Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 63

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

User warnings

Just a thought, but perhaps we should clear user warnings that are over a year old and effectively stale, especially with dynamic IP ranges? Some IP talk pages are getting quite long with warnings dating back to 2006, and i'm not entirely sure vandals will scroll all the way to the bottom of the page if they "have new messages".

This could be particularly useful for IP addresses that have vandalised in the past but now (seem to) have turned over a new leaf.

Regards,

BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good job for a bot... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Some of the talk pages are really cluttered with the templates. -- Mercy (|) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie, i'll look into getting some sort of bot set up. I assume it would run continuously? BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 09:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I'll start removing old templates when warning new vandals. Kennedy (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, for now we can all do likewise. I'd suggest keeping warnings newer than a year though... or shall we say 6 months? If people still want them they are in the history too. I've started looking into a bot and something should be possible. Cheers, BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) On deWP, the user talk pages of IPs get deleted after a period of time. Most time do this aka by using a bot. Possibly an admin can get the script and do this here also. Barras (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is the best solution. Users should be able to see the history of anons, especially in the case of static IPs, proxies etc etc. It is much easier just to have a ongoing removal of warnings over a certain timescale. I've been trialling a script today which I think will do the job, just doing a little more testing now. Cheers, BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 12:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This admin delete only pages of non-static IPs. Static IPs (schools, etc) don't get deleted. Barras (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced - we shouldn't be deleting pages unless there is a need to... and I see no need to when we can just as easily remove content from pages rather than continual deletion & recreation. Cheers, BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It was just an idea. Barras (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think old warnings should stay because it helps determine if ip ranges are locations likely to be vandalism hot spots. I use old vandalism warnings as a way to decide things all the time. Wikipedia is not paper and we are not running out of space. And I can't imagine anyone spends a whole lot of time looking at IP users talk pages without reason. If a IP talk page is cluttered I just refactor the comments to make them easier to read. For the example BG uses of warnigns dating back to 2006, if the page is above the recommended page size of 60k just create an archive like any regular users talk page, atleast thats what happens on en (oh I know dirty word). -Djsasso (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They will still be available in the IP's history - thus why I disagreed with actually deleting the pages. Do you think an IP is likely going to scroll down and read the newest messages? I doubt it. Do we really need warnings from 1+ years ago? And what is the point of archiving warnings? IP ranges can change, usernames don't. And yes, dirty word. :P ;) BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 14:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When I am trying to make a quick decision I don't want to have to go walking through many reversions to find the warnings. As far as IPs changing there is not always a way to tell if the IP is static or dynamic so having old warnings helps to determine if this guy has vandalized in the past or not, which is often a factor in how long a block is going to be. If you see a continuing trail of vandalism spread over years then you know the IP is likely not dynamic because the odds of an IP changing and multiple different vandals getting it and happening to vandalize wikipedia are astronomical. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, i'll rephrase it: Only IP addresses that can be determined to be dynamic are "cleaned". And as I also mentioned, it will only be older than 6 months or a year or whatever people deem necessary. And you wouldn't have to "go walking through many reversions to find the warnings", it's simply finding the last edit by the bot and comparing the diffs with the current version - and I am almost positive that it will only be a couple of edits back in the history. BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not that huge a deal as long as the pages are not deleted. But I also don't think its something that needs to be done. Basically in my opinon each second I have to spend tracking down vandalism history the longer the vandal gets to keep vandalizing while I decide how long to block him. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I never suggested deletion as I agree with you on that point - the histories should be available to everyone. Anyway, thanks for your input and i'll await further views before I do anything. BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we hide old messages using a collapsible navbox or something similar? Example:

This would allow users to research past warnings and incidents and save space. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but is it possible, that a bot can do this? Barras (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would think so. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as TNM says, this is something a bot could do. fr33kman talk 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree but, instead of just putting them in that box where a vandal could delete them, maybe put them on a subpage that's locked and only admins can edit and transclude it onto the main talk page? Just a suggestion.--   CM16  22:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that reverting the vandal's removal of the messages would be good enough. Is there a "Template:Don't Remove Warnings"? (or something to that effect?) --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There isn't even a policy against the removal of warnings I don't think. Removal of warnings actually shows that the user has found and acknowledged the warning, but if it gets disruptive the talk page can be protected. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the guideline/policy on enWP. EhJJTALK 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that only applies (or should) if that's the person who recieved it not if an IP has changed from since the warning was given and they remove it. Or am I wrong?--   CM16  01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what we're saying...Malinaccier (talk) (review) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I love that idea! Maybe the box style could change a little bit, but I love the concept very, very much. obentomusubi 06:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the enWP talkpag yellow for the box? --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is turning into another useless icon debate so to speak...this isn't an issue. Lets get back to creating articles. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG I agree with you for once! Let's get editing! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This hasn't been a major concern in the past, so I don't see why we should be looking for a solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic English wordlist

At Wikipedia:Basic English international wordlist there is Charles Kay Ogden's Basic English wordlist. Ogden died in 1957, so in countries where copyright is 70 years after the author's death, his copyright has not yet expired. The list was deleted from Wiktionary for this reason. So I am curious what the justification is for keeping the list on a free encyclopedia. Marnanel (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that a list of words would not constitute a violation. For example on en there are many lists are that lists that magazines etc created like top 100 movies etc. Technically all of them are copywritten to their respective magazines but as long as it sources where the information comes from its not an actual violation. -Djsasso (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's still at Wiktionary wikt:Wiktionary:Basic English alphabetical wordlist. EhJJTALK 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXV

