Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 50

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakistan editor

I know I'm not the only user who is sick and tired of the bot-like IP Pakistan editor. He is a regular contributor, but he has never created any account to my knowledge; he creates POV articles, full of red links to non-notable topics, and worst of all, he's started adding dead images. He's never commented on a talk page, despite having numerous blocks, and numerous editors trying to communicate. Eptalon has, unlike me, assumed that the editor will get better with time. I strongly disagree anything will change. If this was one logged-in user, he'd have a block log a mile long, and we should really be considering a ban, and revert/remove any edits this user makes. Frankly, we'll be much better off without his biased, badly formatted articles on non-notable Pakistan-related topics. Majorly talk 17:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non notable articles need to go, but anything on en or another language needs to stay (cities, towns, villages, etc). Just revert all the mistakes or remove the dead links and images, and anything else: delete., are doing the same as was. We need to figure out what to do from here on out. Synergy 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been slight improvement. He created an account under User:Pahari Sahib (same username on ENWP). --Gwib -(talk)- 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he still editing under an IP then, including dead images? Majorly talk 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point of this is that hes creating an unnecessary amount of work here. Everything he does needs to be fixed. Previously I was opposed to blocking but its getting out of hand at this point and something needs to be done. Synergy 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't it turn out that they edit from an IP in Manchester? I'm sure I heard someone mention that before... Anyway as I have said many times, I definitely support a ban or a long block, most of his contributions, while adding to the encyclopedia, detract from the quality and they never appear to learn anything with regards to MOS, referencing etc. FSM Noodly? 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have previously pointed out at WP:AN he also happens to be a serial plagiarist. You will find probably (if you look for references) that most of his work is a copyvio. --Matilda (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict: Yes, the IP's s/he edits from in the range are in Manchester. I don't think the user deserves a block. For one thing, much of the material on Wikipedia about Pakistan is contributed by this editor, and I think that this is of high value to the Encyclopedia. Although some of the behavior exhibited by the user is not very favorable (no communication with other editors), I think that blocking him will be ineffective (as he can switch IP addresses) and wrong (just because the editor's poorly-formatted articles give editors a task to do, doesn't mean the edits are bad). POV material should not be deleted, but kept and maybe an Indian point of view or something should be added. I think an encyclopedia cannot be completely without point of view, and that it should cover many sides. "Minority" viewpoints should have a brief mention as well, if they have been published. As for the dead images, they were probably in articles copied from Enwiki, and can be removed.

The image inclusion is probably the insertion of an image he saw at enwiki, and he is probably learning how to include images. Give this editor some time. "Poorly formatted" does not mean that the content is useless. It just gives you something to do. As for "non-notable", not all his topics are non-notable (many have articles on Enwiki).

I am not sure whether is Pahari Sahib or 212 or 195. They may all be different people. It is likely that Pahari Sahib is either 212 or 195, as he seems capable of communicating with other users. But I know little about the case, so I'm not an authoritative source or anything on who the Pakistan editor is.

To Matilda: You, in all the time you have contributed to Wikipedia, should know that content copied from English Wikipedia to another Wikipedia does not violate copyright, as Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. If the content was copied from another website, then it was probably a Wikipedia scraper site (like NationMaster). Jonas D. Rand T 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • He isn't merely copying from wikipedia, he is copying from other web sites - I found this by trying to reference the material he had added. I explained this at WP:AN - the links are there. But Ir repeat them here by way of example :
the article Hingol River was created by (talk · contribs) and was a copyvio from . It was also identical to the English wikipedia version of the article which was created by User:Siddiqui . This user was among several banned for one year per en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Note also sockpuppetry by User:Siddiqui discussed at en:User_talk:Thatcher/Archive20#Paknur which resulted in blocks of sockpuppets of Siddiqui in June 2008.
National parks of Pakistan is unlikely to be a scraper site - it is not a very good site but I can pick scraper sites. --Matilda (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article was probably taken from Wikipedia itself, and not from Jalal's Pages. Jalal may have copied it on his webpage, or the Pakistan Editor may have unknowingly copied it from Wikipedia, assuming it was free, which makes Sisiqui the plagiarist. Jonas D. Rand T 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article was taken from wikipedia but that is a matter of opinion. The copyvio of Hub River from cannot be similarly dismissed - there is no way got their info from enwp. Are you sure that the Ip editor on Pakistan topics is not Siddiqui ? I think he is - the edit pattern is too similar. I do not think that large amounts of plagiarised material are useful to SEWP or enwp. They haven't cleared enwp of the copyright violations but issues about Pakistani articles went to arbitration - see en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan and Siddiqui was blocked. I don't really think we need to bring those sorts of political issues here. --Matilda (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Pahari Sahib is not a sockpuppet of Siddiqui (or Paknur) per this CU matches several users but not Pahari Sahib who had created an account and was active at that time.--Matilda (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I first want to point out that this editor has not created an account, he is NOT Pahari Sahib (or any other editor). He also edits on English Wikipedia (where he also has not created an account). As far as I am aware, he has not replied to messages on his talk page, but he is capable of at least partly understanding them; my context diff (on his talk page) of how ot do a redirect led to our getting this "special redirects" where the first line of the article is a (correct) redirect, but the rest is a copy of the article redirected to. As correctly pointed out, most of our current Pakistan related (and some of the India-related) articles were done by him. His editing has improved, in that the article he creates now, are generally correctly formatted, and have a category (but no interwiki links). I currently do not think that blocking (or banning) would serve much; instead of complaining we should try and attract more editors who know things about Pakistan (and India / Bangladesh).--Eptalon (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although his editing has improved, there is still a POV especially when Kashmir is concerned. He is also adding categories such as Category:Flora of Pakistan to the articles of flora that are otherwise available in many different countries around the world. Same goes to animals. Chenzw  Talk  01:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the Pakistan IP is editing under and a new problem is that he keeps and copying-'n'-pasting from EN, using unsimple English and making redirects with uncommon spellings. Although his editing has improved, I'm afraid he still hasn't learnt his main lesson, that is, he keeps running unapproved 'bots' under IPs to escape blocks deliberately. I also warned one of his other IPs many weeks ago to include references when writing about people, and even now, he still hasn't. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be agreement here that this person is more trouble than they're worth. I shall be continuing my block on sight practice here. I hope other admins follow this practice, before this wiki is destroyed by POV copyvio articles on non-notable Pakistan topics. Majorly talk 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I just wanted to update you on the situation: It looks like the 212 IP translates to "Northwest Learning Grid". This is a consortium (sorry, don't know the correct word, non-native speaker, federation?) of 18 regional bodies. It looks like these bodies are (also?) concerned with integrating "migrants" and their children. According to a study found by Ionas, the children of Pakistani often perform worse than their peers (as an example: Indians seem to perform better). As far as I can see 92.1/92.2/212 seem to be the same person, or people. As I have seen myself (the redirects case outlined above), the contributor(s) do not have a full grasp of the English language. I think SEWP can contribute to these peoples' learning experience. So rather than blocking them, we should get them to respond to our messages. I have learned English as a foreign language, English is a difficult language to learn; and I had the benefit that my native tongue, uses the "Latin alphabet". Urdu (commonly spoken in Pakistan) uses the Arabic alphabet, I think. As these peole people do read their talk page, I think we have several options:
  • Leave a message there, in English, using BE850
  • Get someone to leave a message there in Urdu
  • Write to the Northwest Learning Grid (
I think if it is done correctly this could be used as a "school project"--Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that Eptalon (or anyone else) learned English by copying and pasting text. While I commend Eptalon on assuming good faith, I think the edits are not harmless. Much of the stuff on enwp in this area (Pakistan topics) is copyright violation which is unlawful. Much of it is unreferenced and we cannot be sure if it meets WP:V or WP:NPOV. As has been discussed previously - for example at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_46#GFDL... , not only is copying from enwp not desirable, it is also unlawful if the copying is not correctly attributed. Any attribution would be better than just copying.
    I think Eptalon's proposed way forward is an excellent suggestion except that I think School Project's need to have an on-site mentor who can read and write reasonable English and is prepared to discuss issues. The Thai project did. For this project to succeed I think we need to have a liaison point of somebody who understands wikipedia - or is prepared to discuss policies including WP:V and WP:NPOV plus the basic principles of plagiarism and copyright. The notion of a liaison point may perhaps be relevant to other similar projects.
    Without a liaison point I cannot see that it can be deemed a "school project". Breaches of policy including copyright violations - whether or not they are plagiarised form enwp are unacceptable. A liaison point to discuss such issues seems to be appropriate per Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide.
    Editors who plagiarise without attribution should be blocked. --Matilda (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I really don't want to have to delete all of those pages though... but I'd do it if someone was going to recreate them to attribute them properly, right after me. Synergy 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Hint hint.[reply]

