Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 55

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

Huh?

Who de-Rollbacked me? TurboGolf 07:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Gwib who de-Rollbacked me. This was because of the WikiDrama that was happening. TurboGolf 07:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I too odd. I wsh I wasn't. TurboGolf 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel left out without Rollback :( TurboGolf 07:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this right now. Your comments are not useful. One more time and you will be blocked for disruption. Chenzw  Talk  07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry? For how long? TurboGolf 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Chenzw, I understand where you are coming from, however, Tharnton345 has good cause to post here and ask that question. Most especially if the admin who removed the rights did not let him know why on his talk page. Tharnton345, just posting your question once was enough... the follow ups do become disruptive after awhile, Chenzw is correct. One post is enough to ask the question, wait patiently for replies. This is a small community. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is reason enough to remove rollback rights. It's easy to get back, if you "show a clear change in behaviour". --Gwib -(talk)- 10:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Precious Roy (talk · contribs)

Can a user be punished or warned for comments like this, he made that comment to me on my talk page two days ago, and it was very offensive for me.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He can be warned, but no punished (if you mean block). Blocks are meant to be preventive. Chenzw  Talk  08:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you? 'Cause I think it would "mean more" from someone else. And just my opinion, I think he can be blocked for it, if he continues.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, if he continues. But would I what? Can you clarify? Chenzw  Talk  08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Warn him, I know it's a couple days late, but it still even now should be addressed.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of office

From mid Feb to mid Mar I will be away from the computer. My job requires me elsewhere for that time. Pending operations will be in my /daylog. I'll do my best to bring everything to a comfortable stopping point. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A WP:1.0 standardization?

I think we should adapt the "complex" Wikipedia's standardization for all articles with a template that indicates the classes and importances of all articles. We can then decide as a community if we want to have metadata also (displays "A *-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia") The Obento Musubi (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is proposed almost monthly by new editors and gets voted down just as fast every time. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is that? obentomusubi 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have enough articles. We have a select few WP:GAs and WP:VGAs, and more stubs than a ticket collector at a sporting event. Shapiros10 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. But I noticed there are few to no signposts indicating which WikiProjects an article can fall into the scope of. I think this should be included, even if it doesn't show rankings. obentomusubi 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's because we don't for the most part use wikiprojects here. Some people have created some in their user space but I don't believe we have many if any official wikiprojects. -Djsasso (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
May I officially propose WikiProjects? obentomusubi 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, you can propose anything you like. But to note, the reason why WikiProjects aren't used here in the same way they are on en is we only have about 25 active editors for the entire wiki. So projects don't really make a difference here and only serve to clutter up talk pages with tags. -Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Following the crowd

OK guys, I'm leaving, probably doesn't come as much of a surprise after my months of inactivity, but there's no way I can contribute here any more.

To be honest, I don't really see much of a future for SEWP. The only way it'll move on is if we get rid of those that thrive on drama. They aren't interested in the content, only in collecting banned lunatics so that we can "mentor" them, which never really seems to work. You're even going to mentor Tharnton345 - HE'S NINE. That's why he causes trouble and doesn't fit in, we're asking a nine year-old to work in a semi-professional fun-free environment, it's never going to work. There's no fundamental misunderstandings there, he's just too young. Even if he isn't nine, it's obvious that he's too young to work here.

Those that thrive on drama are not suited to the Wikipedia environment. Right now, all the emphasis seems to be on building crap that doesn't actually do much at all, or on censoring pictures of breasts in case small children are scarred for life. There is no emphasis on content here, just on pointless Wikiprojects, userboxes, bans and RfAs and fighting. Archer7 - talk 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Gwib -(talk)-
I totally agree. I never wanted drama on this wiki but it seems to follow you everywhere you go and he project has lost its meaning. Its sad to see you guys go :( ..--Cometstyles 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye Archer. I wish you luck in your future endeavors. Shapiros10 13:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting insane. SWP isn't as fun anymore. It's turning into a drama fest. I agree with Archer that as of right now Tharnton shouldn't be here. He's more of a pain then a help. I agree with the above that if it gets much worse, I'll go too. ѕwirlвoy  15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Alter Simple policy so a ban or indefinite block on EN counts as the same here. Then a lot of the drama would vanish Soup Dish (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of it would, but there's a lot of other personalities here that just cannot be worked with. As much we'd like to say otherwise, you need a certain mindset to be able to contribute here. Not everyone has it, but it usually doesn't cause a problem. Right now, the majority of our project is made up of those people. Archer7 - talk 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to agree, but I think it should depend on the reason for the ban. Bans for exhausting community patience through being highly immature and silly, and just being a general pest, should extend to this wiki. But bans for things like edit warring, or other reasons (like Steve Crossin...) should perhaps be considered here. Some people just need a change of scene for a while. Simple should not be a place to "prove" yourself and mature. Majorly talk 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Archer, I don't think a majority is really. Majorly talk 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(unidenting) Sensible users leaving only makes the problem worse. FSM Noodly? 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Majorly talk 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
True, but right now we'd need an invasion force of sensible editors to adequately manage the situation. One thing (of many...) people do need to realise though, is that sometimes you will need to be hard and ban people if it's not working out. Yes, they might get a bit upset, but we're here to build something here and if they are in the way, they need to go. No giving 3 million second chances, just turn them away. If they don't leave, pick them up and throw them out the door. They're not going to be crying themselves to sleep because they got banned from a website. Archer7 - talk 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, one of them is nine... when I was nine I was out climbling trees, running around and going to school :P Not annoying people on a website (well... I didn't even have the internet, so would have been fairly difficult :)) Majorly talk 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Still, I don't think you should leave. You aren't that active as it is, you should be here more often if anything, keeping things sane. Majorly talk 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I would agree, but it's very hard to motivate yourself when you see what's actually happening... I don't see that changing in the near future, so there's little point me being around for now really. Archer7 - talk 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair if you say Tharnton345 causes trouble because he is nine. Lots of grownups cause trouble. I am eight but I do not cause trouble. I bet you never knew I am eight. Teenly 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you'll notice no one has said that. His age is certainly a part to play here though. There are some very mature editors on Wikipedia who are very young (and likewise, immature adults). However, they tend to be exceptions. Tharnton is not an exception. He is disruptive and annoying, plain and simple. Majorly talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Archer7 said HE'S NINE. That's why he causes trouble Teenly 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it might be a stereotype, but why else do you think he is a troublemaker, highly immature and annoying? Majorly talk 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I couldn't care less what the reason is (age is just a number; behavior is a better gauge of maturity than how many times they've flipped a calendar). The end-result is what is important. EVula // talk // 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems require serious measures. As suggested above, editors banned from EN for "disruption," for lack of a better word, should now be banned from Simple, with immediate and retrospective effect. Agreed? Soup Dish (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tend to, but we should look at cases individually. Majorly talk 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As a blanket rule? No. If someone makes an ass out of themselves on the English Wikipedia and then comes here to try to atone for their edits, that's fine; it's when someone gets booted from enwiki and then comes here and does the same thing and the community keeps forgiving them that it becomes a problem. EVula // talk // 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what we did with FastReverter (talk · contribs). We kept on giving second chances, then third chances, then fourth chances. Now, I have to say Static is a bit more mature than before, but it took many times before he could get it right (and I believe with some help from the community). FastReverter was probably one of our most disruptive editors, but now he's not causing as much trouble (or any trouble at all). And FYI, he's eleven. If someone took the time to mentor him, something might change hopefully. And yes, I realize the proposal above to do so. We'll see what goes from there. — RyanCross (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The community often finds it hard to agree on indef banning troublemakers. Some users are more lenient, some less so, some in the middle. That's why I feel we need rules. But I know many times when this community has attempted to come up with rules/guidelines and then failed because no-one agrees, and then the plan is abandoned. We need someone to, for want of a better phrase, take charge on this issue ie a steward or some other impartial observer. Re Ryan - there have been a lot of mentoring schemes in the past, a lot of them never got past the planning stages, and the few that did there was no evidence that they really worked, for example when Kennedy mentored Static. FSM Noodly? 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Perversely, the community has problems blocking because far too many of the community have previously been blocked, perhaps? Allowing users banned from EN should the exception rather than the rule. Australia turned out okay, but few prison colonies of larger countries tend to flourish! Soup Dish (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Have users even been working on the whole point of Wikipedia, our articles? We have very few quality and content articles, and we have thousands of stubs. We need more users working on these stubs! I would do so myself, but I'm too busy, both, in real life and around the foundation projects. Other than the thousands of stubs out there, Simple English Wikipedia is a drama central. That is why my activity levels are decreasing—the drama on this project is too much sometimes. I eventually started contributing to English Wikiquote, and now I'm an administrator there. It's much more peaceful there, and the percentage of drama there is 0. I think EVula (talk · contribs) can agree with me. ;) Anyway, something has to be done here, but what? — RyanCross (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with RyanCross on this. We need to completely remove the drama from this Wikipedia. I will do my best to prevent the drama that I would add to this project through my RfAs. I will do my best to help keep SE:WP a drama free zone now and in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, y'all want to follow Soup Dish's suggestion that users banned on en, should be banned here also? Did I read that correctly? You know that would "knock me down for the count" don't ya?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I do agree with him that it would fix a very large amount of the issues we have here, but as majorly mentions it should probably be on a case by case basis. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis only. Razorflame 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So what does that mean for me? Or will I be grandfathered in.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It would mean nothing for you. I don't have a problem with you being on this project as you have shown to us over the past 4-6 months. Razorflame 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is changing...