I have a lot of articles to update pertaining to WrestleMania XXV. Help would be nice, if you would like to help, results can be found at WWE.com and please drop me a line so I know your helping, please. Thanks.--   CM16  03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject? Either way (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes BUT there's only one other member there besides me, and his computer has crashed. So can I get help?--   CM16  03:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
About 139,702 articles need work. If you would like to help, please drop me a line so I know you're helping. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to help just say so you don't have to be a smart aleck about it.--   CM16  04:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And I'll add every redlink in Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Prize in Literature (et. al) to that list, Juliancolton. Either way (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe I came here for help, and it's being made a mockery of.--   CM16 
Chill out Cman. Everyone edits what they know most about here. I'd hazard a guess that no-one else here is interested in wrestling. Proof? Your project has only you and one (semi-) active editor. Try going to en.wiki and try to get people who edit wrestling articles there over here? Kennedy (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And please refrain from ensuring two out of five of this entire Wikipedia's "most wanted" articles are wrestling articles. There's much more to the universe than wrestling. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Kennedy, you do know I'm banned at en and can't get help from there right? This is why I asked here, and I know not every one is interested in wrestling but we are a community that helps each other, I even provided the results so everyone could help. And the time spent saying these other things could've been used on updating article and it would be done and y'all could go back to your thing.--   CM16  16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And the time spent complaining about the statements here lost you valuable time you could have been updating the wrestling articles. I wonder how many people actually come to Simple wikipedia for wrestling articles with all the other sites out there for wrestling news and results. Either way (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess I was wrong about "a community that help each other" fine I get it done myself later today.--   CM16  17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe people don't feel appreciation for it, so they don't. I mean Yotcmdr made the Attitude Era article earlier today, something you were arguing is very vital and necessary for this Wikipedia to have, and you've get to acknowledge it. Either way (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, that's perfectly understandable but that's not why we do this or should be doing this, we should do it cause it makes the wiki better, there's about 20 wrestling related article on this wiki right now that are inaccurate because of things that happened at WrestleMania last night and if it wasn't for me having an appointment in about an hour I'd do it with out asking for help cause I'd have more time on my hands, but I'm asking for help and it's getting shot right back in my face.--   CM16  17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Joss Whedon nominated for demotion

Hello all. Just in case you hadn't noticed the demotions link in the RecentChanges template go bold (indicating there's an active nomination), I discovered a fair number of problems with the Joss Whedon article. In light of recent GA standards, I now believe the current state of this article warrants its demotion from GA. Comments, suggestions, or someone saving it from demotion, or any combination of the above would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion‎. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of user categories

I cannot think of any user categories that are actually useful for this project. I propose each and every single one is deleted. Majorly talk 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would that include those like Category:User en-us and Category:User en? If not I Oppose. Actually, I oppose anyway. All have a point.--   CM16  23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would. What point do they serve? Majorly talk 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can generate some stats for who actually goes to the Category pages for languages on this Wikipedia. That would be enlightening. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found them useful on other language Wikipedias, Majorly, so I imagine some people might find them useful when coming here. It really helps if you need someone to help you post something in particular or comment on an article/situation if you don't have a clear grasp on that language. That makes it really vital here since we're reaching out to people who don't have a clear grasp on English, so they might need to communicate with someone in their native language. Either way (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the deletion of the unhelpful user categories. As mentioned by Either way in one the RFDs, certain ones like the babel categories could be useful if someone needs something translated, and the Typo Team Members could be useful if someone has a question about copyediting. But delete all the ones that don't help the project. --Fairfield Deleted? 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They do? Why would we care where anyone lived? Majorly talk 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I find them extremely helpful, if none exist after this the location ones and bable ones should, they both are helpful.--   CM16  01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how they are helpful in writing an encyclopedia, other than "I like them". Majorly talk 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Unneeded, doesn't add any value to the project; 'cept Babel cats (kinda useful, sort of, maybe) fr33kman talk 01:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment, final - well I have one final thing to say on this then I'm gonna let whatever happens happen. While I'll agree most don't help the project, it doesn't hurt us for them to exist (minus the political ones maybe) thus the reason why enWP let's them exist. While yes our major priority is the articles it doesn't hurt us to have fun (just some are too serous to have fun while building an encyclopedia). That is my final thought on this.--   CM16  02:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support deletion, with the exception of babel categories. –Juliancolton (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this includes Babel cats. On a wiki like this they are especially helpfull to find people that also speak your mother tongue...since we are dealing with people who don't always speak english as a first language. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It does include the babels, Djsasso, as Majorly stated above.--   CM16  04:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, after some thought – I fully understand the reasoning behind this proposal, and somewhat agree with it. But, I cannot see how such categories (languages, religion, country, etc.) do the project any harm. Borderline categories can be deletion discussed (particularly offensive ones), but as a whole, I am fine with them being kept. TheAE talk 03:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with American Eagle, it's not a problem. I have actually used them to see if there were any other people from the land of Oz editing on the sewp. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • But how do they improve the encyclopedia? Majorly talk 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • How does having a signature improve the encyclopedia? It doesn't... TheAE talk 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well having a signature certainly helps each of know who we are being addressed by and to whom we address our own comments... Otherwise how would we all know that you, American Eagle, left that comment for Majorly? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I get that, but I'm meaning signatures with hundreds of characters (like Majorly's, at 161), which don't directly help the community. Also, categories help identify users just as much as signatures do, in different ways. TheAE talk 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Customized signatures also build a sense of community. Imagine how boring the wiki would be if we all had the default sig... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
              • So does categories. It lets you find similar users to work with, or to help you. TheAE talk 21:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Instead of answering a question with another question, how about just answering the question? We can't really stop customised signatures - and if you felt that strongly about it, we could always make another rule that they aren't allowed. But there's no way to stop people using them. There is a way to stop user categories - delete them. Majorly talk 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A it is stands now a few user categories have been named for deletion. These categories want to group the users into those who are part of/subscribe to the policies of a certain political party; to a more general political point of view; or those who adhere to a certain faith. The problem with such categories is that the basis they rely on is fairly generic: What exactly is conservative POV, what exactly is a Christian, etc. Through this, such categories will divide our community more than they will be helpful. In the RFD for the conservatives category I have brought up the example of abortion, most conservative people I know are against abortion (because, after all, aborting kills the unborn child). On the other hand, some conservatives are also against using birth control, esp. condoms, because they usually have strong religious opinions, and think that preventing a baby from being made is a bad thing. Such categories will therefore divide our community (of 30-odd users) more than they will be helpful. On the other hand there are those user categories that serve to group our users by language, or by geographical region. Most of the time, these are helpful, so probably should not be deleted. --Eptalon (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether those categories exist or not we're still gonna be who we are, be that Conservative, Liberal, Christian, etc. So, that kinda makes the deletion of them moot. By the way, Eptalon, I'm a little offended by your description of Conservatives-Christians, I'm not gonna make a big deal out of it though. I will say this, This Conservative-Christian is all for stuff like birth control and condoms, I just prefer that people wait till marriage for sex, Abortion is what I'm against.--   CM16  20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • dot, dot, dot. No one cares about your political views. — Aiuw (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • This one make three user that whether they admit it or not have a problem with me, I was correcting the record.--   CM16  03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Just for the record: All I was trying to say: Most conservative people are against abortion, but are fine with using birth control/condoms; some conservatives are also against using birth control/condoms. What you and I think about either abortion or using birth control/condoms is irrelevant in this case. I take it however, that even without this category (or whatever other category you feel you must be part of), you can very well put your views into articles, if this is done in an unbiased way. The point I was trying to make is that such categories are less useful that those based on languages or geography (Wikipedians in ...) - Oh, the category Christian Wikipedians is probably even more problematic as there are a great number of different groups who call themselves Christian. To my knowledge, we do not have categories for Muslim or Buddhist Wikipedians. --Eptalon (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
            • That's not our fault.--   CM16  18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
              • To add, if someone is that religion, by all means I'm not against them creatinging it, so I'm against using that reason not to keep Category:Christian Wikipedians.--   CM16  18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Majorly is spot-on. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a surreal version of Facebook or Myspace, nor a place for banned EN users to fester Soup Dish (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • So, with that, sounds like you would want to get rid of me (along with other banned users). Pick your words carefully, Soup. People can always take something the wrong way.--   CM16  20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Or, in fact, the correct way. But this discussion is for elsewhere, I'm working on a new proposal offline, will present it in the next few days Soup Dish (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • That's cold hearted, Soup.--   CM16  21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a problem having them. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Not needed. I don't think I've ever used a user category before. — RyanCross (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? I count two on your userpage, Ryan.--   CM16  18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're also in the Christianity user category because of one of your user boxes, Ryan (as well as several others at User:RyanCross/Userboxes). Either way (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • By "used", I meant actually clicking on the category to see who was in it. I've never really had the need to do that. — RyanCross (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support These categories, like all categories, are only useful if there are at least 5 (preferably more) items in the list. Right now, these categories have only one or two active users in them. EhJJTALK 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He did say "active users," not just users in general. The Christianity category has three, possibly four active users (Braingle just edited today for the first time since January). Either way (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It includes the Babel userboxes, which are highly useful, and also, Wikipedia is not a complete encyclopedia. It includes the community. (From some page on the English Wikipedia)MathCool10 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I have removed the user category RFDs from WP:AFD as this discussion covers them as well and the page was getting rather cluttered. The RFD pages themselves have been kept for history purposes. fr33kman talk 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? There seems to be no consensus to do this. Those RFDs are completely separate from this discussion. There is consensus to delete them at the RFDs. Even if we keep user categories overall, the consensus at those RFDs say that we should delete those particular ones. Either way (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually there were requests at the RFD page for these to be suspended, and it seemed the prudent thing to do. However, since you have asked for them to be reinstated, I have reinstated them to RFD and have closed two of them. The one with the actual requests for being placed on hold has not been closed. I disagree with the restoration to RFD given the continuing discussion here, but I'm not going to make a fuss over it. fr33kman talk 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As I've said, they're not related and are wholly separate discussions. If we chose to keep user categories, those categories would have been deleted anyway because the arguments there were about the content about the category, not the mere existence of user categories. Either way (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving this on