Matilda: We should take the educational approach, trying to get this editor to communicate with us. Since you clearly do not advocate that practice, and instead want to go on about petty nonsense like NPOV that has no basis in reality, you should not involve yourself in this sensitive case. You do not take an approach that negotiates with the editor, and you seem to think that if he doesn't respond to the warnings, then he should be blocked. This is just another reason that I would not trust you as an administrator, knowing that you want this editor blocked. The editor clearly has trouble with something, either the language being used to communicate with him is too complex, or someone told him not to "chat" or "talk" to anybody, but just to complete the assignment (and then when the assignment was done, he just kept that in mind and thought to always follow that rule), or he works for some organization and doesn't know anything about Wikipedia. He might just learn differently. No matter what, the last thing we should do is block.

As for plagiarism and copyright violations, try to contact the owner of the website and ask if the editor has permission to reproduce the work.

To Eptalon: A consortium is like an association, a federation of organizations, or a group of people.

I recommend that an editor who speaks Urdu to try to talk to this editor, and see if that works. Right now, I do not know of an editor on Simple Wikipedia that speaks it.Jonas D. Rand T 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 195 IP addresses geolocate to JANET CSIRT:

Please also see: User:Chenzw/Pakistan

Jonas D. Rand T 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jonas D. Rand - I regard your comments as breaching WP:NPA - that is they are personal attacks commenting on me rather than the topic. Other people calling for blocks are Majorly, Æåm Fætsøn; other editors asserting his POV are Chenzw
On what basis do you assert I am going on about petty nonsense like NPOV that has no basis in reality, you should not involve yourself in this sensitive case?
I believe ongoing plagiarists should be blocked - they are disrupting wikipedia. They are breaching our policy on Wikipedia:Copyrights.
I personally have worked very hard to clean up Pakistani Rivers and that is how I found that he was plagiarising - by trying to reference the material he was editing - in other words adding to what he has carelessly added and verifying it - that is in accordance with policy (WP:V. My actions were not a breach of WP:NPOV. The plagiarism is widespread - there is no original content that I have found.
If he is not the original editor who added the material to enwp (which is how I read Eptalon's comments above and also the user I have in mind is unlikely to edit from the Northwest Learning Grid ) then all he is doing is copying and pasting from enwp. We are not helping him to learn English by doing that. We are not helping wikipedia if he does that. We are reproducing errors in enwp to here.
There are few editors on this site and their patience in cleaning up after him has been close to being exhausted.
It is highly unlikely that the editor would have permission to copy from such a site as www.ramsar.orgthat site page does not allow non-commercial use and wikipedia demands a free use license. I doubt that he knows that that was the source of what he was copying and I doubt went to the trouble of asking. There is no evidence in his interaction with the community here that he would have done so. Other websites that have been copied from clearly state the material on their pages is copyright. The copyright breaches are from many websites - that doesn't make the breach of copyright any better.
The editor has breached GNU Free Documentation License by copying without attribution. That this is an error made by other SEWP editors is not a reason to say it is OK.
The editor has been warned multiple times - see for example User talk: Perhaps the language of the warnings or the attempt to discuss can be made in simpler English. But while a review of the language used in the template warnings is perhaps useful, I suspect that isn't the problem.
This wiki is in Simple English - communication in Urdu is not sustainable when the community lacks that language skill.
If we are to treat this user as a "school project" then we need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide. These may need review but the basic principle that there be somebody oversighting this as implied by the guide in general including the statement Please notify administrators of the planned date and time of your activity, and the username/IP you will be using. Hopefully, admins will then be available to provide assistance to you and your students.
If nobody is prepared to support this editor(s) and the editor consistently breaches our policies - eg Wikipedia:Copyrights there is no reason not to block as per Majorly's suggestion. --Matilda (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all ips have been blocked, and will continue to be blocked on sight. Jonas can take his crusade somewhere else. Synergy 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the material was copied from Enwiki, but it happened not to have belonged here either, then it should be deleted. That still doesn't make the Pak editor a plagiarist. To consider copies from enwiki of perfectly legitimate material plagiarism is unnecessary rules-following, in my opinion. I do, however, think material should be simplified if it was copied from Enwiki. That is our job.

Our focus should not be following the rules no matter what. If the rules get in the way of our primary objective, which is to get him to communicate with us and to learn, then we are not obligated to follow them, unless they are law. For instance, the NPOV thing. Your focus on rules and rules only (not the primary objective of education) is the "go[ing] on about petty nonsense" thing.

We should not template warn him. That is the issue that I have with AErn fatsoen. All he does is template warn and consider everything that doesn't fit the typical Wikipedia mold to be vandalism. The educational approach is not to warn with templates.

Neutral Point of View is an afterthought. I don't care about it. It is not our focus in this case.