Hello all,

Certain editors left the project. This makes it necessary to re-elect new users into positions of CheckUser and Bureaucrat. It is clear that with new users in these positions, this Wikipedia is going to change. That way, certain people may feel less at ease than they did before. This Wikipedia is at a crossroads, decisions need to be taken. I would therefore like you to not overrate the fact that certain editors left. This also creates new opportunities, but this wikipedia will probably need about the next two weeks to get back to normal.

In the meantime, please note:

  • Blaming someone for problems is not productive, it therefore should not be done.
  • Witchcraft does not exist, it is therefore no good hunting witches.
  • We cannot influence how certain people behave on this Wikipedia. If they vandalize, or insult people, they can be blocked
  • Please be tolerant on how other people edit this wikipedia

Editors who want to freak out, should do so below my post. :)

All the best --Eptalon (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would rather Creol not leave. But this is not mine to decide. S/he was a net positive to this project. But I'm ok. I do accept that humans have other callings from time to time that may require a disconnect from certain goals. Creol, thank you for your time volunteered, and thank you for your work. I wish you the best in where you go from here. Should you ever choose to return, the door is always open. Good luck, Godspeed. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • freaks* Scream: he. Eptalon: But I'm studying the Crucible... MC8 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Gwibby! I'll miss you. As a side note, Tharnton will probably be banned and not be coming back so I'll stay. ѕwirlвoy  19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll still be here to help with vandalism work and administrative actions. I haven't done too much as far as articles go lately, but I haven't given up either. There are still good users here. :) TheAE talk 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stemming the tide.

Just a thought. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly's RFCU

Majorly's RFCU was closed as "successful", and the rights were granted here. However, the RFCU still has more than half a week to complete. I disagree with the closing, and the only reason I think it might be alright is if we just really need two of them, we close it early. Is it officially closed? TheAE talk 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It only lasts until consensus is formed (25 votes in support). Lar's meta RfCU closed after 3 days, for example. It didn't need to last the week. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Give me some time and I'll respond here with regards to my close. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
And we have two other checkusers. SteveTalk 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I closed the request as successful based on my judgment that most of the active voting community has seen and voted the request. We already know from past experience that this is about the most votes any request will garner. Also, it was extremely apparent that a strong consensus had formed. One so strong that it was very unlikely to be overcome by opposition. I had discounted the second oppose to basically... the weight of a feather, so it did not count much for the overall picture. If there are any more questions regarding, I will watch this page and be happy to answer regarding my close. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am more concerned about the fact a non-crat keeps closing discussions. That is what we have crats for. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really. I'll note that a crat can not push a button to grant the CU permission, but a steward can. I would also note that it would not be worthwhile for me to close an AFD as delete, or a RFA as successful, I don't have the technical permission to grant the admin permission (+sysop) or delete (*delete*) the page. This project has no local policy preventing a non crat from closing a RFCU. I am capable of closing these and listing the SRP. If you trust my judgment, then this is ok. If not, let me know on my talk, and I'll reconsider my participation in this area. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
When a local policy doesn't exist here we use en policy (yes thats an actual policy here). And I do believe that en restricts closing of Rfx's to crats. Yes the crat can't technically do it, but the crat has been given the mandate to close them via a !vote that shows he has the trust of the community. Joe user hasn't gone through the process to see if he has that trust. It's not about you specifically (other than I have seen you do it a few times). I don't think any non-crat should do it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) at a tally of 30/2 it would have been unlikely to have gathered the 6-7 oppose votes in the remaining half a week, given most active editors had already voted. Also, I prefer an active CU (Majorly) to an inactive one. But I agree, that closing such discussions is what we said bureaucrats would do. --Eptalon (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Noting that I don't think I have demonstrable poor judgment in this area, I will restrict my participation in this area since I am not a crat. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

CORPPA Law

CORPPA law says that children under 13 cannot be editors unless Simple Wikipedia has written permission from their parents on file. Which Simple Wikipedia Administrator is in charge of the CORPPA agreements? I am going to assume the answer is none. That means that somebody needs to get hold of that contract or the under age account gets banned. As for the 11 yr old (if that is truly their age), if they get their parents permission, than there is no problem with them being an editor. Parents should be the mentors, not the teenage administrators on this site. The administrators on this site can give help, guidance, and advice, but when things get out of control, the parents need to be involved.

