checking problem mainly out of it.--  CM16  23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't one, but something could be set up. Once i've done the countless other things on my todo list that is!
BG7even 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm torn about this. I would prefer it if we allowed local uploads, but of course, the question would be, what do we allow to upload? Then there would be the issue of "policing" local uploads, and could be arguments over "they were allowed to upload X, why can't I upload Y?" and so on. So yeah, I'm torn. Doesn't help much, I know, but either way, its my 2c anyway. ס (Samekh) Talk 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the "policing" would be a big issue. Perhaps we could have a system of requested images with a rationale uploaded only by very trusted users - can upload priveleges be granted only to selected users (like rollback)? If we let it be a free for all we will spend a ot of time on copyright and fair use management--Matilda (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, on en wp, image upload is added as an automatic right for autocomfirmed users. It might be wise to add a separate user group (Image uploader?), which gives users the ability to upload pictures. We could file a bugzilla, but probably will need local consensus first. I'd add that I think we should take care to who we give the user right to, we don't want an "anti fair use brigaide" developing, if a local consensus to upload non-free images in certain circumstances develops. ס (Samekh) Talk 03:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think that the best way forward is either to just make a blanket policy, or have a user group. My choice would go with the user group, but it may be a few months so we'd need an interim. BG7even 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether we need an interim or not...shrugs - I think a new user group is the best idea. The community is getting large enough to allow some limited local uploads, I think. ס (Samekh) Talk 03:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • the only rationale for having a user group with such rights would be for fair use images that are not allowed on Commons. Otehr images can be uploaded to Commons and used here. Upload priveleges on Commons are not significantly restricted and they have policies, practices and procedures in place to deal with whether or not images are free use. We would want any members of the user group with image upload rights to demonstrate up front that they understood rationales for fair use before they started uploading such images. It would be implied by having this user group (should such a thing be possible) that fair use images were allowed here. If the community consensus is against fair use images then there is not point in pursuing the matter of users being able to upload images.--Matilda (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, i guess i'll make a formal proposal then ;). BG7even 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to Matilda, which was after i'd started, this is what we are talking about: image uploads would only be for images not allowed at commons. BG7even 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It is most likely that restricting the privelege of uploading to a limited number of users will reinforce that that is what we mean and limit the free-for-all that might otherwise ensue - hence the general support for option 1 and not the other 2 options - any non-restriction means that the privilege for fair-use only might not be well understood. --Matilda (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Image uploads are in direct opposition of one of the basic reasons we even have this wiki and to the very concept of wikipedia in general ("From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (but some of our images are not free. Check local laws before using)") Creating articles for easy translation to other languages is one of the founding ideas for this wiki and using images which can not be transferred to the other languages is counter productive to that. Using free only was chosen because it allows our articles to be transferred to other wiki's easily for translation and because it is legal in nearly all countries. Most do not have a fair-use policy and using fair-use is not allowed locally. They would need to do the exact same thing we have to do with half the articles we base from en:wp - strip the images and start all over again. We are just passing the issue on to others. The fact that the IBM article needs a logo to explain the history and foundation of the company makes no sense to me. Adding the fact that we do not have the qualified people to police what in all likelihood will be a host of illegal uploads and this is a powder keg waiting to explode. If you want to use fair use, take that up with Commons, not here.
I also find it odd that in the "voting" below, it appears we have decided to toss out the image policy and accept images. There are three options on how to deal with the new images, but there is no change to policy to even allow images in the first place or even a fourth option to remain as we are. -- Creol(talk) 05:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay Creol, there is now a fourth option. I am part of it. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a question Creol. If consensus, after some discussion/!voting below, makes it clear that consensus has changed, that will be OK with you? While I agree this is something that is difficult to "Police", I think having a user right for image uploads would be wise. This user right means only images the upload can be uploaded by trusted users, not anyone. ס (Samekh) Talk 07:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal Proposal of Local Image Uploads

Ok, I think the wiki is now active enough to allow uploads, so i'm adding this.

Option One for Formal Proposal of Local Image Uploads

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option one is to add an "Image Uploader" right, which will be granted to certain users and allows local image uploads of Fair-Use images. The right would be given to users after a short process, still tbc, to check that they will not abuse it. There would be a requests page that could be used by users without the right to ask for uploads. Comments, please. BG7even 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - similar to the review process in granting rollback priveleges - abuse the privelege and it is withdrawn --Matilda (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for now, lets just put it into a separate group until the wiki gets bigger, then allow it for everyone autoconfirmed. Techman224Talk 04:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support as I believe it was my original idea.--  CM16  04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - If we are to have non-free images on Simple, this is the best way to moderate it. ס (Samekh) Talk 04:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment – Will administrators automatically gain this permission, or do they too have to request as if they were a normal editor? — RyanCross (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I would like to think my original idea though I wasn't sure about it.--  CM16  04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it would be a bit scary if we had admins who did not understand fair use rationale and were not fully aligned with our image policy (which would need to be refined/developed and made explicit before this happens. So yes, I think admins would get automatically just as they get roll-back automatically. --Matilda (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, just wanted to make sure. Anyway, this proposal has my Support. — RyanCross (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my oppose for fair use images in general. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - It will be nice to make some fair-use images available for use. Chenzw  Talk  10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - This one has my support the most ;) BG7even 10:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The life of brian (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unmodified. --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Option Two - Formal Proposal of Local Image Uploads

