Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 89

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fundraising 2010

Hey everyone!

I know I've talked to many of you about this before and a good amount of the regulars know that I'm working on fundraising (for those that don't know me I'm User:Jamesofur as well). This year we want to be as community and data driven as possible and are looking for input not only with localizing and translating but also with pointing out messages that don't won't work well in your regions and proposing messages that you think would work well! You can see some of the current suggestions (and propose your own) on the Meta messaging page but I also want to encourage everyone to discuss and ask questions here (or on IRC, #wikimedia-fundraising, or email or wherever :) ). On the meta pages you will find links to all our stats and tests and more survey and other info then you could want :) I look forward to seeing more of you on Meta and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions!. Jalexander (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur! *gives a big bear hug* :D Simple English Wikipedia missed you so much. Things aren't the same without you. I hope your job is going well? It's wonderful to hear from you again. And about the fundraising, it sounds very interesting - I'll check the meta pages about the links, although ;) I don't know if my mom will actually let me send any money (not that I have much, either). But anyway, I sincerely hope all goes well for you and your job, and tell me if there's anything you think I can help with. :) God bless you, dear! With heartfelt love, Bella tête-à-tête 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Just put in a little donation, as I care and want you to get paid :P --Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all appreciate it Gordon ;). Quick note because I know WE notice it a lot. You guys have probably noticed that during our tests banners actually appear here on simple as well. This is because simple is actually set as having a content language of English so when targeting "English" Wikipedia's we aren't able to separate out the two. We've discussed whether we should change the content designation to simple (or something like en-simple) but it is never an easy answer. Anyone have thoughts? Regardless it isn't THAT bad that you're part of the tests :). Jalexander (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with seeing them. I almost never leave simple wiki, so it allows me to see what you guys are testing :P--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Gordon, I don't have a problem with it; I think most people here will understand what it's referring to. Kansan (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Why is it not possible to page move ? --ThomasK (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can move pages after you become autoconfirmed. This means that your account needs to be four days old, and you have to make at least 10 changes. After that, you'll be able to move such pages. :) Hope this helps, and thanks for your changes! Warmly, —Clementina talk 04:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not possible. --ThomasK (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is autoconfirmed now, so you are able to move pages.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFD template?

Hey, I was nomming a cat for deletion/discussion last night, and I discovered the following two things

  1. We don't have a CFD template
  2. The RFD template doesn't preload right with a cat

Can we get a CFD template that preloads? Purplebackpack89 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just leaving for the evening and imported {{Cfd}} but it looks like it depends on at least one other template. Perhaps another editor can help more here, or, if not, delete the mess I may have just made! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the missing {{Cfd2}} template, plus a few others internally called templates. {{Cfd}} should be working. There is a redlink in the documentation for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto. Don't know if we want to add that page. It is a part of a larger discussion and it would have many redlinks. See en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto for the procedure.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lynch me if this is in the wrong place... Disambiguation page?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place- I love Wikipedia, but really don't understand the 'tech side'. The need in question:

The present entry for Peter Anton is an artist from Connecticut. There is *another* artist named Peter Anton who is from East Chicago, Indiana and would meet Wikipedias criteria for notability (he presently has a significant exhibit at the Intuit Center) . I would like to create a page for Peter Anton, East Chicago but don't know how to create a disambiguation page. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks mucho. (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia doesn't appear to have a page about your East Chicago version of Peter Anton. Before we create a disambiguation page, can you provide evidence of his notability please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really 'get this' as far as the different Wikis, etc. I want to place an entry into English Wikipedia. From, I found this page as a help link and apparently, I'm now on an entirely different Wiki? Weird, but I'll try to figure it out. Anyway, as far as evidence of Peter Anton (East Chicago's) notability, "Peter Anton"+"East Chicago" in Google would pretty much do the trick. Here's a link to the mainpage of Intuit, showcasing his exhibit- There are any number of write-ups in major papers. Here's one in the trib- . Right now, he has as many (if not more) raw Google serp entries than the other Peter Anton artist, who has his own Wikipedia page. Relative to the standards other established artists are held to for Wikipedia pages, he (Peter Anton Chicago) most certainly meets all criteria. Anyway, please overlook the fact that I'm not a guru with Wikipedia formatting or the "Wiki World", even though I'm a pretty active participant in constructive editing (usually for copy) and once in a blue moon, adding a page when it seems warranted. On the issue of "For Peter Anton East Chicago, see:", I really disagree with this. I could understand if there was a Peter Anton, famous Shoemaker and a Peter Anton, Famous Artist, but in this particular case, we have two people with exactly the same name who happen to be engaged in exactly the same thing. Just because one Wikipedia page "got there first" doesn't seem to be a legitimate case to render one artist into the "See Also" category, particularly in this case, where the relevance of the latter is probably more significant than the former. Any help appreciated- LoverOfArt (in some other Wiki world, which apparently, is different from this one) is just the home page so to speak of all the different wikis that fall under the WMF. This is one of them and english wikipedia is another one. Chances are you clicked on the link to simple.wikipedia and not the regular english wikipedia. We have a completely different set of articles. This wiki is aimed at people learning english as a second language and uses simpler english than the normal wikipedia. We don't have either of the articles you are mentioning. If you take a look in your address bar you are at I think you want :) -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any page on any Peter Anton, so he's in the wrong wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it is the following: If there are two, you could put a header: For the scientist, see this article (or similar), as soon as there are three, we definitely need a disambiguation page. I am not talking about notability here; whether one of the two is notable, and the other isn't isn't for me to judge. --Eptalon (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eptalon, should this need arise, two pages justify a "for the ... see ..." header. Three or more, go dab. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please help

How do I shote a website?

What are you asking for help with? Kansan (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp:sandbox If you want to play. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles.

In the earlier discussion on the general quality of Simple articles, it was mentioned that we might want to focus on the list of vital articles. With that in mind, I've created a talk page template - Template:Vital and an associated category for vital articles (I haven't placed it on all the vital articles yet in case it is deemed unnecessary later). I was also going to suggest we adopt some sort of assessment scheme for the vital articles below GA so we can more easily categorize them (using talk page templates) and track our progress. Plenty of the vital articles below GA are reasonably good - for example, Gustav Mahler, although most lack decent referencing. There are plenty which are very short, such as Katsushika Hokusai and Flamenco. I was thinking of introducing a system of assessment (which could later be expanded to non-vital articles).

  1. An A-class article would be close to being a GA, with only minor issues to sort (e.g. Leonardo Da Vinci
  2. A B-class article would be longer than a stub but have significant problems in multiple areas - inaccuracy, omissions, no referencing, poor style, complex English etc. which need to be resolved before it can become a GA - see Elizabeth I of England for an example.
  3. A very short article is just too short to give a comprehensive explanation of the subject - i.e. Ovid, Elvis Presley.