Synergy: Don't do that. That's not ethical. We are not English Wikipedia, Czarist Russia, or any other institution that practices such unjust practices. Jonas D. Rand T 02:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again; Yes, i know what a consortium is, I used the word because that is the word they used (at the NWLG). As to personal attacks: I do not see this at the moment as a grounds to battle personal attacks or copyright violations (whatever form they may take). This NWLG seems to be concerned with trying to help the children of migrants, amongst others. I personally do not believe they care for only one editor with a Pakistani background, they probably have a few. I think if we can collaborate with this body, this can turn into a win-win situation; they can point their pupils to a project where they can practise English outside a context of school, and we get a number of articles on the home countries of these students (or whatever else they write about). So far we have seen articles about Pakistani geography (cities, subdivisions), important Pakistani people, and sights in Pakistan. These come from three IP addresses, which we believe to be one editor. We currently do not know whether such edits are encouraged by school, or where this editor's parents/guardians encourage them to do this. I think the most important thing for us to do, at the moment is to establish a basis for communication. We need to point out that we are not evil, and that we do not punish people for what they write. On the other hand, we expect that the writers try to be truthful, and as unbiased as possible. We also need to point out that this is a commuinity project; an article is written by one editor, and is then improved by other editors. --Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who want to help, please simplify the text at User_talk:Eptalon/Pakistan as much as possible. I want to get this to be understandable by someone with a BE850 vocabulary. --Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking, is the bottom 'Comments' section going to be sent or is it just a reminder? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a reminder/discussion; ideally we should be able ot copy/paste the Text section, when we see them next. --Eptalon (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you may know I recently had a run-in with Matilda about my sig being too long. While it fit the 3 line limit in my screen res of 1280x1024 but not in her's (or Cassandra's). So I changed it as many of you know so it complies. My point being the policy states and I quote: "signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures," I personally think we need to set a standard screen res so we don't keep running into that problem. I would say about 1152x864. Opinions please.--  CM16  06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who has a screen res of 1152x864? The article even says its not being used often. I disagree that we need a set res. If it is obviously over the top, then you should change. Cman, yours had a border and background colour and everything! I really don't have an issue with how long a sig is in the edit window, usually its one person per line, so all you do is look for the (UTC) bit at the end to pick out where the sig ends. I do dislike big, bold signatures that jump out at you and ruin the page though, but I don't see why there has to be a big fuss. More than one person says its too much, you change, everyone is happy. Kennedy (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just picked one.--  CM16  16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we?- Can't we say Sig longer than 30 chars (or 50, up for discussion) are too long. As to the resolution see en:XGA+. For myself, I have seen it being used on some Macintosh conmputers. --Eptalon (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree to trying to set a standard screen resolution. It just can't, or shouldn't, in my opinion, be something we should "enforce". As to signatures, well, mine is somewhat long, but I did change it from what it used to be, upon request, so it could be clearly seen what my username is. But that's a different kettle of fish. ס (Samekh) Talk 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a definition based on the number of characters as suggested by Eptalon is a better and simpler way to go for a guideline if common sense cannot prevail. Like Kennedy I don't like signatures that jump out and ruin the page. The new signature of ChristianMan16 is much nicer and more elegant to look at now as well as being shorter. I appreciate that both Samekh and CM16 changed their signatures upon request (and thank them for doing so) and I think both signatures are now easier for editors and readers. --Matilda (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I know its not policy (and not this wiki). The recommended resolution to consider when creating articles on is 1024×768 because you want to try and work for the largest portion of page viewers possible. 48% of the internet uses this resolution and I believe 36% uses larger which means those 36% wouldn't have a problem either so that resolution covers 84% of possible viewers. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1024x768 sounds about right. Others agree?--  CM16  16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, that is the most common resolution, but I don't think that resolution is the best way to do this. How can I tell how long my signature will be on my tiny 800x600 resolution CRT? (I actually use 1024*768 but you get the picture...) Kennedy (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well what you do if you can't make it higher, is to act like your monitor is that resolution, if its 3 lines on yours then stop there. -Djsasso (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of setting a resolution is so we don't have to worry about other resolutions.--  CM16  16:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Sig that is 100 displayed chars long is to long, even at 1600x1200...--Eptalon (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Thats not necessarily true Cman. I again point you to my comments above. If I use 800x600, and cannot change to 1024*768, then how do I know how long my signature is to be? 3 lines of text on a 800x600 screen will be a considerable amount less than on 1024x768. Kennedy (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100 Characters is too short IMO, Eptalon....the raw sig box limits you to 255 Characters.....Well then Kennedy you would be below the limit then wouldn't you?--  CM16  16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People being smaller than that is pretty rare, that was the point of using that resolution, below that I am sure people could just use common sense. I don't see this as something you would enforce anyways but rather strongly suggest. -Djsasso (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there. Is there anyne interested in reogranising the Mormonism-related subjects into a consisted hierarchy? - My personal opionion:

  • Mormons are not Christians, they have an additional scripture (they call the Book of Mormon), they also do not seem to believe in the trinity

This seems to hold for the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (our article here is ill-named), and the biggest Mormon group. The second-biggest movement, Community of Christ seems to be pretty close to mainline Protestant Christianity - they have a trinitarian view, they don't see the Book of Mormon as scripture (and their baptism is accepted as a Christian one). I am not qualified to write sucvh an article, but I think following this discovery, our Mormonism related articles need rewriting. Anyone up to the task? --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: The Latter-day Saints are the biggest Mormon group, the Community of Christ the second-biggest. --Eptalon (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and asked on the talk page of the English Wikipedia LDS WikiProject to see if they can help. To avoid cross posting, I'd rather discuss it there. --wL <talk · changes> 11:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a simplifying program

Hi simple wikipedia, I have over the past few months written a web app that translates -to some degree- regular English to simple English automatically, intending to help with the development of this wikipedia.
The main part of the program right now is a list of 2000 simple word substitutions, which can be seen (and improved) here. Im aware of the challenges and limitations in the automated treatment of the English language and I have made this program in a careful way. I address this here. The program makes no changes to Links, quotes, or references, is not intended as a substitute for human edits, though I have considered trying to fork it into a bot in some form. Soon I hope to involve word disambiguity, and dependent clause repair. I could use some help here, msg me, its o/s.
Is this a useful program? really, or what. tell me what you think, Because it was sort of annoying to make, and I think its a good idea. [1]
Cheers Spencerk (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a little play - it looks good and potentially very useful--Matilda (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So did I, and i thought it was good too. It'll need expanding though! Yotcmdr (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I please see the source code? --Chris 09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
errr... good idea, but needs improvement.Brainbox (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep! its sure got its bugs. it'll be flyin by christmas. it'll be a bot by valentines. much love simple.wikipedia--Spencerk (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy POV dispute

I refer to this edit by Gwib with the edit summary ENWP template of the same name has it. Accepted by some as anatomically correct, so should have a link. Disagree? I thought so. Simple Talk? which reinserts the article Gräfenberg spot into the template:Reproductive system and thereby claims that the concept is an anatomical fact. Per our article a fact is something that is true or real.

We provide three reliable references to support the fact that Doctors who specialise in the anatomy of women say there is no anatomical evidence for the "spot". The authors of the book who popularised the concept were psychologists, a nurse and a sex counsellor - not experts in the field of anatomy.