I have also left Simple Wikipedia to create a Wikipedia fork. I do not agree with the goals of this project, and in viewing my options and the capabilities of MediaWiki, that is the option that will best suit my family's needs.

Gwib complains that I only cared about the appropriateness of images, and I did not contribute to content. Why would I contribute to content to a project that is unwilling to work to meet my needs and is outright hostile to them by threatening bots? I never got past the starting line. I quit the race and went down my own path.

There is no leadership here to provide an overall plan. There should be an editorial oversight board. That board should represent the whole community by having on the board:

  • 2 Adult (parents) (21+)
  • 2 Adult (ESL) (21+)
  • 2 Yong Adults (16 yr old - 21 yr old)
  • 1 TweenTeenager (10 - 15)

This editorial board should be in charge of setting policy and the direction of the Simple Wikipedia. By having a mixture of people the represents the mixture of users of Simple Wikipedia, it will help ensure that all people's needs are met that could benefit from Simple Wikipedia. Having the board larger than 7 people will make the board too large.

Zzmonty (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no.

  1. NPOV prevents there being any editorial board, that contravenes the goals of this project.
  2. We will not be enforcing any COPPA laws, forward that to the Foundation Legal Counsel. This is not our job.

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is COPPA, no R. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to go on record: I do not know the age of any of the contributors here; per our policy we do not adapt our content to special audiences (called filtering or censorship). As to any minor, it is basically the parents who are in charge (in degrees, depending on the age of the child). Implementation of said law (I have never heard of) would in fact cripple Wikipedia as to no longer allowing IP edits; let alone edits of users without the knowledge of their date of birth. This would be impractical, and contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Since we are not qualified here, I suggest any such discussions should be done with the foundation, and not a single WP project. Thank you for your understanding. --Eptalon (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't collect personal information so CORPPA is of no importance.Geni (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CORPPA laws have no importance at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a MySpace or Facebook. We do not go around collecting personal ID and info about a user. Also wether the user is a mature 8-year old child prodigy, or an immature, annoying 35-year old adult does not matter how old a person is. What matters if the person is willing to cooperate with the community and be helpful rather than a pain in the @$$. Also under wiki meta policies, teenagers can be administrators and bureaucrats since there is no age limit, unlike CUs and oversights. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 07:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone indefblocked an IP

Back in March 2008, Fairfield (talk · contribs) indef blocked 1.2.3.4 (talk · contribs). Why was this? 84.13.214.106 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was blocked indef cause it's an open proxy. Which in short mean is an IP that a person can use to abuse Wikipedia on command, leaves it open for banned users to evade their ban, see WP:PROXY for more.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean that Fairfield banned an IP? TurboGolf 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Banned, in this case, is equal to blocked indefinitely.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Banning is a social context. You ban a person. Blocking is a technical means to enforce a ban, for example. You block an IP. No one was banned here. Those using a proxy are free to do so until that proxy is blocked. They are not banned. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just changed the block expiry to 3 years instead. Most open proxies are due to the computer being infected by a virus without the user's knowledge. Anyway, open proxies usually stop serving requests after some time. According to the blocking policy, it is also strongly discouraged to block IPs indefinitely. Chenzw  Talk  11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Most open proxies are due to the computer being infected by a virus without the user's knowledge - care to explain that claim? Soup Dish (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) A zombie computer. Chenzw  Talk  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What he means is, that a virus infects a computer and gets it to send emails or update wikipedia or fill in web forms without the users knowledge. You know how on some forums(/websites) there is a lot of advertising, usually for medication? Well, normally that is done by a bot. The zombie computer is in essence the same idea. Kennedy (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Okay, in light of many problems here, I have decided to publish my thoughts on a variation on en.wikis ArbCom which I had been working on for a while. I did not look at ArbCom as a base, I created it from scratch (although I am aware they are both essentially the same idea). I would like your thoughts and comments, and possibly a vote on whether or not you would like to see it (or a variation) implemented on Simple.Wikipedia. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Link? Majorly talk 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Kennedy/Proposal. I'll give my full thoughts on it in a bit. 14:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Yes that would indeed help: User:Kennedy/Proposal :P Kennedy (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of potential issues with this that first spring to mind:

  • The community is small - getting ever-smaller. Hypothetically, what would happen if two board members and the two backups were recused because of involvement (perfectly plausible in a community of this size), and the other two board members disagree? Discussion happens, but both are firmly resolved. Does it get forgotten, or go somewhere else?
  • "Once the decision has been made, and announced, there will be no further debate." Heh, good luck with that one.

Ultimately I think it's a bad idea. Far too formal and far too bureaucratic for what it's designed to do. The difference between this and arbcom, is that arbcom don't handle content disputes. They decide mostly on troublesome editors: when to ban, desysop, restrict. This is not within Simple's scope at the moment, and not I think what this page is trying to achieve. A much more formal mediation cabal/mediation committee with a small election would serve the purpose much better in my opinion. With the community growing smaller, the number of er, "suitable" candidates for this role is growing shorter. I think a process like this is premature, but that's my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by "Once the decision has been made, and announced, there will be no further debate." was that the board would not discuss it anymore - An appeal would be passed to the subsitute board. Kennedy (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'd back this or not, it needs more meat on the bones, but one condition would be to have ArbCom-like requirements - all users self-identify to the Foundation and 18-or-older Soup Dish (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that would cause more problems. Is there at least 6 people over 18 who can identify themselves and are willing to do the Simple-ArbCom? Kennedy (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I meet both criteria if I'm needed, but I don't see why this requirement is necessary. From the description, this board won't be handling cases relevant to the privacy policy. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Six editors sounds too many, but any fewer would sound too few. I'm not sure we need this really... Majorly talk 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello all, I think this Wiki is too small for something like that:

  • With between 30 and 40 regular editors (optimistic guess), we probably cannot select 5-6 of them which ought to be both impartial and uninvolved.
  • The editors elected would need the trust of the community
  • How many cases do you expect have that merit such a committee/gremium?