Okay, so the discussion has been open for about a week now, and I think we can summarise the consensus from the voting and discussion above as follows:

  1. The deletion of personal belief and personal inclination categories is generally supported.
  2. Keeping Babel categories (and probably Wikipedia flagged position categories) is generally supported.

So, to that end, I guess we need a new, more precisely defined proposal on deletion of user categories. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Collaboration

Hello everyone. I think most people agree with me, we need to start improving articles rather than creating millions (well, not that many but anyway) of stubs. This is why I'm proposing we revive User:Project/Collaboration. Instead of creating the articles every wiki should have we would select certain articles, and by groups of 2 or 3 users, (or more) we could improve 2 or 3 (depending on the number of users) articles per week. Thanks, and happy editing Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a food idea, but a few points/comments:
  1. We have already created all the articles that every Wikipedia should have - just look at the list ;).
  2. By "improving", what do we mean? If it's just stub to normal article I don't think it would be such a good idea. Why not lower the bar a little and say 1-2 VGAs a fortnight, or even a month initially?
Regards,
Goblin 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was not thinking of improving just those articles, and they would be improved to at least GA standard. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, it got a little too complex, so if we kick-start it again, and keep it simple, it could work. Kennedy (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I re-start it now then? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Go for it :) I'll jump in later, I'm at work atm. Kennedy (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Icon discussion

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

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH THOROUGHLY!

Last time this subject was brought up by myself, I feel there was unnecessary drama. Let us please try to have a civilized discussion now that I'm bringing it up again. Please note that it is not necessary to add your two cents, nor is it necessary to sit out of the discussion entirely. Please be kind, be civil, and let us try to be nicer to each other this time around.