As per our policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : many things most people believe are wrong - agreeing is not truth. Facts must be checked. Popular belief does not make something true. Some people believe in a Flat Earth. Others believe in Creationism. We have articles on the topic but we do not put forward the idea that they are true. I do not believe we should inaccurately promulgate the modern gynecologic myth by claiming something as anatomy when it is yet to be proven to the satisfaction of medical science.

Note there is nor reason for inaccuracies at enwp to be reproduced here - we are not a mirror of enwp. --Matilda (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the link should be left in. In some people's opinions, it is part of the human anatomy. In some people's it isn't. The article may need clearing up to state this, but I still think that the link should be there. It is obviously a matter of debate, but this is about whether it is part of the human anatomy, and people deserve to find a link to the article to read it and make up their own minds.
I can't really think of any example's or better ways of putting this, but I would prefer it if the link was left in. What do other people think? Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Matilda's argument, but I think it should stay in the template. The template doesn't definitely state what is/isn't part of the reproductive system, but rather articles related to it. Real or not, this is a related article. Giggy (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going with Giggy's theory here in that the template should point to what is related. The article itself should clearly bring up the layers of disagreement about it this is true or not, but the main reguard of every situation should be the reader. What is best for our readers? I feel the topic is of interest to any person looking into informtion on the female reproductive system (past those just looking for pictures of vaginas who can't find pr0n on their own). The subject is a notable issue when dealing with female sexual anatomy which frankly neither side can prove either way and the general public would classify as related. Yes, ideally it would be classified in the template under a separate heading (en: uses "other") but no one here bothered to suggest that. One side says it is a nerve issue, the other side claims it is not and that the first side used too small of a focus group when their results with a larger group were clearly better (100 instances, but they used a total of 21 people.. much wider sample group...). Does it exist? How should I know (and actually, why should I care, I'm male and lets face it, for the most part, the female orgasm could be a myth for all we care as long as we get out business done at the end - genetics and Darwinism push us against worrying about these thing or even wondering if they actually exist). IF it exists or not is not as important as providing reputable information both pro and con about it for those looking. This is more a situation for the article than one for a template. -- Creol(talk) 07:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I already pointed this out: Women seem to have more nerve endings in a certain location. When they are stimulated, they can give these women a pleasurable feeling. Ernst Gräfenberg found it, his article on it (referenced on the talk page of Gräfenberg spot) was published in 1950. Whether the spot exists, is named that way, etc. is a subject of scientific discussions, which can be pointed out in the respective article. Please note, we have articles on Spontaneous generation and Lamarckism. Both theories have been falsified by the current state of science, yet no one objects to them being there. Please note: We are an encyclopedia, our task is to report, not to judge. This is not the place for petty arguments that try to introduce some kind of censorship, based on the fact that talking about sex or anatomy related to sex is a taboo. Perhaps another idea: Regardless of whether the spot exists or is named that way: Many people have heard the term G-Spot (they might not be aware what the G stands for). So they will search for the term, and it is our call to provide an article that gives an explanation. The reason for the template is to point ot similar arcticles, it has nothing ot do with it being fact. It just says: Look there is another article which might be related to what you are looking for. In that view ther is no reason to not include it; as to its existence, please debate that in the article or its talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sorts of templates are for navigational purposes, for grouping similar topics of interest together. Sure, there is debate on whether or not the G-spot actually exists, but that's what we report in the article. This is clearly a controversial topic, but, as I and others have said, the G-spot article is in this template for navigational purposes, for grouping similar items together, not based on whether or not everyone believes it exists. ס (Samekh) Talk 12:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Creationism, the closer we come to creating it ourselves, the less likely it is. Sorry but Anatomy should be strictly fact unless clearly stated or you could just put stuff like Vampire fangs or Angel wings. ~ R.T.G 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone think that this Wiki degrades the English language? Aren't we assuming that English speakers aren't intelligent enough to cope with sophisticated language? Sorry if I'm right off, I'm new here. Glanhawr (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people speak English in such a simple state that they cannot contribute or understand at the english wikipedia. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And these people would include ESL, children and others - generally anyone who does not speak English as a natural speaker and at a college level (most English Wikipedia articles are written at a readability level around year 14 (second year of college)). We do not say people are not intelligent enough, but that does not prevent people with out the intelligence or expertise in the language from using it. -- Creol(talk) 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Brace, this can be longer) No, I do not think this place degrades the English Language. Languages that are spoken adapt to their speakers. There are also some bodies that try to steer the language adaptation. English is currenlty the language of Science. It has the place Latin had up to the Middle Ages. People that come here may be very bright researchers, with very good ideas in their field of research. They just have not taken the time to learn English to a sufficient degree. (Just a note aside: English is not my mother tongue). I dont know who of you has taken the trouble to learn another language.I have learnt several. I can tell you: Getting the knowledge of a language to a "moderate" (called "intermediate", I think) level is easy. It takes time and committment. Getting the language from this level to a level of Proficiency is much more vork, it takes dedication. Or to speak with the terms of en:Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, getting a level B2 there is no problem, getting from B2 to C2 is much more work. As a grounds for motivation: Expressing a difficult concept with simple words is much more difficult to do than expressing it with difficult ones. Would you discredit a Nobel Prize winner for what he did, on the grounds that what he did was not done in English? (Commonly the case with the Nobel Prize for Literature, btw.)- By its very nature, English has a wide variety of speakers. The guy from India might not understand the one from South Africa or from Belize, simply because their vocabulary is different, or the same words are used for different concepts. Yet for all of them, English might be their first language. Most of those learning English stop at an lower intermediate (B1-B2) level, because it covers most of what they need. How much English do you think the guy needs that is selling Newspapers at Zurich Airport? - Excactly. Simple English is not about Intelligence. Simple English is about being able to decipher the Instructions on what to do if a fire alarm goes off in your Hotel in Shanghai, preferably, before being charred. We are the guys who write these instructions. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Happy Turkey Day to those Americans here!!!! Time to give thanks. Just remember....don't eat till ya puke..ROFLOL :D--  CM16  06:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yum...three kinds of pie later in the day! :D Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scotch, Steak and Mince? Kennedy (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to Americans to be a month late. The real Thanksgiving was on October 13th. hehe -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, lots to be thankful on 13th October. Fun fact about Kennedy: I was born on Friday 13th October! Kennedy (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I was linking too but cool enough. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have followed my own advice.....*burp* where's my PeptoTM?--  CM16  04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't eat till ya puke? What kind of statement is that? ;-) Juliancolton (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually sick all day for Thanksgiving and in bed... and I still am. :| – RyanCross (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, this is my first edit in simple.wikipedia but, however, I saw ‘autoconfirmed’ in 'my settings'? why I don't need 10 edits in order to become an autoconfirmed user?--Bencmq (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's only on enwiki --Chris 07:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably using a SUL account. Autoconfirmed status is automatically given to other Wikipedias that have your username as a global account - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No SUL doesn't work like that. --Chris 04:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To get autoconfirmed, you need to be registered for 4 days. That it. Techman224Talk 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks.--Bencmq (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Simple News