An alternative to the proposal would be to elect a third bureaucrat, and have them constitute such an assembly; but honestly, atm I think this wikipedia is too small.--Eptalon (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have ArbCom. TurboGolf 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reason? Majorly talk 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just think its a good idea. TurboGolf 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the worst idea I've seen yet. Its not workable, at all. Synergy 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Kennedy (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think think is going well. TurboGolf 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Its only an idea. The worst idea? I doubt it. Kennedy (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kennedy. I would only trust admins and crats to fulfill this role. Currently, we don't have either the manpower, or the need for this and we barely have edit warring. I don't think we have 6 who are old enough, honestly. Then we'd have to vote them in. I'm not sure we're capable of handling anymore voting at the moment. Synergy 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable proposal, but I agree that there's really no need. Juliancolton (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A reasonable concept, but not one that we need at this time; we should revisit it in six to twelve months, depending on how much we grow. EVula // talk // 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both JC and EVula on this. This is definitely a reasonable proposal, but I do not think that we have enough active editors who are either over 18 or impartial to every edit that is made on this Wikipedia. Plus, I don't think that we have enough active editors to flush this out at this time. Razorflame 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing editors

Is it just me (and my raging headache/flu), or is it that many wikipedians are leaving this project. To date, several admins: i.e., Creol, Gwib, Cometstyles, Archer7, and Barliner have all left the project within the past 60 days. Some users are becoming pessimistic that is project is falling towards a downward spiral to collapse. Is this a recurring trend or does the simplewiki might have to bail. If so, can someone [please] tell me what is going on. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidrama has run rapid. But, we are [hopefully] on the upswing now. :) TheAE talk 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, what we need to do now is to archive this page, the drama's getting too long... Chenzw  Talk  07:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It is true that certain editors have left, which has made it necessary to restructure a little. We are in transition, I hope that a week from now at the latest we should be back to normal. --Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Barliner hasn't really edited actively since March. But you're right, several long-term editors have resigned/left recently. Majorly talk 12:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The meta closure discussion has the potential to be a blessing rather than a curse. A few editors have said they are looking to become active here. So hopefully they'll show their faces soon enough. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I did. :o) NonvocalScream (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ban class projects?

Recently, a flood of user accounts (that appear to be sock-puppet accounts) have been created. Most like 90% of them edit less than a dozen times before ceasing activity. However some of those edits have been unconstructive, borderline vandalism. While most of the borderline vandalism is under control thanks to Chris G Bot and a few other vandal patrollers, it does create spam and unnecessary used up space in the new changes page. If this keeps up, shouldn't we ban school class projects. I'm pretty sure this wiki has more important things to deal with than allowing class projects. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. All I've seen from them was either poorly formatted, non-notable, ad/spam or vandalism, or just plain unencyclopedic. We have rules, and if they don't comply, they should just leave. Why do they feel the need to edit here, when there's word processors and other wiki hosts? Lots of energy and time have been wasted in getting them in line, deleting, blocking and reverting and they just get a free pass to keep doing it. I wonder if they are really 'class projects' or if they a bunch of disruptors. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Outright banning them is probably a bit much. They can't always be patrolled, so banning could be ineffective. The articles that are outputted can be dealt with as and when. The only thing to watch out for is role accounts - projects contributing using one account. There were a few instances of this late last year. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Are role accounts not allowed on Wikipedia? Just asking because this is the first time that I have heard of role accounts before (because I have never had to deal with them on this Wikipedia). Razorflame 16:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
They are not, except "official" role accounts (foundation, User:Oversight on enwiki, etc. The global rule is one person per account. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I know about the one person per account rule, but I was unsure about what a role account was. Cheers, Razorflame 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We do not need to ban school projects. There are guidelines for the setting up of a class project, see Wikipedia:Schools/Projects. If these guidelines are followed then there should be no problems. I did add a recommendation for a completion date to the project. At the end of a project the pages can be deleted if they fail to meet our guidelines. I am happy to keep watch on this section and work with teachers on projects, and check them at the end. At the moment there are only two projects listed, this is hardly a "flood". If they are not listed as a school project on the project page, then they are not a school project.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for streamline of icons

I have a wiki on Wikia. From an administrator's standpoint, I like all of my icons to be organized (i.e. VGA, protected, etc.). Considering there are still a small number of VGAs and GAs, I propose that there be a template (I will create it, of course) that will organize the small icons at the top-right corner. I will provide an example at my sandbox of how it will work. obentomusubi 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think that this is needed at this point in time. There are only a few users who use the icons that are on the tops of your userpages, and of those, nearly 100% of them have them already organized by type of icon. See my userpage, for example. Cheers, Razorflame 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, this wasn't directed for the userspace. This was primarily directed for those articles that have a lot of icons. I'm sure it will be like that in the future. For example, there can be a very good article that's semi-protected. Ultimately, the position of the icons can be "changed" every time. That is, semi-protected very good articles can have the semi-protected icon next to it, but semi-protected regular articles can have the icon in "place 1", where the very good article star would sit. Let me get an example first... obentomusubi 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see an example.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Here you go! obentomusubi 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sounds like fine idea to me. — RyanCross (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Such templates exist, but there was a time when the introduction of {{pp-meta}} messed up the protection templates, so they are not very commonly used now. Feel free to put them in; current consensus appears to be "use them". Chenzw  Talk  10:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall edit the protection templates and the (very) good article templates. If anybody experiences any problems whatsoever, you may contact me. obentomusubi 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have converted all VGAs and GAs to the {{icon}} template. obentomusubi 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Nice work. :) Kennedy (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! obentomusubi 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good for now. Good work! Cheers, Razorflame 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact tagging

205.235.33.62 (talk · contribs) has been adding fact tags to articles in a fairly disruptive manner - adding "please give a reliable source" for facts that simple cannot be disputed, such as populations of towns, the existence of towns, birth dates, and what Burger King sells (Burgers, whaddya know?) Taggings like this are just plain disruptive in my view. I won't go as far as saying "everyone knows who Harry Potter is", but it's fact that in so completely undisputable, it does not need a pointless tag. If this IP is so concerned that statements of what is essentially common knowledge are uncited, he or she should add the easy to find references and add them instead of littering the article with tags. It's just laziness. Majorly talk 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thing some facts like birth dates and so one don't need references. Most time there are external links which the facts affirm the facts. I think the changes can get reverted. --barras 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's keep the tags for the important, not the obvious --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Adding {{fact}} tags to random and uncontroversial facts is disruptive. –Juliancolton (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree to some degree with what is considered as "uncontroversial". No reference is probably required for matters such as the existence of towns or other places, but I would like to see a reference for the population of a town, otherwise how is anyone to know whether the figure is accurate and up to date, especially if no date is stated for the figure? Also, surely it is necessary to provide a reference for birth dates, and this cannot be regarded as a matter of common knowledge. If the subjects of the articles are living persons, there is a particular need to ensure that the information is accurate. A lot of disruption can be caused when editors up to no good go around changing birth and death dates, and there are no references that can be checked to see if the new dates are correct or not. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Inactive administrators