That being said, I still have my heart set on the icons I proposed last time. Razorflame is a vocal opponent of the icons. I understand that completely. I would like to know what other people think of them. I've heard a lot of support on my talk page and in other media of personal communication, but I haven't heard that very much here. Below are the icons proposed:

Cheers, obentomusubi 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. It looks too much like Kirby's Dreamland to me. Either way (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
e/c Oppose for various reasons. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with our current icons - "ain't broke don't fix". Secondly, this is just going to bring up further drama, regardless of the fact that no-one wants any. Thirdly, i'm afraid I do agree with those who say that they don't give a "proffessional" look. Finally, i'm concerned that having all four of the icons exactly the same space is an accessibility no-no. People with colourblindness will suffer here.
Also, can we please revert the protection icons to the old ones for the same reason. Identical icons with different shades is not good for people with colourblindness. Goblin 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
→ Either Way: I would argue that it doesn't look like Kirby's Dreamland. BG7, I see where you're coming from. obentomusubi 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Can't we just leave the icons alone? They've caused no issues in the past. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the professional arguments and the color blind arguments as well so I'll propose these:

Remember "professional" doesn't have to mean "boring" as well.--   CM16  23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like those icons very much as well. How about this one for the VGA:
Cheers, obentomusubi 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The above still don't look professional, though. Honestly mate, there's nothing wrong with the current icons; can't we just leave 'em alone? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Obento Musubi, I'd really like for you to focus on things other than icons. People have already vetoed those suggestions. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shappy, they voted on his suggestions for the icons not mine.--   CM16  02:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
But Obento Musubi is the one who opened this thread which shows he's still focused on the icons. Shappy's point is a valid one. Either way (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but I added my suggestions which have not been voted on.--   CM16  02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Fairytale bookmark golden.png to Proposed very good article.png and Fairytale bookmark grayscale.png to Proposed good article.png, there isn't the same level of visual distinction as far as "instant distinction" goes. Compare Symbol support vote.svg to GA candidate.svg; you can instantly tell what the difference is, because the latter is "broken", which instantly suggests that the pieces can be put together to make it a whole piece again. EVula // talk // 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Julian, BG7, Either Way, EVula... let's not go through this again. I'm afraid once again we're trying to find problems where they simply don't exist. We have plenty of other problems, like not enough VGAs, not enough GAs, GAs up for demotion, plenty of RFDs to be commented on, all of which aim to improve the content of Wikipedia. Once we're getting somewhere with that, we can all spend hours checking out what flavour of icing we want to put on our cake. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
To continuing using the metaphor, we both know cake isn't any good without icing. (Yummm, I'm making myself hungry ;))--   CM16  07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but right now we don't have a cake: just a gooey mess of batter not even ready for the oven. Either way (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I supported last time, but I Oppose changing them, as I prefer the current ones after comparing them for a while... Kennedy (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a very quick comment: The first set of icons are truly unusable (only uses color as a distinction), besides even for non-color-blind the proposed GA/VGA icons are hardly visible. As to the second set, they are better; but the star with the dashed line is on the brink of visibility too. Perhaps a very basic question: Are our current icons fine, even if you consider the color-blind? - If so, why should we change them? - I'd rather we focused on getting more articles to the resp. categories (currently there is only one proposed VGA) - In short: If it ain't broken, don't fix it. --Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And you wonder why people aren't commenting in all your discussions...its probably cause they are sick of saying oppose every time you bring it up again. Leave the icons alone. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Bored of icon discussions but also oppose per others above. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • e/c: I'm bored too, Peter. But I think it is equal wich icons we use. Barras (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Fine. I have been nothing but nice to you guys, and I feel you're just slamming me. This discussion is over. Someone advised me to try again in a few weeks, and I have, and it seems like people here won't change. Whatever. This discussion is over. obentomusubi 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


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


Getting things done..

Hello all,

I can see a number of articles that would probably be good candidates for GA or VGA (PGA/PVGA), but that currently need massive amounts of work, to even be listable in those categories. I also feel that currently only one or two (in short, very few) people work on improving the articles listed. Yet the Peer review which was created for that purpose is virtually dead.

For this reason, I wonder:

  • Would it make sense to create a page that lists articles that need a lot of work (to be done by the community), rather than just a few editors. If so, what form should this take?
  • Should such a page also list some goal (e.g: This article should be listable as proposed good/very good article in a month's time, these are the things that need to be done).
  • Am I one of about 5 editors involved in the P(V)GA process?

These are of course just thoughts I hav,e comments welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of what I was talking about above. Making a process where the community could work on improving certain selected articles all togeter. And I do believe you are involved in P(V)GA processes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think, that we don't need an extra page to improve articles. When all users look at P(V)GA should that be good. There are the articles listed and all of us can help. Barras (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello I was just thinking about this. I'm new and havn't really found my way around yet. I think that the "edit this page" page would be good. I want to help, but I can't really find bad articles to fix. Could someone explain or give a link to that GA/PV something thing. Phantomx129 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can help here and here. The listed articles need help. Barras (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009: Scholarships

English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun!

English: Please translate this message into your language. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be very cool if someone from Simple would be interested in representing us. :) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Portals

I think some WikiProjects (where there is enough interest and support) and a few Portals would be helpful. These are tools other wikipedias use to make coordinated improvements to groups of articles. They bring some consistency and a framework to help both editors and readers. I would like to see subst:templates to support just one basic Portal format, so each Project can add their own titles and their own selected articles and selected pictures to create their own Portal. I wish I knew how to write the needed templates, but maybe somebody else around here knows. What I see is a limited number of WikiProjects (maybe Math, Language, Geography, Science, History, Art, Music, Games, and Anti-Vandalism), each with their own version of the Portal page. That way editors interested in these subjects can help each other. Wilhelm meis (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note:Moved from Wikipedia talk:Simple talk by EhJJTALK 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
We actually don't have either here on this wiki because we only have about 30 active editors in total on the entire wiki, so there is rarely enough interest for any specific wikiproject. As far as portals go there aren't enough good articles in most subjects to keep that up either. -Djsasso (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
30 total active editors, are you kidding me? It's a wonder we have what we do! How many articles do we have? I still think it would be worth while to at least have a few projects, even small ones, to try to tie things together within the broader topics. Can we at least set a threshold for launching WikiProjects (say, 5+ active editors?) and a general guide for the scope of WikiProjects? I could help out with History and Languages, if there are a few other editors willing to unify their efforts in these areas. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The few users we have, want to improve and write articles and not to care for a WikiPrject. There is enough to do without projects. An extra site means extra work. Sory, but I and I think many other users have enough to do. You can create your own project in your user namespace. Barras (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree; a WikiProject isn't really worth the effort, given the relatively small community here. EVula // talk // 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded (or thirded). We barely have enough participation to keep our current processes alive. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking CfA

The Criteria for adminship is a very successful guideline we have. It tells people what we expect from admins, and how to make new ones. Despite this, I think some clarifications are needed:

  • The support percentages (65% for admin, 75% for crat/CU) are not cut in stone, the closing crat only takes them as a guiding rail.
  • The few edits (that enable people to vote) should not be clarified; I personally take them as between 20 and 30, other crats may vary on that though. Obviously the edits need to be done before the vote.