Hey everyone, I think we should move Simple News from User:Kennedy/Simple News to Wikipedia:Simple News. After all, it's part of wikipedia, and it will make it easier for users to find it. Techman224Talk 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy has already stated that he doesn't want this to be proposed until after the 2nd issue is released on December 13th. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say at least redirect it for now then.--  CM16  16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose to do anything until the newsletter is definitely with us for good - it could still flop. Wait until we are ready. BG7even 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you delete a page....what's the prob there?--  CM16  06:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Would anyone object to changing the edit counter in {{userpageinfo}} to this one? If no one objects, let's do that. ѕwirlвoy  16:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea, that one's much better. - tholly --Talk-- 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. – RyanCross (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now everyone has to remove the template and re-add it, it seems. ѕwirlвoy  14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking today, that our G12 tag needs updating to look more like en's. It needs to have a place to put the link the material came from. Can anyone do this? I think an admin has to. ѕwirlвoy  14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, all the QD templates are from the same template. I think it would be easier just to leave it as it is. In the reason section you can just write {qd|G12 - from <link>}. Alternatively, we could add in a third field so that you can put {qd|g12|more reason and link} so that the whole of the G12 templated reason gets added, but I don't see much of a reason for this, as admins know what G12 is for (or could look). Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tholly: It would be great if that worked, but it doesn't ;p I think adding the extra field to G12 is a good idea for the urls of other websites. If someone is claiming a copyvio I'd like to see from where (and it would be easier for the taggers too). Synergy 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Synergy, I deleted that page, I have restored it now though :) Kennedy (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I removed it from the cat (which was why I shown a diff to Tholly, I should have removed it sooner).Synergy 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original topic... :P - I've fixed the template so the third field should work. Go and play in a sandbox! - tholly --Talk-- 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Much appreciated. Synergy 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring this up to the community before someone added it, but I noticed someone a long time ago removed the other simple wikis from here. I think it should be reinstated because every other simple wiki has it and it makes navigation easier. What does everyone think? ѕwirlвoy  14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we took them out because the RC box was taking up too much space on the page, and you had to scroll down to see the changes (particularly on laptop type screens). What do other people think? - tholly --Talk-- 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Space is no longer an issue. I had someone fix it so if its too large, you have the option to hide it. This will let us see edits faster for vandal fighting and you don't have to hide it. Synergy 17:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Temporarily, it isn't set to autohide. This is because I asked that it be optional, so I have to figure out how to make it hide and stay hidden every time you refresh, but not let it affect those who don't want it hidden. Tsk tsk. Synergy 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts creating either unmeaningful or complicated pages

I'm concerned lately that a number of new accounts have been repeatedly creating in mass, complex jargon without any basic, decriptive words whatsoever, meaningless stuff, spam, or just nothing at all. They usurp pages to put their complex irrelevant terms as in [2]. They have been warned way too much by me, and they mass create 'throw-away' accounts and sometimes use IPs, which has been going on since Saturday. According to their IPs, they're in Korea, and possibly a university or a company judging by their edits. These users have varying degrees in understanding English, so I suspect they're meats. They also add summaries like now ing They've made mostly very obscure articles about car technologies and circuitry, like:

These accounts:

have all been doing this today. If anyone knows anything about this, why they are doing this, or anything about them happening now, just say it. I'm tired of QDing after them. I'll clear the contrib and user lists everyday so latest reports won't be clogged. And if you need to see past reports, go to User:Æåm Fætsøn/Korea multiple account controversy - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful what you QD though, like Hydrogen car, it was deleted as spam by Gwib the first time but when it was recreated in good faith and as a good article you tagged it for QD....I have removed the tag and formatted it, please be careful in the future.--  CM16  07:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that they belong to Korea University and their teacher is 'Prof. Dr. Ki-Su LEE' and their website is I'm trying to contact them about this, because one user I've kindly asked, User talk:Licorice1215 has failed to respond and they are still ruining Wikipedia. If this continues, someone might have to pull in a few blocks. They are getting more suspicious by the moment and are now starting to use more IPs to possibly evade blocks.

They just don't learn how to edit properly and they think copying from En and other sites is the easy way out. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused here. I appended your list above with the actual IP results. You feel they belong to the Korean University, but out of the four IPs give, I see two in the United States (separate parts of the country), one in Kuwait, and one for a commercial ISP in Korea (possibly the university, but odd that they use a commercial ISP). As the four provided IPs have a zero match, there would be no basis shown for a Checkuser on the named accounts to see if there is any connection at all there since there is absolutely no connection with the obvious parts of the list (the IPs). You seem to be seeing a pattern forming but in three separate parts of the world. -- Creol(talk) 06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling in the locations. I only checked one IP when I started this topic, but strange that they're editing similarly? Maybe students overseas (I might be silly and wrong), but the pages they edited may have different topics, but they all added complex language. I'm not sure if Checkuser tracks the IP's current location or the location of it at a certain time, (IPs might have been recycled since), but you could remove the IPs if you're really sure if how they edited was different. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of discussion

Æåm Fætsøn removed this section with the edit summary "rm Multiple accounts... section, no activity but i'll bring it back if it pops up again." I've restored it, because I think we should stick to good Wiki-practices, which includes not deleting discussions except when archiving them. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry now it's active. They've now come back to their editing, while still using complex language to some extent. Although they've improved a bit in simple language, some don't follow MOS and I'll report it to AN if it gets worse. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schools projects..


To simplify life, I have created Wikipedia:Schools/Projects. This page can be used to list current projects. That way, they will no lnoger be archived (with Simple talk).

The current Thailand content expansion project is listed.

Can someome integrate the page into the rest of the schools gateway, please? --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only for people learning