There is a growing number of inactive administrators that have now outnumbered active administrators. Last time I checked there are 11 active admins, 7 semi-active admins, and 13 inactive admins. Usually an inactive administrators' rights are removed via request for deadminship after 6 months of inactivity or when no sysop functions are performed. However some users for example, like Barliner have their last edit listed olast December 22, when he actually stopped his activity on March 25, '08, which is by now almost 11 months his he left the project. I think we should remove their sysop rights, but reinstate them when they return and feel like editing full-time again. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a few "deadminships" a while ago that removed 6 inactive admins. I don't see a problem with it happening again. Kennedy (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Billz and FrancoGG haven't edited in 6 months. Shapiros10 12:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I forget but last round I think we said they had to be idle for 12 months. But I don't remember for sure. And some there were reasons we didn't desysop. Staffers etc. -Djsasso (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I think it would be a safe bet to generally remove the admin flag from admins which have been inactive for 6 months.--Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in the distant past there was a community consensus to have a minimum of 12 months of inactivity to qualify for deadminship. However in recent decisions, the time was reduced to 6 months. So I guess 6 months is now and still the rule for deadminship. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
With the number of active administrators rapidly dwindling, I'm not sure why we're so anxious to desysop those who haven't edited in a while. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant point. Desysopping them won't change how much activity there is here, or suddenly make them active. Majorly talk 01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Good point. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Relax, everyone! Just because someone doesn't edit for 6 months does not mean that they won't ever edit this site again. Just be patient. I believe that we should wait the full 12 months to give the inactive administrators a chance to come back. Furthermore, believe it or not, but inactive administrators actually pose less of a security risk than active administrators because they aren't in the editing limelight. Therefore, I don't see any reason to have them lose their bits at this point in time. Razorflame 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying we demote them for good, I'm saying we remove their sysop rights while they are gone. When they feel to come back out of retirement or inactivity, then we immediately reinstate their rights. So no harm should be done. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What's the point? People have real lives, and may not always be able to edit regularly. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright fine then. But there's no need to shoot on me. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's shooting on you... –Juliancolton (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship should be used, not just kept. The admins tend to represent this site - a bunch of inactive people nobody's heard of is not a good impression. I would suggest after nine months missing the person is no longer interested in editing here, and we can desysop them. We should, however not be just resysopping them when they return, otherwise the whole exercise will be pointless. They should have to go through RFA again to show they are still trusted by the community. I don't trust an inactive person. Majorly talk 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If an inactive administrator becomes active again, they can always re-request for adminship, so I see no harm in desysoping inactive administrators. — RyanCross (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
On top of that, things can change significantly on a wiki over the course of six or twelve months. I don't trust that someone who has been inactive for that long will have kept abreast with changing policies and standards, Either way (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
True, but what's the point of having inactive admins. They won't be any benefit to the wiki, let alone be good for anything. Additionally, several vandals did hijack several inactive admins' accounts starting mass confusion/damage. Yes it happened more than once. And it has potential to happen here too since most enWP rejects come here as a "second chance". --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Majorly here. The inactive admins who have been de-sysoped should not be automatically sysoped again upon return. I've never had any interaction with most of these people, so wouldn't necessarily trust them. Kennedy (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Readability

I saw how many want to drop sewp. Action should be taken for simplifying articles. This would prevent another attempt to close the project. I checked 300 articles for ease of reading [1]. The average article needs an 8th to 9th grade reading level. Is there any on going effort to do this? --Mars (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry. The current tally is 43 (support) to 93 (oppose) on closing this project. There has been proposals in the past to close this wiki, but none of them have succeeded and I doubt this will pass as well. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it won't pass (I don't see why a wiki with 55k articles would get deleted anyway). But we could have an article or 2, to collaborate on every week, which we could simplify. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is true but are we just gonna sit around till they blind sight us with one of them?-- † CM16 t c r 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no chance that that proposal is going to pass without a lot of new people coming in and supporting. Mobilizing a simplification project here wouldn't be a bad idea, though. EVula // talk // 07:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not be completely against a movement or drive to simplify articles at a rate of a couple per week. I would not mind drafting up a draft of this in my userspace if people would like me to. Just give me a holler if that is the case. Cheers, Razorflame 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for good articles

Hi there all. As of right now, we currently have 3 open proposals for Good Articles that are currently open for comments, and we have several open GA votes currently. I would like to ask all of the active editors that want to to become a part of the GA and VGA processes here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I´d like to second that. Remember folks, we´re here to build a good encyclopedia, not just socialise. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost done with changes...

Hello there,

following Chenzw's promotion to Bureaucrat yesterday (my time), we now have 2 active and a semi-active bureaucrats, and a new CheckUser. After the discussions a while back, I think it would be good to have a third active 'crat (Vector's activity levels change a lot). I do see the following people as possible candidates (please note: earlier naming does not mean preference, I simply have to put someone first): Majorly, Synergy, American Eagle, and Djsasso.

I ask the community to help me pick two of the four candidates, which should go through a regular election process. No, we will not elect anyone against their will). If both of the selected candidates get enough votes, we will of course both make them crats; Becoming a bureaucrat is about trust, mostly. I am also open to other nominations.