Can we change the wording of the guideline, so these two items become clearer, do we need to adapt anything else? --Eptalon (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change:
  • Generally, at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support of a candidate to indicate a consensus for the adminship request to succeed. to Generally, at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support of a candidate to indicate a consensus for the adminship request to succeed, but the closing bureaucrat has the last say. or Generally, at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support of a candidate to indicate a consensus for the adminship request to succeed though the closing bureaucrat can decide otherwise..
  • The guideline says Votes made by users with very few edits may or may not be counted., we could change it to Votes made by users with very few edits may or may not be counted after being considered by the closing bureaucrat.
Other proposals? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The closing bureaucrat may not count votes made by users with very few edits? --Eptalon (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How about: The closing bureaucrat may or may not count votes made by users with very few edits. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How's this (the language needs to be cleaned up)? "All users are welcome to comment in an RfX discussion, but bureaucrats may decide to not take a user's comments into consideration while closing an RfX based on that user's amounts of edits and length of service at Simple Wikipedia. Users with very few edits prior to the opening of an RfX may not have their comments considered by a bureaucrat." Either way (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Not bad, but isn't that a bit complex for SEWP? And it should be a RfX discussion. Kind regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why I said the language needed to be cleaned up. I wrote it complex because I think better that way and figured we could reduce it from there. Either way (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. I'll have a go at simplifying. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: anyone is welcome to comment, the votes of some users are seen as invalid though. --Eptalon (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to get us away from that word. Either way (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
How about using opinion instead of vote. The user's opinion may not be taken into account by the closing bureaucrat. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Either way, in my opinion, there's no way to get around it cause that's what it is with a discussion attached.--   CM16  02:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it doesn't have to be that way, nor should it be that way. Having templates, specific sections on where to put !votes, and specific !vote tallies/percentages only furthers this unnecessary practice. every little step we take away from straight voting on things improves the encyclopedia. Either way (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
En is the same way. They have the sections as well.--   CM16  02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's so bizarre how people say "we're not en." on some occasions, and say "but that's how it's done on en." on other occasions. It all depends on how it helps their arguments at the time. Either way (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, I had a bit of a chuckle at that myself. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people don't seem to understand the system of consensus. If, for example, a Request for Deletion had two very well-argued keeps and four "Don't like it" deletes, it should be kept. The same goes for RFA, with different arguments, etc Soup Dish (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

What I am proposing is that we use the idea shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spotlight on this wikipedia. We can either use that IRC network, or we can use a different one. In brief summary, Spotlight is a group of editors in one room in an IRC chat focused on improving one specific article by discussing it in real-time. I feel that, with enough members or effort, this is a great way to churn out quality articles. I know on regular English Wikipedia, this has made two good articles (were the standards seem to be much higher) and significantly improved many more. Note: This project will not necessarily create new articles, but we can if needed. Comments?  Mm40(talk | contribs)  11:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Goblin points to User:Project/Collaboration. That Is All. Goblin 11:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. The proposal project differs in that the discussion is in real time.  Mm40(talk | contribs)  11:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The main problem is that we only have thirty or so active users, of which about 10-15 use IRC. They are all in different timezones and are not all on at the same time. Discussions generally happen in #wikipedia-simple, and I see no need for a further channel. We can incorporate real time if needed, but it happens anyway (me and Yotcmdr were discussing Association football, the current collab, just yesterday). Regards, Goblin 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article demotion

Hello all. Please spare a few moments examining Joss Whedon against comments I've made proposing the article's demotion from Good Article status. And if you have any spare time, head to WP:PGA and WP:PVGA where we have a few articles to be assessed and/or voted upon. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed (very) good articles...

Hello there,

I am writing this to state once more:

  • Getting an article to (Very) Good Article status is a lot of work. My idea about it is that the person who "notices" that a given article is of the quality should not be the poor soul that needs to do all the corrections/simplifying/linkfixing,etc.

In very short: Getting an article to (Very) good article is a community pastime, and should not be done by only a few editors.

You are therefore invited to help

Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Color blindness and Mosque are currently suggested team projects. Any and all assistance is encouraged, and will be gratefully accepted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GFDL attribution once again

Can we continue the discussion about correct GFDL attribution please? I noticed a new template, namely {{Short attrib}}, has been created and is in use at ASDA. If we agree this is the correct level of attribution (i.e. no version, just a pointer to en.wiki's article and the article's history) then it strikes me that this template will need to be added to perhaps 80% of our articles. In which case would it be better to request a modification to the mediawiki software to add a caveat to the bottom of all articles which states (something like) "This article is based in part or in total on English Wikipedia's article ...." linking to both the article in question and the history? However, since we have interwiki links, I'm not sure of the use of justing linking to the current version of the article...