Simple English wikipedia is not only for people learning English. I know it says that it is for children too but it seems like it is more geared toward foreigners from my reading of the summary. I think you should think again about your summary of this wiki. I am sure others will agree that most people learning English read in their own language as most of my foreign friends do. To say they cannot read in their own language is nonsense there are so many languages covered here bar one or two.(BTW I am an adult who understands English fine, but I have foreign friends so I have a fair knowledge of this subject.) (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first if you want to contribute here more often, consider creating an account, it makes ocmmunication with people easier; we currently (actively) target the following groups of people:
  • Those learning English as their first language (i.e. Children)
  • Those learning English as an additional language (I am one of them)
  • Those translating articles from English into a different language; It often helps translators to get articles that are easier to understand
Please note that the simple in Simple English refers to the language used, and not the concepts. Also note that this Wikipedia has articles about things certain people feel should not be in an encyclopedia; it also features images that show certain parts of the human anatomy as they are, or gives instruction how to build "fire-bombs" (Carrying one might get you in trouble in certain parts of the world). Your non-native English-speaking friends are of course welcome to help here, and make this project better; either by transkating from their language, or to their language. We also have aload of articles that are considered difficult to understand, and where the language should be simplified, but unfortunately we are only few editors here. So, welcome to the project, I look forward to your contributions. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello everyone. I thought I would let you all know that I will be less active from next week (8th December). I have a new job which will be taking up more of my time. Right now I work at a reception desk, so when there is no customers, I have no work to do, so I browse wikipedia. Unfortunately, my new job has a lot more responsibilty. I will be a housing officer, getting tenants to pay their rent and evicting those who don't. So I will not be able to browse here much after next week, as I will be out on home visits and in interviews. I will still try to be active at the weekends though, and will occasionally pop in when it is quiet too! Regards, Kennedy (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I go up to Saint Andrew's University to study, I'll expect you to find me a house! --Gwib -(talk)- 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is well outside my area as housing officer! ^_^ I only do rent arrears, in Bellshill. I could push for a house there, but you would not want them :P Kennedy (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK... this is an update?

Lol, couldn't resist the title!

Anyway, just to update you all!

I've recently been inactive due to exams and personal reasons (and also something else some people know about that is wiki related) so DYK? has not been too active.

I am now back, and I completed an update yesterday. I've also now worked through all current noms, and added some to the next. I aim to get an update about every three days, although sometimes this may mean that I self-nom-self-approve or slightly relax the criteria (shout if you object).

I'm also looking for more people to help out, both with noms and the actual reviewing and updating! If you want to help, add your name to Wikipedia:Did you know and if you're unsure of what to do, drop me a line. I'm also going to refresh that list periodically so that only those active are listed.

Finally, a question: there has been talk of protecting everything that is Main Paged. As it is, DYK is run by mainly non-admins, and indeed I would struggle with doing it if it was protected ;). So, a) should it be protected (there has been no vandalism yet) and b) if it is, would anyone be opposed to be requesting sysop early for the sole purpose of DYK and Main Page updating? I would then re-apply when I felt I was ready for the rest ;).

So, that should bring you up to speed ;).


BG7even 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, if there aren't more helpers, I will have to resort to self-nom-self-approve because I would like to get some Tram/Derbyshire DYK?s on here ;) BG7even 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how giving you sysop early for DYK would work, or even if it is possible. We can't give you sysop in only DYK pages, so its a little doubtfull we would give you full adminship. That being said, I would support you in a WP:RfA for DYK. I highly doubt that you would vandalise :P
That being said, I don't think that DYK needs to be protected atm, It would cause a lot of unnecessary hassle. Perhaps protect it against unconfirmed users? If it is not already... Kennedy (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what I meant ;). I'd go for a full RfA slightly early if needed, but I wouldn't actually use the tools outside of updating DYK unless it was either an emergency (and i'd accept a de-sysoping) or I went for another RfA to use all the tools ;). Cheers, BG7even 11:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected it - Against unconfirmed users. Kennedy (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we try never to fully protect the main page here - semi protect the page, or block users. Occasionally it is fully protected due to high vandalism, but only for a few days, and the cascade option should not be on if it is fully protected. Therefore I don't think there should ever be a situation where you need admin status urgently. Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy: Thanks.
Tholly: Synergy indef protected the Main Page a few days ago - that's the only reason I mention it ;)
Thanks, BG7even 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has WP:RFD died? Cause I listed something for deletion two days ago and only 2 people have shared their thoughts. Why?--  CM16  00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone really pays close attention to RfD. And it has only been running for a short time; wait longer and more will most likely participate. – RyanCross (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rollback

Hello, I have created the page at Wikipedia:Requests for Rollback - What do you think? I think it is good to have a place where they are all requested. Any comments? Kennedy (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I like it. Whilst it may be a bit excessive at the moment (there aren't that many requests!) it will be useful at some stage, and it's better to get this in place sooner rather than later ;). BG7even 10:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BG is right, this will be useful later. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the requirements a little less heavy, and less reliant on edit counts and time. Majorly talk 19:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to me. The rollback request section several sections above this one is full of rollback requests. It's much more resourceful for a page for rollback now. Though, users can still request here if they can't find it... maybe adding the link to the top of AN? – RyanCross (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does any one have any objections to me getting my archive bot to do the archiving (I know we don't have a lot of requests but it saves humans time) and if I am allowed to how long should {{done}} and {{notdone}} requests stay up before they are archived? --Chris 09:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Fourteen days? — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every 24/48 hours should be sufficient. No particular need for longer. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will now archive the page --Chris 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeterSymonds. 24/48 hours sounds good enough. – RyanCross (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added material to "Wikipedia:Talk page". Comments on the changes and other updates are welcome. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 14:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job overall. I made a few touch ups, trying to make it a bit more professional. But overall, nice work! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi everyone. I think it would be a good idea to have the wikicup after all because I think it would make WP:DYK, and other things (wikiprojects, GA/VGA) more active. I however would like to participate, and was wondering if anyone would like to be a judge. If nobody wants to within 3 or 4 days, I'll be the judge (and won't participate, against my will!). I would be happy to write the rule and scoring system. Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a judge. I don't have much time to participate, and would be more useful as a moderator of the competition itself than someone who gets knocked out in the first round :P --Gwib -(talk)- 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! (would one judge be enough?). Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think registration should be started. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the page. User:Yotcmdr/Wikicup‎. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have User:Shapiros10/WikiCup, but apparently, it has stopped. Maybe you can make a better organized one? – RyanCross (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the point, we're trying to make it better! I've moved it to User:Bluegoblin7/Wikicup at his request as he's a judge. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link for you. – RyanCross (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i've been doing a little work today, and i'm about to restart... but just want some comments!
  1. Should we Project Space it?
  2. Should it be advertised, and if so, where? (Recent Changes, SiteNotice, Main Page, Watchlist has all been suggested)
BG7even 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personnaly, would think it'd be quite good to put it into WP space. I think we should advertise it on recent changes template, maybe on main page. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

I don't know how to make bots, obviously, but I need one created and we have to discuss this change (possibly). I noticed on A Tale of Two Cities that there were two wikiquote links. My first proposal is that we only use a wiktionary, wikibooks (or source; what have you) or wikiquote link if there is not one available on simplewq, simplewiktionary, etc. My next proposal is that a bot be created to update this, just like iw links. Thoughts? Synergy 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this should help out all around since we would be giving our audience links to our sister projects, making it easier for them to understand our articles. Synergy 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issue with DYK

Looking at the ShockingHawk unblock/mentor section, a major problem cropped up. "Did You Know?" is a part of our main page. This is a part of the public face we present to all of our readers and speaks heavily for us. This page should be something to be proud of and it is a page we should well protect. There in lies an issue.

DYK hooks are included on the page. They should be properly inspected and verified well before being accepted.