Option Three - Formal Proposal of Local Image Uploads

Option Four - Remain as Usual

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support - let's get back to the basics, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per rant (above). Free is free. -- Creol(talk) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; we don't have to (and should not) have nonfree content on here. Giggy (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comments above - a picture of the Golden Arches is not worth a thousand words on McDonald's corporation, similarly nor is a picture of the cover of a DVD worth a decent article on the film itself --Matilda (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although commons is not a place I look forward to editing, they can do they work. Synergy 14:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support remain as usual. Kennedy (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per American Eagle. Juliancolton (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Creol and AE. This has been proposed a ludicrous amount of times now, but I just don't think it will work. - tholly --Talk-- 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I do not support fair use. alexandra (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is extremely hard to illustrate wrestling with out the help of Fair-use images.--  CM16  18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

It's looking like 1 and 4

Since options 1 and 4 are close, I think we need a bigger vote at the end to really know which one has more support, not everyone voted for all the options. Techman224Talk 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It works the same if you just ignore option two and three. This is about whether we "have" the image uploader option, or don't. Synergy 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As of right now, its a split decision (7 for, and 7 against). I'll remind everyone, that if we can't agree, the default will be no change ( as is the usual with a no consensus). Synergy 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh. Shall I archive Two and Three? It seems pretty clear there is no support ;) BG7even 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No complaints here. Synergy 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok,  Done. BG7even 14:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to add, I just found this ("Secondly, there are some logos that Commons does not accept, but are needed here.") on our current deletion policy under I1. Next, to clarify, why won't it work? It has every potential to work well if it's well managed and it has admin support.
I will draw up a fuller proposal for the right and explain in more detail how it will work shortly. Thanks, BG7even 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's separate from what we are talking about. That should be in a different section. This is about allowing images to be uploaded here. Techman224Talk 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't. What it's saying is that images cannot be deleted under I1 if they are logos that commons does not accept (i.e. Fair Use) and that are needed here... so actually, that means imo that I can go and upload a logo as it cant be qd'd. BG7even 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 1 or 4

This voting is messed up

Sorry guys, but this voting is so totally messed up that it makes it completely impossible to determine any kind of consensus from this. To start off with, we should have said "Sign under the proposal(s) you agree with" and then passed the one with the most. Because of the way we've done it, some people are going to just vote support for the ones they like, and others are going to support the one they like and oppose the rest, making the results useless. And we've carried it on with the "option 1 or 4" thing, because now we're asking absolutely everyone that voted before to come back and vote again, otherwise their votes meant absolutely nothing. I think this needs to be restarted, there is no way everyone will do the same thing when it's this complicated. The results won't actually mean anything. Archer7 - talk 19:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See the section above. I've closed those other two so we don't get messed up. --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You didn't archive it right, to archive you use {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}. Techman224Talk 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Messed up voting

Hello all, while the proposal to allow "some kind of image uploads" here (please read on), this is not our focus, and it should not be. We want to make a free encyclopedia anyone can change. This means we should be concerned with making new articles, or making those that exist better. We are a very small community, to the point that you have probably seen all the regulars when you have been here a week. When we start talking about images, we necessarily need to talk about licenses, the stuff you are allowed to do with images. Can you tell me what the difference is between a GPL-liencensed image and one under one of the Creative Commons licenses? - Personally I am not too interested to know. I want to be able to USE image to illustrate an article, if possible. I want to be able to focus on what is needed to make an article better (for example: easier to understand), rather than battling with image licenses. But there are those people who are fascinated by image licenses, by ensuring the images are used according to what their license specifies. Those guys sit around at Wikimedia Commons. I will therefore leave these decisions to them; and if you think that a given product logo should be in your article, it is in my opinion better to talk to the guys and gals at Commons; they have the resources, we don't. So what was the thing we were supposed to vote on? --Eptalon (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

About moving Wikipedia:Schools

Reporting usernames

If a username does not use Latin characters, where do you report it and how do you tell the user? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You tell the user on his user page about WP:SIG#NL, and ask him nicely to find an alternative signature. Yotcmdr (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Which user are you having troubles with?--  CM16  22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Making picture smaller.

How do you insert a picture without it being too big for the page? (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Format the picture like the following: [[Image:IMAGE NAME HERE.png/svg/etc.|100px]] Basically, just add how many pixels you want the image size to be following the | after the image link. — RyanCross (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
or - see Help:How to use images -- Creol(talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)