We have not adequately resolved this issue. It is important. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A similar template actually exists, which is {{enwp based}}. Which one should be used? Chenzw  Talk  10:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That template is used on talk pages, not on the articles themselves, and it points to a specific version of the en.wiki article, not the current version and its history. What is actually required for GFDL? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit of research into this over the past few days. Wikipedia is considering changing to CC-by-sa licence and voting was scheduled to start today but has been delayed (see meta:Licensing update/Timeline). Given that this change is expected within two months (May 22, 2009), I think we may just want to wait until the licence is changed before we put effort into this. There's a good background on why we should switch the CC-by-sa and the problems of GFDL at meta:Licensing update/Questions and Answers. (See, especially, the section titled Attribution) EhJJTALK 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote is open

While I think it's a bit ironic that we're voting on this, I think it's important that everyone do so. The WMF Board of Trustees wants to know our opinion on whether to transfer to a CC-BY-SA licence instead of (or in addition to) the current GFDL licence. This would make it much easier to base our content on that of the English Wikipedia. To get to the vote, click here: Special:SecurePoll/vote/1 and follow the link (it must be accessed via a language on which you are sufficiently active... such as Autoconfirmed). Please, take a moment to read the proposal and let WMF know if you support, oppose, or have no opinion. Thanks! EhJJTALK 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoken articles?

Does Simple English Wikipedia have any spoken articles? AshLin (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, WP:SPOKEN. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple News

Why haven't there been any more Simple News issues? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The next Issue is (re-)scheduled for Monday. Basically, i've been busy with RL journalism, Yot has been away and Kennedy has also been busy. I suggest that more people volunteer to help with it to keep it alive :). Regards, Goblin 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be able to help if need be. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey JC, thanks for offering to help! I've put a list of things that need doing below, if you can help with any, it's probably to either ping myself, Yot or Kennedy at our talk page, or just be bold and add it yourself ;). Regards, Goblin 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • RfX News
  • (V)GA News
  • Milestone News (i.e. User X created Article Y, which is Simple English's Zth Article)
  • User articles
  • Discussion news (i.e. Current important discussions)
  • Anything else that you can think of!
Regards, Goblin 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh, it's been further pushed back, probably to next week now, due to lack of input/interest. I don't have as much time as I used to at the moment due to exam revision, so I can't do it all myself. There was uproar when DYK died - do we want more uproar when SN dies? (As it may well do so soon...). Regards, Goblin 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello again, Can everyone please have a look here and double check my spelling, grammar and ensure that I haven't missed out anything. Also check if I should leave out something I have added. This, once completed, might be able to be put on the Signpost if we ask nice enough. Thanks Kennedy (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me though I wouldn't mind somebody else to look over it. And also, from what I've heard, we aren't quite en's best friend, will they accept to have this :p ? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I should think so. We are a sister project, so we should be encouraging users to help out. I have asked over at their project (I hope in the correct place, its like a maze!) if we can have it on a future issue. Bated breath... Kennedy (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In "By The Simple English Wikipedia community, {{{3}}}, 2009" What's the {{{3}}} doing? I'm not very good with templates, so what I said might be pretty obvious, but  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Kennedy at the bottom isn't working. Should that be fixed?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are templates that will work once its moved to the Wikipedia:Signpost directory. I think the {{{3}}} is the date. The Wikipedia:Kennedy will change to Wikipedia:Signpost once its moved. Kennedy (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done, copyedited. Although, how accurate is that? "More people are joining every day" seems like a bit of an exaggeration... –Juliancolton | Talk 16:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, they do join, they just don't edit :P Kennedy (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, true. 718smiley.svgJuliancolton | Talk 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What do we do to encourage them to edit? Automatic account (SUL) creations are one thing, but manual creations are something we should work to help edit here they are people who actually went trhough the process to join. This project is the only other Wikipedia that most people on enWP could edit, there should be hundreds of active editors here after the years it's been open. Perhaps we should analyze why there aren't. fr33kman talk 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the biggest reason is most people find this wiki redundant. And would rather put their effort into a wiki that people will actually read. I know that a huge number of the supports for the closure were based on the fact that people thought energy would be better spent simplifying the articles on the actual english wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with disease-related articles

Hello all,

many of our disease-related articles are too unspecific. Some are non-helpful as they give a wrong impression of what a disease or condition really is. I therefore think we should make an effort, to get the descriptions right. IMO it is better to have no article on a disease/condition, to having one that gives a wrong impression.

Some of the articles that need looking at include:

I know that all of these are related to either mental illnesses, or damage of the brain or nervous system. So far I have not had time to look through all disease-related articles. We probably have too few people who are capable of helping here, but could this be a way to attract new editors (by posting on respective wikiproject pages on en and other wikipedias)? --Eptalon (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hi. Since Im new here on simple wikipedia, I just thought I should check with the community whether it is ok for me to create a WikiProject Transport here. I have read Wikipedia:WikiProject and I will follow the guidelines on there. Thanks. Tbo 157 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please create such a project in your own namespace like the other existing projects. Thanks, Barras (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I will create it in my own namespace. Tbo 157 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
OK! If you need help, then ask. I help if necessary. Regards, Barras (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Tbo, I actually sort of have one ;). Lemme find where I put it... Goblin 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenly

Teenly was such a quiet child, I do not suppose many people knew she was here, but to anyone who was kind to her I offer my sincerest thanks. I am especially grateful to Users Eptalon, Chenzw and Yotcmdr for fixing up her talk page so beautifully in her memory. Fenneck (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do remember her. My condolences to you. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I only knew her through the few messages we exchanged - She seemed eager to learn and understand. Through this she pointed to things that were unclear and could be improved. I hope that all those who unlike me knew her in real life (and not just through a few messages) can keep her in good memory. I sincerely hope remembering those good moments you passed with her help you get over the sad feelings of losing her. Condolences to all of you who knew her. --Eptalon (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I read all that is morning, and it stirred me. Like is so precious, we mustn't waste it. TheAE talk 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I was so sad when I heard the news. Being very active here, I did see some of her edits, and was impressed. If there is anything that can be done, even something little, you know were to ask. Kind Regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw Eptalon add the message to her talk page yesterday on the live RC feed, and I was shocked. It's always a shame when a loved one passes away, especially someone so young. I pasted the link into the channel and mentioned my... outrage(?) that life isn't fair. My condolences go out to everyone who has been effected by this. Kindest regards, Goblin 12:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't spoken to her, though I had noticed her editing here. Looking through her contributions and discussions I find it very impressive considering her age. My condolences also to friends and family. Kennedy (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I only knew about this when User:Steve Crossin mentioned it on the IRC channel recently. My I say that she is a very intelligent girl, and please pass my condolences to their friends and family, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Regards, иιƒкч? 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind thoughts. Teenly was orphaned at the age of four and had no known family, but she had many friends who loved her dearly. Fenneck (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility

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

I'd like to bring up the subject of civility. I've been observing seWP lately (rather than editing) and I've noticed a distinct lack of civility. I'd like to bring up the subject of CM16 as an "example" of this issue (not the only example to be sure!). "We" often quote CM16 (Aaron) as an example of a person who was banned at another WMF project that has made good contributions to seWP (and so is an example to be praised); yet, I've also noticed a lack of forgiveness in our dealings with Aaron (CM16). "We" often talk about CM16 in disparaging ways, we complain about his attitudes towards topics he feels are not within the scope of seWP. We talk about his opinions in !votes about various issues on seWP. We also talk about him in ways that seem to believe he should be banned from all WMF projects, not just enWP. Frankly, I find these to be RUDE! I think that the community understands that I am a firm admin, one who believes that examples should be made; one that has a similar viewpoint to that of Majorly's. But, I also think that we are not as forgiving as we should be with regards to people who "have" actually made a good transition from being a banned user elsewhere to a useful user here. It is true that some people might not believe that CM16 is a useful editor here. I'd like to propose that editors here judge such people on their actions here; rather than their history elsewhere (unless evidence requires otherwise!!) I'd also like to propose that we engender a spirit of community here and that this would include forgiving those that have made mistakes in the past; haven't we all, but who have made up for them here! This post is not just about CM16 (and the like) but about all of our interactions with each other (we are often rude with each other). We are a small community; surely we can be nice to each other also!? fr33kman talk 02:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree. I have also seen a lot of incivility here recently. Can we all please remember that there is a person behind the screen? The one thing I have really noticed is biting newbies. A couple of times (especially with User:NotGiven) we have started hassling them when they join. I am trying to get people to visit us here, and I am marketing us as a friendly community, which we used to be are. Lets prove it. :) Kennedy (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ironically I find us alot more friendly now than when I joined a year ago. I would say the incivility etc has been cut probably in half since then. -Djsasso (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, Dj, I find the opposite.--   CM16  17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There certainly is a problem and we need to sort it out now. I agree with CM, in recent months the community has become a lot less friendly than it was when I joined in October, and there is quite a lot more bickering, fighting etc too. New users are also constantly being bitten (such as NotGiven) and I feel (and have made this known before) that this is down to a small minority of our users that originate from the regular english Wikipedia. They, to me, seem intent on turning this into a baby version of the regular english Wikipedia that they can run as they want to, which completely goes against the aims and the spirit of this project. I know that I am not alone in thinking this. So, how do we move forward? Goblin 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, BG, but this comment is for DJ. Dj, I remember a time whn I was valued for my wrestling -related edits (as shown here) and a trusted user (as shown here). Now I'm look down upon by at least you, Majorly and Soup. Soup seems to be the worst of you three.--   CM16  19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start by not calling out specific editors? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree, this is about the community as a whole and not individual editors. fr33kman talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest CM, neither of those links actually prove anything. Most people who have bad things to say don't generally comment on an editor review. And barnstars are pretty much the same thing, people don't give them out for bad things and heck even for those good things they almost all came from the same user. While I don't doubt you are a good person and I will defend your right to edit only wrestling articles to the day I die, I do think you tend be a bit rediculous at times. And as far as being looked down on, I don't really think how you have been perceived has changed much in the last while, people have always commented about the comments you make. I think the only real difference is that your biggest supporter AE isn't around anymore. And in general, I notice newbies getting bitten a whole lot less now than before. If you remember there was that whole scandal a year ago when a certain user was telling new users to stop editing when they weren't editing what he wanted them too. A one point all the admins were fighting with each other and warring with each other. Editors were attacking admins and admins attacking editors..... I would say we have come a very long way. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement. I've gone through every single WP:ST post since this place started (all of them, and most of the talk page edits of the users involved) and I have seen some pretty bad behaviour and some outstanding behaviour. There is room for improvement still. I think that this is actually an Internet wide problem and it seems to stem from the lack of face-to-face'ness of the interactions. We wouldn't dare say some of the things we say online to a "real" persons face (we'd probably end up with a bleeding nose!) I started editing here after I found it because I found it to be a real community rather than the hundreds of communities that enWP has become. All I'm asking is that people become more civil and not insult each other on seWP; we have lost a lot of good people because of this issue and I can name dozens and dozens of examples since this project started. There are some VERY fine users that have left due to the drama, and that's a hell of a shame! fr33kman talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say we start by killing off the idea that there is two camps, one of which wants to make this a baby english wikipedia what ever that means. I think alot of the problem here is that there is a small minority that think everyone is out to get them and well to be brutally honest, that think that people are out to make this en.wiki. I would also note, at this point in time the majority of users on this wiki also edit at en, how much they edit there of course varies. So you can hardly say there is a minority of en editors out to change this wiki. I don't think there is anyone on this wiki that thinks they can run anything how they want, everything here is done by consensus, so if things are shifting towards being like en that is because the majority of the community wants it to be like en. No single person or minority even can force the direction of the wiki to change. I find it extremely amusing that you constantly trumpet AGF, when you are totally assuming bad faith on behalf of editors who also edit at en. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a general discussion of the project's direction would be in order? fr33kman talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between violating WP:FORGIVE (which those three users do in my opinion) and pointing out that they did which me and fr33kman have.--   CM16  20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all, in my opinion, alot of the incivility on enwp is caused by the overwhelming bureaucracy and block trigger happy admins. Ive always been a fan of community created and community enforced guidelines rather than having a large amount of strict policies with definite consequences as well as a large number of formal processes. Tbo 157 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you mention WP:FORGIVE, I thought we weren't en according to you. WP:FORGIVE is an essay on en which doesn't exist here. Its neither a policy or a guideline. Its one users (or a few) opinion. Do I forgive your past transgressions? As an editor yes. In anything that requires more trust, no probably don't have the trust in you for that. Do I think all people banned on one wiki should be on all wikis. In some ways yes, in some ways no. Which is why I supported the proposal awhile back for the one chance policy. -Djsasso (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is no room on seWP for forgiveness? fr33kman talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe I said the opposite saying, I supported the one chance policy. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And I mostly disagree with you cause most people shouldn't have their past follow them around forever.--   CM16  22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And unfortunately that is how life works, as has been stated in many previous discussions in life you are responsible for your actions and what consequences they bring with them. Doing something to get you banned on one wiki is going to follow you on other wikis, just like any other misdead in life on or off the net will follow you in their respective areas. Just because you are on the net doesn't make you immune to the things you do. -Djsasso (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree! That's why we allow bankruptcy, why we allow criminal pardons etc. Forgiveness means that, that we actually forgive, not that we hold it over the person forever, not that we continue to judge the person's prior behaviour without regard to what they are doing now. It's about judging the persons current contributions to society rather than their past contributions. fr33kman talk 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not actually really right, is it? A person who is declared bankrupt would have trouble getting credit in the future. Just as a banned user will have trouble getting credibility in the future. And bankruptcy is no easy solution. It means the individual will be shamed, shunned and looked down upon in the future by those who know about it. Soup Dish (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
We allow both of those things for a variety of reasons. The government forgiving and people in the real world forgiving are two very different things. A criminal may be pardoned but that doesn't mean people will trust him, give him a job etc. -Djsasso (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but you'd think people would start being forgiving cause I haven't done anything like what I was banned for since March of 2008. But instead I get things like this from Majorly and this from Soup Dish.--   CM16  23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You realize that your past on en isn't the only reason someone might not trust you to be admin right? I know for me atleast its what you do here that would make me oppose...could be the same for majorly....you can't assume its your past. -Djsasso (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't assume in this case, I make an educated guess. And considering on my last unban proposal he voted to keep me banned, it made sense to me.--   CM16  23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's remember that CM16 is an "example", he is not the issue. The issue is incivility in general. We need to work on this an a community as a whole! 90.213.83.205 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to any other examples of this issue of incivility? You bring up CM but not others; I realise you say he's just an example, but I admit to knowing little incivility at simple in general for a while now. Oh, and Aaron, it is not your past on en that, for me at least, would make me oppose a future RfA. As far as I'm concerned, you have issues with POV and censorship, as shown in the religious category debate and the RfD on soggy biscuit. An administrator with an open expression of POV is an issue. Please note that this is not meant to be uncivil, but reading the above, I thought you would want an opinion because, for me, your past is a non-issue for your editing simple. I'm all for forgiveness, but there are many present issues that are also prevalent. That is my opinion at least. Anyway, if there are sufficient examples of incivility, I'm sure they can be addressed. We are, after all, a small community. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Peter, I would not push a christian POV on articles I would push neutrality on article unlike some on enwp who push a left-wing bias on the articles (no I don't have any examples at the moment, but I can find some if you give me time), and I would not censor for anyy reason unless a consensus from the community was formed for some reason, yes it would be hard but I have to follow the rules like everyone else. Now the religious category, I stand by what I said, that category didn't need to be delete but it's gone so whatever, and I'm not POV pushing on the RFD for soggy biscuit, I'm merely stating that I don't think there will ever be enough in the article to warrant a page of it's own, it is better off being merged into a new article and that article being built up like I have stated. And if your saying censorship, where's the censorship in my proposal?--   CM16  17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just because you didn't say it should be gone because of its content, doesn't mean you weren't motivated to nominate it for that reason. You have many times tried to have articles you don't agree with removed or pictures removed etc etc. You know it to be true. -Djsasso (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit I don't agree nor want the content on Wikipedia but no that's NOT why I nomed it. Yes I've done it in the past but not this time.--   CM16  18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Right, before this thread deteriorates into further incivility and possibly upsets folks further, I'm calling time on it. The key feature of this discussion is that we should all love each other as much as we can. We're all human, we all make mistakes and in general this includes upsetting other people as a result. This Wikipedia thrives by being a more friendly environment, conducive to encouragement and promotion of bold editing. It should continue this way. As they say in many places, Peace. Out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed your archive template things because I don't think the problem is solved yet, we're still discussing.--   CM16  22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems more like we're just bickering, actually... –Juliancolton | Talk 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably is and in that case we should stop bickering and solve the problem at hand. And TRM archiving it isn't gonna do that.--   CM16  23:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem at hand that we need to solve? Either way (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well bashing of fellow users.--   CM16  00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's simple, really, and we don't need to have a whole discussion to figure it out. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well if it was simple it would have taken fr33kman starting this discussion to bring it people's attention. Me and fr33kman wouldn't be the only one worried about it and no one would let people get away with biting new users and personally attacking people. So since this isn't the case I really think we need to have a discussion, the personal attacks are getting on my nerves, I'm starting to think about retirement to escape them, but because I enjoy editing the wrestling articles here, so, I have put it off and off and off, but I as a person that has bipolar disorder can only take so much.--   CM16  00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think you're exaggerating just a bit? I edit nearly every day, and I've yet to see such incivility. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I might be but it's there nevertheless. I'm not exaggerating by much.--   CM16  01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we just end this? The mere existence of this thread creates lots of strife. Good call TRM, and CM16 there's not much that can be done. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
How bout actually warning these users when they do wrong instead of giving them a free pass? Sounds good. But as long as everyone agrees to warn users that violate these policies I'm willing to let this thread die.--   CM16  01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)--   CM16  01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As I expected, this thread has continued to deteriorate. Civility is expected of all editors. Simple as that. If anyone has specific issues with specific editors then try to resolve the situation with each other. If this fails then bring it to the attention of the community. We can't have a "generalist" solution to the very specific and different problems which editor disputes generally are. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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