Total time: 1 hour and 12 minutes

This hook went from nomination to being archived and queued up for inclusion on the Main Page in a total of 74 minutes. In less than an hour and a half, we are making changes to the main page with only the input of a single voice. There was practically no chance for anyone to have any opinion against this being made a part of our main page.

The quality of any one hook is not the issue. This may be a great hook and it may deserve it place on the Main Page, but the fact it, only one person had a chance to decide if this was the case before this nomination got swept under the rug and archived. Ample time needs to be provided to give anyone reasonable time to voice their opinion. No one should be prevented from discussing a matter as important as our main page just because it was brought up and archived while they were running out to grab a bite to eat. Time frames need to be set. Two to three days is not forever when it comes to thing like this. We take a week to decide to delete a non-blatant page and yet it take an hour to decide to alter the main page and archive the "discussion".. I do not see this as a good thing. -- Creol(talk) 08:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be making a comment about this after I get back from work. This does pose a serious problem, one I noticed before signing off last night. Synergy 10:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On enwiki, there is at least a five day wait before anything is promoted. We should have at least two editors endorsing an article before it's put on the front page. Majorly talk 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a period of at least 48 hours (no particular need for five days, as enwiki's queue is a lot bigger, with fewer regulars monitoring what goes in). No premature archiving, and some serious revamp of the DYK rules and requirements. I think I know why this is happening, but this is completely the wrong way to go about it. As Majorly says, we need at least two editors endorsing the hooks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Any suggestions then? I admit there may be problems, but there is still time for them to be addressed at the Next Page, and any editor is entitled to remove them from there. The two that I archived were ones that had been disapproved and had no input, the rest had been moved to the next update. Two editors had looked at all of them - me and the first reviewing editor. I never approve my own hooks and move across hooks that I have approved unless there are no other reviewing editors. The simplest solution is easy: more people need to get involved. BG7even 11:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with me, bring it up with me please. I would like solutions. Hooks are only archived after they are on the next update, as per Wikipedia-en, after which two editors have looked at it, as said above. BG7even 11:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Yes, I have a suggestion. As per the comments laid above, two editors should endorse before they are archived. Any editor listed at WP:DYK may archive at that time, after a 48 hour gap. This isn't about you, at all, this is about DYK and the process. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how's this for a solution:
  • Hooks marked as or without input are archived after 5 days, as is currently done.
  • Hooks with cannot be moved to Template:Did you know/Next update after either 48 hours or an endorse from 2 users at Wikipedia:Did you know, not including the updating user - whichever is sooner.
As for the rules, they were recently looked at so I do not think that we need anything else there.
One other thing, users have been taking credit for DYK noms - we don't do this yet. Should we add a note saying so?
BG7even 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made an error there, BG, I think you meant which ever is the last one to happen (48 hours or 2 users) cause if 48 hours have passed but two users haven't commented we're likely to end up here again. On the other hand if 2 editors have commented but 48 hours hasn't happened then we will end up here again. But, I do agree with the idea.--  CM16Merry Christmas!!  19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I said it that way around because otherwise it could take a long time, and then we end up with stale hooks on the main page - this position. I think that it is a careful trade off. For potentially controversial hooks, then both periods should be fulfilled, but otherwise, especially if my 3-day updating guidline is getting close, then provided one criteria has been fulfilled the other can be looked over. I think that the primary one is the 48-hour guideline, the other one should be flexible depending on how many people are active, and who is moving them to the Next Update - that is technically a second review. Or, as I said, the simplest option is just to have more active reviewers. BG7even 20:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we make this simpler? - Any hook that gets two supports (not including the person who proposed) stays there 48 hrs (from the time it was proposed)?- On the other hand, a hook that does not make it for two consecutive updates gets archived anyway? --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... perhaps, but I think 6 days would be too long (as we aim for an update every 3 days). Also, can one of the two supports be from the person who moves it across? I was thinking 2 days no input it goes out, 2 days of approval it goes in... BG7even 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicup (2)