Open for ideas --Eptalon (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add my name to that list. Apparently Razorflame and BG7 are going to nominate, but that has yet to happen... The only one in that list I would support at this moment would be Majorly. Kennedy (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot you; you were also mentioned several times.. really sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Razor seems to have moved his addiction from running himself to trying to nominate anyone he can ;) j/k -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
At least I have a good record when it comes to nominating other people :) (6 successful requests, 1 failed) Cheers, Razorflame 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked both Kennedy and American Eagle if they would allow me to nominate them at this point in time. Majorly can't run for another month due to the fact that he just had a successful RfCU, and sorry Djsasso, but you are too new of an administrator for me to nominate for 'crat currently. Therefore, I have decided to nominate both Kennedy and American Eagle at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only making a joke, but I would note that I think the idea is that we all are discussing here who we would support so the most likely to win two get nominated and we don't have a bunch of failed noms. (I would note that I have made as many admin actions as AE has made since november but yeah I wouldn't expect anyone to nom me. Though I do have over a year as admin at en.) -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
RF: there's no "can't", I could run if I wanted to, I just choose not to. Majorly talk 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) The idea is to find the two most likely to succeed out of the ones currently mentioned: Kennedy, Majorly, AE, Djsasso and Synergy. Once we can agree about 2 or 3, we can then go and nominate, in the hope at least one of them will make it. And no, RF, no need to nominate now. Once we have some sort of agreement, I will myself "nominate" them. --Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think an third active 'crat is a good idea. I would support Synergy and American Eagle since they seem as ideal candidates. However I would have liked to see Majorly be nominated, however he just finished his RfCU and chose not to run. I'm not sure about Djsasso or Kennedy though. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I knew he couldn't help himself. lol. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of a section from Lysergic acid diethylamide

Hi there all. An IP address has proposed the deletion of a section from the article Lysergic acid diethylamide. Please leave any comments that you might have on the proposal on this page. Cheers, Razorflame 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have one comment: WP:BOLD - For future reference, he shouldn't need to post his reasons on the talk page, but preferrably he should use an edit summary to explain. Kennedy (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason why I suggested that this user propose the change first is because he wasn't a registered user on this site. I was only being cautious about this as it was a big change to the article and it wasn't a named editor. Cheers, Razorflame 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it is talking about the same drug even. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Sorry, guys; I was bold and have removed the whole section (moved to the talk page). If anyone good with chemistry or biology feels like it, try explaining how it works, in simple terms? --Eptalon (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SEWP closure comment

Although this was a while back, the SEWP (2) closure proposal on Meta (and the resulting WR thread) brought up a few points, the main one being: What is Simple English? How is Simple English different to English? What makes Simple English Wikipedia different from English Wikipedia? We need a clear, concise "definition" of Simple English Wikipedia to quote to prospective closure-badgers. A possible "press statement" for users that think SEWP is a bad idea? It wouldn't harm to have one. MC8 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlistJuliancolton (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales wants everybody in the whole world to be able to find out anything, but just writing it down will not help them if they do not know what it means. English Wikipedia is too hard to understand if people speak a different language or they are young or sometimes just if they do not have a doctors degree. I know I did not say that very well but that is why I think simple wikipedia is good. Teenly 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the two strongest arguments for sewp are the purposely simple grammar for ESL people and use by elementary school children. Both of these arguments are hurt by the fact that you need a high school grade level reading ability for half the articles. So, if you are already that advanced, it makes more sense to use enwp. And censorship may be a taboo subject but articles like this and included graphics mean most parents wouldn't let their young children use sewp. I think a major effort should be put on the readability front. I know we have essays and word lists on how to write simple articles. But we should use a metric like this so we know exactly the goal (See above section on Readability). --Mars (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an assumption that everyone can read English fluently unless they are ESL or elementary school (called primary school where I come from). There is also huge number of people who do not read at college or university level. Magazines like the Reader's Digest owe there success to using a simplified level of English. When writing for school students you need to write at least one year level below where they are, this makes sure they can understand the content. I personally feel that a good level of simple English to aim for is for someone with about 7-8 years of schooling. This gives a Flesch-Kincaid score of about 70. This is a bit lower than the Reader's Digest level. It is very difficult to write good articles below this level without sounding childish to the reader. Articles with levels higher than this are becoming so complex they may as well be on the enwp. This level can give a good quality, detailed article suitable for school students up to about 16 years, ESL people, people without a high level of literacy, people with learning/reading disabilitis etc. I think if we had a target level, then it would avoid much of the arguments I have read recently about the value of the simple English wikipedia. My students (12-16 years) enjoy the sewp because they can actually understand the articles. The older ones can read the enwp, but they are not understanding the content. As to content, I would prefer my students (and my children) to read accurate and reliable articles on all topics, even the "taboo" subjects. (Let's face it, anyone reading the sewp for quick thrills is going to be sadly disappointed). I think all regular editors should make an effort to simplify this wiki, an article a week. That's enough from me here, I'm back to the main space to simplify an article or two before going to bed. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello all, just wanted to point out that Simple English is about the language, not the content. We cannot remove articles like penis, vagina, nudity just because some parents feel that they use images which are too graphic for their children to see. Sorry to disappoint you there, but wrong information (as to fanaticised pseudo-religious movements, speech that incites people to become violent, etc. are just as likely a problem than sex-related topics. Ever wondered why most suicide bombers you hear about in the media are usually under 20, perhaps under 25 years old? - People in their teens are easiest to influence and indoctrinate with ideas that leads to suicide bombing, that is why. Another thing I wanted to point out (I have already pointed out) is that metrics like Flesch-Kincaid (and many others) are purely bean-counting, they rely on sentence and word lengths; and are in my opinion not adapted to capturing the fact that "A person with 8 years of schooling is likely to understand this article." - Note also, that between ten and fifteen percent of the people in the US are functionally illiterate (note: it is about the same in most European countries). These people are also a target group for us, and they are harder to classify than "had 7 years of schooling". --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just as a side not,e why are articles like Molotov cocktail never mentioned when it comes to protecting children? - The article gives a detailed account that allows to build such a thing. I have thought more on readability. What about the following system:
  • For an article take out the top 200 (or top 500) words (per wordlists, as available on wiktionary), as well as punctuation.
  • Count the number of different words (which are not in the wordists); a text with more words is likely more difficult ot understand
  • Normalize in some way (to become independent of text length)--Eptalon (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I was impressed with Flesch-Kincaid and similar methods. When simplifying article the first thing I do a divide and shorten sentences and replace words with a lot of syllables. I would enhance it so if a complex word has a link to an article its not counted as complex. I like also the idea of if a word is in a word list (Basic English) it would always be counted as a simple word. And between 7th and 8th grade would be a good range to be simple yet not sound childish. Like I said censorship is a hard sell, but my point was merely its hard to say this encyclopedia great for children and also include pictures of adult males getting erections. The article could easy be fine without the picture. But I really don't want to talk about that. I prefer to work on the readability since more people agree with that. And I am working on script to measure and produce a table of articles and their readability level. Maybe we can a project to get a list of important articles within specific readability levels. --Mars (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've only just noticed that there's a current discussion on WR about us (again). From last time they wrote about us: can you define for us what Simple English Wikipedia is meant to be and show us where it is clearly defined? -- we don't have a clear definition on a page of a) what Simple English is, b) what makes SEWP different from en or c) what *precisely* is SEWP itself? MC8 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
WR? -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review. Essentially a group of drama-mendicants, wiki-pariahs, and sloths who have nothing better to do than post random inconsistencies about us and en. Be ye warned. Google them. Synergy 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading, I concur. Wiki-politics is an area I care little about. But I think MC8 questions are good. Where is that article clearly defining the difference between an enwp and sewp article? like a mission statement? --Mars (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Please note that there will always be people who do not approve of what you do, or of how you do it. As one of the leaders of this project, I think it is not helpful wanting to please everyone; esp. not nit-pickers like WR. --Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be so, but it is something fundamental that would be useful to have. A mission statement. MC8 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur.-- † CM16 t c r 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship?