Hi, some questions above ( Should we Project Space the Wikicup? Should it be advertised, and if so, where? (Recent Changes, SiteNotice, Main Page, Watchlist has all been suggested)) Haven't been adressed. Could someone please comment, as there are only 3 weeks to go before it starts! Thanks. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem in advertising it in RC, SiteNotice, Mainpage and on the watchlist. Kennedy (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick answer. I'll tell BG7. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 13:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest is the following:
  • I will move to Wikipedia:Wikicup (or would "WikiCup" be better?). The redirects can stay for now.
  • MediaWiki:Sitenotice could have something like "Sign up for the 2009 Wikicup" added to it.
  • The Main Page could possibly have a banner added to it, but I see this as an uneeded measure, the sitenotice should suffice.
  • I will add a link to Wikipedia:RecentChanges in the community section.
  • MediaWiki:Watchlist-details could possibly have something added to it, but I don't think we are currently configured to do this. I can either show someone how to do it, or it can wait until/if I become an admin.
Hope this helps,
BG7even 13:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it if you show me. ^_^. I think we've always had it as Wikicup, so keep it the same when you move it. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie. Let's do one stage at a time. It's going to have to be slow, on wiki as all other modes of communication are blocked (except email). I'll take it to your talk page ;) BG7even 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine! I've got time anyway. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 13:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I have another point I want to discuss. The scoring on the wikicup[3]. This is what put an end to it last time. Do you think the scoring system is alright? Thanks, Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think they are ok, but it is up to everyone else. I suppose we won't be able to tell for certain until the competition starts. BG7even 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I have just indefinitely blocked FastReverter as a sock of StaticFalcon as per check on his IRC nick. A checkuser may check this and unblock if appropriate though, he has confessed on IRC that it is him...--Cometstyles 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor guy, he may be Static, but he's done nothing wrong really. He, just wants to edit. Anyway, it's the rules, but I feel sorry for him. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(forgetting that we are talking about Static) - This is one of the reasons I hate bans. FastReverter had been making good edits and was contributing - you shouldn't be blocked for that, right? I personally don't care who is making good edits, as long as they're good ones. But otherwise, Comet, I'm not saying he should be unblocked whatsoever, just that I hate bans. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AE, I hate banning people as much as you do and especially if they are making good edits, but still when a user is banned, he should avoid editing at all, wait for a few month and then e-mail a Checkuser or admin and request for an unblock, but creating multiple accounts is not really the way to do this..I'll happily overturn this ban if a Checkuser allows him to continue editing under strict probation..--Cometstyles 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a WP:RFCU to find out. Corruptcopper (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been  Done user indef blocked Corruptcopper (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry for him. I love editing, and couldn't stop doing it. I understand he can't and has tried to restart many times, beeing blocked each time. What's he doing wrong (appart from sockpuppetting)? Looking at his edits, he's seemed to have matured, and policies are policies, I know, but they've stopped a user unnecessarily. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has been doing a good job in the mainspace, but is still community banned. Ban evading is ban evading.
Also, on IRC, I was told I was "treating like an asshole who deserves to die" if i don't rally for him being unbanned. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'll mentor Static under preconditions. I would like to see who will oppose or support this request, as its in good faith. I'll wait until we have a formal discussion or there is reasonable opposition to act. I believe you all know that if he steps out of line, he will be blocked again (and I have no problem doing it myself). I would like to give this one last shot. Synergy 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Knowing his past, I'm particularly ambivalent, but if we work on a similar disruption=indef basis, I'm fine with a mentor plan. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, good idea, give him a chance, he's proved he can be a good editor! Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 22:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather wait. He has socked quite a bit following his ban. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I have conversed with Synergy via IRC, and if anyone can do it, it's him. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yup, good editors should be mentored and not discarded or cruelly banned like on other wikis ....--Cometstyles 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there's a chance to get another productive editor, I think we should go for it... though obviously with our eyes open. EVula // talk // 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't want to bring this discussion back up, but will support if mentored. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - My reasons are well known. I have expressed them often enough. Kennedy (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take another look at his edits as FastReverter. He now has his first DYK hook which is going to be on the main page. I believe he is showing some enthusiasm about being a good editor, and it would be great of you to change your mind. Synergy 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is it impressive that he nomintates an DYK hook for an article that he has edited even less than I did (and I only cat/+cleanup'd it) at 15:08, it gets full unconditional approval for inclusion on the main page 15 minutes later with only one user saying anything about it and then archived about an hour later with a statement that they are archiving content over 5 days old when it is barely 1 1/2 hours old? If anything this is a reason to suspend DYK being on the front page until it takes more than 90 minutes for the entire community to have a say in what represents us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I have explained my reasons Synergy. I don't think that you mentoring him would make much difference. As Creol explains below, he was already told time and time again that he could not do these things. Kennedy (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time out. You've vandalized, and you tried to communities patience until they have banned you. You create one last sock and... create new pages that we need and go on to look at a few articles and snag a hook for DYK. Sound harmful? Right, it isn't. I believe he can be a valuable editor, and that matters just a little more than trying to impress you. Synergy 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read it again. I only said some of that, but some was an unsigned post. I start from "I have explained my reasons Synergy" - This does not mean that you are not capable. I just think that mentoring SF/SH is pointless. Kennedy (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My views on this are known. I'm happy to help Synergy with this, I did adoption at en wikipedia, maybe something like that might help static here. ס (Samekh) Talk 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Last chance though.--  CM16Merry Christmas!!  23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose While I am not against him ever coming back (I actually gave support to even Jonas returning early at least long enough to prove to us he was not ready to return which, to his credit, he has not completely done), I can not see how any change has occurred. ShockingHawk was blocked and then indef block on October 19, roughly 6 weeks ago. Since that block, he has death threatened, made multiple obscene emails, and evaded the block constantly. He has had three accounts created after his block, used those and accounts created before his block and repeatedly used IP editing to also evade the block. The longest time he has fully not edited in about two weeks. With 5+ instances of block evasion on top of the general disruption and reasons for the initial block, he has only been absent for a max of two weeks. His most recently identified case of ignoring the rules (ban evasion) was only blocked in the last 24 hours and we are talking of ignoring his actions? While not aiming to be punitive, how can anyone say this user has learned that what he did was wrong when he was caught this very morning breaking the exact same rules? Rules he broke 6 weeks ago he is still breaking today and yet we discuss mentoring. Telling him what he did wrong and how to fix it will cure all his issues. He has been told time and again - edit articles, don't vandalize, don't evades block by creating new accounts. What has this taught him? His new account does better at main space editing at 59% but 33 of his 65 main space edits are just repeat edits to article he was already editing (multiple hotcat removals for example) so even that drops to about 40% (which is actually an improvement for him). The fact that after making edits to a total of 6 articles he requested an editor review is just added fuel. The user has been granted multiple chances, has been offered sound advise on editing, and has repeatedly refused to listen to it. He was blocked for his actions and to date has done everything within his ability to ignore that block. This is just way too soon given his constant abuse of our policies and quite frankly our editors. Waiting more than a few hours since his last sockpuppet was blocked is not expecting too much. 2-6 months, minimum, from his last violation of policy to show he actually can follow it should not be too much to expect. -- Creol(talk) 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creol, I somewhat agree with you here, but I don't think Static is a person that can stay away from wiki for 2-3 months. I think it'd be unwise to unblock without conditions. I think a mainspace restriction might be useful, which can be somewhat enforced using scripts. I think mentorship could possibly help, combined with strict guidelines. I do think Static is an editor that just can't stay away from wiki though. We could continue to block his socks, or we could offer one last chance. I prefer the latter rather than the former. ס (Samekh) Talk 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creol, you just contradicted yourself. In the last part, of the first sentence you say you can not ::see how any change has occurred yet go on to prove yourself wrong by saying he showed improvement with this new account. Well, I saw this improvement and I set aside all of my past dislikes of the Static and was became willing to give it one more go. If he turns out to be the same Static in a week I'll reblock indef and we do not even need to hold a discussion. It'll be wasting my time, and not the communities. And as Samekh notes, we will have to deal with the socks, or reform him. And this is what its about. Synergy 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction was not realy there. ShockingHawk had a 44%/44% main/user talk split. Early FastReverter had 59% main but not counting repetitive/useless edits (10 edits just to replace each category with hotcat one at a time) it was only 40% - below his history as ShockingHawk, but this was an improvement over his action as StaticFalcon. Then again, who could not improve short term to try and show they have changed? Almost any user should be able to edit 90%+ main space for a week to show change. Since the unban, he has constantly slid down hill. His 59% is down under 40% (not counting repetive/useless edits to correct his own issues) now and his usertalk is over 30%. Over the last week (15th-21st), he has has 14% main/ 49% usertalk. He is right back where he was before- actually worse than his 18% mainspace as Static. What exactly are the conditions of this mentorship? They apparently had nothing to do with actually creating an encyclopedia, as he has done little in that reguard and more in just talking about it. If his activity continues as it is, next week he should have as many user talk edits as main space. I let this comment go to see how he acted, but I see that I was correct. Nothing has changed except to get worse by the day. -- Creol(talk) 06:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per Creol I think that if you allow this user to have a second/third or even fourth chance then there is no point in having the sockpuppet policy. I know it is a case of WP:AGF but this really does take the piss. (Pardon my french). If you allow this to go ahead then you may aswell open the flood gates to all of the wikipedia vandals such as the vastly well known Grawp Corruptcopper (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking. Synergy 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Ignoring the long contradictary ramble above, I am willing to give another chance. Majorly talk 20:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


@Shapiros10, yes he may've done, but he's promised to change. It's a WP:AGF issue, as there are no "punishments" on WP, only preventative measures. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I came off in a bitey way. I must admit, I should not have dragged myself into this situation. I have a bias against this issue, since I have had dealings with him before. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As have I. Its not a big deal really. We just need to look past it, one more time, and see if its an avenue worth walking. The responsibility is being placed on me, willingly. Synergy 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]