Now, I know this is going to be one heated battle, so I got out my battle helmet, so here we go. We seem to be a little hypocritical about our selves. We say "We're not Censored for young eyes and ears" which is all well and good but yet we also call our selves the "Wikipedia for people learning English and children", so with us not censoring stuff, like pictures only, it kind defeats the purpose that we're building this Wikipedia for. Yes the people learning English will continue to come back, I have no worry about that. But, on the other hand, the children could come across a page such as Ejaculation (more than likely by hitting the "Show any page" button) and their parents catch them and any parent like mine would block the site thus losing that viewer/reader. My point is, for this Wikipedia maybe we should have just a smidge of censoring for the little one so we don't start building this Wikipedia for nothing. Nothing drastic like deleting those pages, I'm just saying remove things like the man ejaculating" video. That way parents would let their kids on here, and it would be aloud in school (cause I know for sure that this site wouldn't be aloud in a Polk County Public school). So maybe we should change "We are not censored..." to "We are not censored within reason..." Okay, *puts helmet on head*, thoughts?-- † CM16 t c r 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We are "Simple English" Wikipedia, not a Simple "English Wikipedia". We're not a simple version of enwp, we're a Wikipedia using Simple English as a language. Anyways, censorship is subjective: what is bad to one user might be fine in the eyes of another. MC8 (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not so sure if this can be considered as a compromise; anyway, by accessing this site, you agree to the content disclaimer, so unfortunately, too bad if Special:Random gives you that page. Chenzw  Talk  10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Yay, another censorship debate... :) - If we speak very broadly (and I do not point to the different content disclaimers), there are two kinds of "viewers" or "editors" of wikipedia. There are those who are adult. They should be able to decide for themselves what they want to see, and what they do not want to see. And then there are those who are not legally adult. Their parents are responsible for these, depending on the age of the child (and the views of the parents), the parents may consider certain content to be inappropriate for the child. Perhaps I am too open, but I fail to see how certain "neutral" pictures showing naked people, or parts of naked people are considered inappropriate/bad. On the other hand, articles like Molotov cocktail describe how to build such a thing (A Molotov cocktail is a bottle or container (preferably glass), filled with a flammable liquid, and prepared in such a way that the container will explode when the liquid catches fire), are perfectly fine. If I think about it, would I prefer my child to build Molotov cocktails, rather than seeing pictures of naked people? - What harm would be done if my daughter went, looked up nudity, and saw the picture of the naked man taking a shower? -- Naked figures (esp. female ones) have often been depicted in works of art. Should I prohibit my child from visiting a museum in Rome, so she does not see David by Michelangelo (naked statue of a man), or should I prohibit my son to visit a museum so he cannot admire The Birth of Venus (I think by Sandro Botticelli, in Paris, if my memory serves me) because that shows a mostly naked woman? - Please note that this does not mean that if there are images in articles that are completely inappropriate that they should not be replaced (That way, in nudity, the image of the man sunbathing naked (which is a horrible picture, without any artistic merit) was removed, and the man showering naked was moved there). This only seems to be about pictures. Pictures are there to illustrate the context of the article. So if you find one that does so badly, please consider discussing replacing it with a better one on the talk page of the respective article. Submission (movie) is about a 10 minute short movie. In it, Theo van Gogh shows how women in Islam are humiliated. An outraged Muslim killed van Gogh for that movie. Our article links to the movie. No one ever complained. Open to discussion. --Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: The Birth of Venus is in the Uffizi in Florence, not in Paris, my bad. David (now a copy) is on the Piazza della Signoria, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, also in Florence (just imagine: in a public square, children can just walk by and have a look...) - the original is in the Galleria dell' Academia, also in Florence. --Eptalon (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Censorship threatens the very foundation that any Wikimedia Project is built on. Neutral point of view. How would we be neutral if we said "Yes, we can have an article on flowers but not 2 Girls 1 Cup because that would be too much for the children. We are giving more weight to flowers, even though they both meet the threshold of notability. This path lies destruction. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nonvocalscream, did you even read my post? I said, "Nothing drastic like deleting those pages,...".-- † CM16 t c r 19:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did, and to remove the video of the man ejaculating is just as drastic as deleting the pages vis a vis editorial policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
How is that drastic? Would you really want a eight year old girl to find that and watch it without her parents permission?-- † CM16 t c r 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not my concern. That is the parents job, not mine. They can easily install filters. My job is to cover subjects an best I can, while remaining neutral. I won't support this proposed editorial policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have to agree with everyone else. It is not our fault if the child sees this page. The parents can set up parental controls. We are not censored for anyone. SimonKSK 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are frickin' hypocritical then, how can we call our selves a Wikipedia for children (granted we also take care of people just learning English) and not arrange our content around them. I'm sorry but this is way to hypocritical and it needs to be solved now. And your filter idea won't work cause the community won't agree to rating the articles so the programs have nothing to judge by.-- † CM16 t c r 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And sometime you have to do a little extra so parents are able to do their jobs.-- † CM16 t c r 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
? Keep their jobs? Listen, this WIkipedia is not only for children. It can be for people who don't understand English that well. Again, Wikipedia is NOT censored for anyone. If we get rid of nudity or semen, then we would have to get rid of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, because there are plenty of things there that parents don't wan't their kids to read. SimonKSK 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, we are not hypocritical at all. We do arrange our content around children. We're not showing pornos, are we? SimonKSK 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Simon, I just said start rating the articles so parent's installed filters will work. A man ejaculating is inappropriate for anyone, IMO, that in my book can be considered to be porn but whatever, I'm done considering nobody is listening to me.-- † CM16 t c r 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Or more accurately? You are done because no one is in agreement with this proposal. Don't personalize it. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:STICK, Scream? SimonKSK 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I apologize. I expect people to bring serious proposals (and I believe the proposer was serious) and discuss them academically. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick thinking no one agrees with CM16. But the way he framed his argument it wasn't going anywhere. That and this discussion's tone is rather nasty. I don't mind a medical cut out explaining anatomy of the body. But the photos that look self made of someone playing with their johnson can easily be excluded. Censorship exists in wikipedia. Why do editors remove vandalism? They are censoring thoughts aren't they? It’s just a matter of what people consider acceptable. CM16 proposed removing a few videos as unaccaptable to benefit the project in general by increasing the audiance. How that not a serious proposal? --Mars (talk)

(unindenting) Wikipedia cannot be censored because otherwise we wouldn't be the Open Content encyclopedia ;). If things were censored, then we would be infriging freedom of speech (by not allowing users to edit or make certain pages), the Open Content (because if we can't make certain pages, then it isn't Open Content, eh?), and basically Wikipedia as a whole. No offense, but I am sick and tired of having topics such as these pop up every month. Just accept the fact that Wikipedia will most likely never be censored and move on with it. Razorflame 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't watched the video. Nor do I intend to. I know how it works, and I don't really want to watch someone else doing it. Anyway, because I don't want to watch it, I don't go to the page. I don't click play. I have seen other videos which are much worse. (Saddam and much more). I have my own filter of videos I don't want to see: My brain decides. Kids will do the same. Adults cannot watch their kids every move. If a kid wants to read about it, they will eventually watch the video. They are at the article for a reason. I have clicked Special:Random in the past, and because I didn't want to read about it, I went to another page. I'd expect to see something like that if I were to go to that page. That said, personally, I don't think it is necessarily something children should see, but its not our problem. Kennedy (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA and VGA nominations

Hello, it's me again. I was wondering, could we have a streamlined process like the English Wikipedia where each nomination has their own subpage? The French Wikipedia also has a good system where they combined GA and VGA nominations so people can vote for either, and it's all organized in its own subpage. obentomusubi 07:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really needed. The English Wikipedia has several hundred nominations at any one time, whereas we have maybe 5. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And even those nominations attract little interest at the moment. We should focus on getting more people interested in the process than worrying about changing the formatting too much. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a change "to" it will get more people interested, but this is not it. Synergy 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of SE words?

The home page states the following. SE articles should use the 1000 most common English words. But it does not give a list. Is there a list of the 1000 most common English words? Is there a list of the 850 Basic English words? If there are these lists, please add links to the home page. (David Spector from English Wikipedia, Feb. 7, 2009)

See for example list of most frequent words in Wiktionary; note that the basic English wordlist specifies a set used by Ogden; In my opinion, we should be fine taking the general ones mentioned here, as long as we stick to the top 500 to top 2500 terms therein. Also note the lists will probably need post-processing (to get rid of proper names), and that by the nature of word lists, various forms of the same word count as different occurrences. --Eptalon (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the BE850 word list is linked from Basic English. It is very difficult to write articles with that word list. --Eptalon (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do we end up linking people to a list of Simple words every month, just curious?-- † CM16 t c r 07:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we create the Simple English Wikipedia word list? I was thinking about something like the Basic English Combined list Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist plus the top 1500 from list of most frequent words, plus the Voice of America list Wikipedia:VOA Special English Word Book. Obviously many articles will find it hard to fit, especially anything with technical terms. Words that are extra could be expected to either be defined within the article or linked to another page in the sewp or wiktionary. I know that I try to use this approach when writing articles. Thoughts? --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I now think it would be very useful to include the actual list of 1000 "Simple English" words near the bottom of the home page. It would help encourage people to write in SE if they knew exactly what the words were. Once such a list exists and everyone agrees with it, I volunteer to write a checking tool in PHP for inclusion in the standard editing procedure of this wiki. About technical words: they should be allowed, but there needs to be a policy such as enclosing them in quotation marks and possibly having them be links to articles that explain them, if that is not too complicated. (David Spector from full Wikipedia, Feb 8, 2009)
There was a time when this project actually made sense to me, but then I had a hard time figuring out how to write "Simple English". I spent some time during the holidays thinking about it, with my ESL students in mind, and I came up with a proposal. The idea was to build a spellchecker based on that word list, so that editing on the browser would be easier using "Simple" as the spellchecker's language. I even made a draft for the spellchecker, uploaded it to addons.mozilla.org, and asked for comments; nothing came out of it. Apparently, there is no motivation in this community to define Simple English and help editors to contribute, and that's one of the reasons why I'm voting for the closure of this project at the Meta Wikimedia: I just have no idea about what is "Simple English", and nobody here seems to care to explain it. Lwyx (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It still makes sense to me to write simpler content for ESL students and children, but now I think SEWP is diverting resources from the Standard English Wikipedia: that's another reason to shut down this project. Good introductions in Special/ized English should work perfectly for those audiences. I'm still working on that spellchecker with this usage among others in mind. Those interested please post a message on the talk page. Lwyx (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask because its something I have wondered about for awhile. But why do you care if it diverts resources, you are not active on en or simple. You have almost no edits on any wiki project under the name Lwyx. So to be quite honest you appear to be a single purpose account of someone who was likely banned or blocked from simple who has an axe to grind, why else would you push so hard to close a project that you have absolutely nothing to do with. (ie less than 100 edits each at en, simple and meta.) -Djsasso (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I opened the account to contribute to Simple, when I found it and looked like a good idea. Now that I have it I'll contribute everywhere else. BTW, I'm by nature somewhat of a gnome, so I contribute very seldom, only if I find something broken (like SEWP :o). Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) TV/Movie, Gutenberg, Contemporary fiction, take 5k words each; gives you 15k words worst case, clean for duplicates, and proper names (first names, place names); we will probably be left with something between 5 and 7.5k words. Take the first half of these (2.5k-4k) and we will probably have a good list. --Eptalon (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A Wikicup

If there isn't one already, I propose that a Wikicup or a Wikicontest be created. Many other projects have this in effect, and I personally believe it would be helpful to the whole community. Questions? Responses? obentomusubi 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, never mind... I see it. obentomusubi 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
*epic facepalm* SimonKSK 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Precisely... I do want to notify everybody that I have some suggestions for the current Wikicup. Please visit the talk page for more details. obentomusubi 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Should we start a new Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Its purpose can be used for dispute resolutions, negotiating, and solving issues for user conduct (pretty much like Wikipedia:Requests for comment). --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. Support – However, since this is the simple Wikipedia, we should simplify the process. I never used RfC on en: because it was too complicated for me. obentomusubi 06:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should, it is a small community. Simple Talk works without going and adding extra venues. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pointless idea. What's wrong with using the current pages we have? Nothing. Majorly talk 12:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    I have to agree. I don't really understand the whole concept... and Simple talk is the heart of problem solving here. obentomusubi 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. We barely have enough participation to keep the wiki alive, we don't need any extra processes and venues. Also, there really aren't a lot of disputes... –Juliancolton (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No need. — RyanCross (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)