This is a simplified version of the English Wikipedia's system, as you can see. Why? (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is good to add something like that--ask me for help if you want help. I actually was waiting for something like this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a classification system should provide a rough estimate of how much work is needed to bring the article to our highest possible ranking, "VGA". For this reason, I see:
  1. "Almost-VGA"
  2. "Almost GA"
plus the classification provided above. Note also, that there will always be articles that are hard to classify. Nudity (contains pictures of nude people) is probably close to a VGA in length and scope, but it may require significant input of an "expert" (that is: Ethnographer, Historian) to find references to back up the claims made. The same may be true for many GAs: Getting the article to GA is possible, getting it to VGA is probably impossible. In any case, we need clear criteria for any of the categories of articles we make, else we will be discussing all day long if the article meets a given standard. --Eptalon (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need less of this bureaucratic nonsense rather than more. Too much time is spent around organizing categorizing tagging articles and not enough of actually doing something about it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DjSasso, please relinquish your bureaucrat rights because of that comment about "bureaucratic nonsense". --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's almost no way of us knowing which key articles need attention and which are in decent shape unless we do SOME tagging. Why? (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is, we have hundreds of articles already tagged as needing attention. And if you want to just do the vital ones, then simply click on the link from the vital page and look for yourself. It takes less time to do that than to constantly be trying to reinvent the wheel like we do here all the time. Would probably take a matter of like 2 minutes to find an article on the vital list that needs attention just by clicking on it and hitting back till you find one. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that means that some articles in extremely poor state are left unworked on. Unless we categorize, there's no way of telling when all the vital articles are above stub level, say. I disagree that this would be a waste of time, it will simply allow a coordinated effort to improve the vital articles (with targets) to take place. Why? (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is good to add some classes between stub and GA. Add them on the articles' talk pages. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem categorizing stubs (since we already do it), its the creation of a class system (above and beyond GA/VGA) that we do not need here as that drains away what little resources we have. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, could we tag all the vital articles which aren't stubs with Template:Vital and those which are stubs with Template:Vital-stub ? Why? (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I reformatted your comment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create a classification system but as DJSasso said it would drain too much resources. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drain too much resources? What kind of resources are we talking? Yottie =talk= 08:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unindentEditor's resources. We don't have many highly active editors here and tagging every article will mean that there are less editors to work on making articles. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know we are low on editors, but I'm sure that with one or two volunteers the job can be done quite fast. Yottie =talk= 11:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when you start having debates over what level means what, and if this article meets that level or doesn't meet that level. It just adds a layer of red tape that won't really help anything here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any way we could have a very simple version of it, i.e. Stub, Regular, Nearly GA, Nearly VGA (would require GA status)? Yottie =talk= 13:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having a list of vital articles is good enough, personally. (And I'm not really a fan of stub tags, given how many articles are stubs, it's not hard to find one if you want to expand one...) Kansan (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we at least have a list which says whether the article is a stub or not (possibly done by a bot?). Yottie =talk= 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. I just far think too much time is spent categorizing what specific type of stub things are, etc. Kansan (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree with you more. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) ^I think our present system is fine as it is. :) GA, VGA, and stub seem best on a wiki of small articles like this, and even if we took the trouble and time to categorize all of it more specifically, I don't think it would be much help. Clem's Pet Bunny Hop 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is anyone having problems with seeing pictures? I see some picture thumbnails, but can't view the picture when it is enlarged. Thanks, Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is at Commons with image thumbnails. A team is working on resolving it as quickly as possible (it may already be resolved; I haven't checked). PeterSymonds (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI at bugzilla. Mono (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we would get community consensus before filing a bug in Bugzilla. Also, you aren't very active here. --Bsadowski1 03:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a change being implemented on every WMF wiki. I don't think we really have a choice. This was more of a courtesy notice, and if its being done WMF wide, I don't think there is an issue, personally. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very basic problem I see, is that if "Regular" English Wikpiedia has the same logo, there is no easy telling apart the two --Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Creation of a WikiProject Articles for Creation

Hello all, I would like to start a Wiki Project Articles for Creation to help anonymous users to create articles. It will be similar to [[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|the English Wikipedia process]. Would anyone be interested in joining? --Alpha Quadrant talk 02:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by what you plan on doing. Could you explain further? Kansan (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As known, nonregistered users cannot create articles, they can only create talk pages. This process allows annons to submit articles for review. If the article meet the article guidelines it is accepted by a "reviewer" (a autoconfirmed editor). This is also used for requesting redirects and files. --Alpha Quadrant talk 02:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier just to have them sign up for usernames? Kansan (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same issue was brought up on the English Wikipedia. It is so users don't have to create usernames. It is actually extremely effective. It lowers the number of low quality articles by new editors if there is a process that allows them to get their work reviewed. Some editors don't want user accounts. --Alpha Quadrant talk 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also allows people to get articles reviewed before they get published and then quickly deleted. This would be like it's English Wikipedia Mirror. We should get a consensus of people on simple though first before starting. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to join! I was taught about AFC by sonia, and wondered why there wasn't one here, so this will be great! NicFreed (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. Kansan (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As known, nonregistered users cannot create articles, they can only create talk pages." is the reasoning for having this Wikiprojecect. However, they can create pages, so what is the purpose?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, anyone can create pages on this Wiki. It's not restricted like English Wikipedia. Not sure I see the point with that in mind. -DJSasso (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:Requested pages, where anons can request pages already. (If there's enough interest), then there should be a wikiproject for requested pages. Albacore (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing that this is now becoming redundant. -- DQ (t) (e)20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a requested articles process on ENWP. It is also part of Articles for Creation. --Alpha Quadrant talk 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AQ: Requested articles is not part of enwiki's AfC, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

As stated above, IPs can create articles here: at this community's activity level, it is easier to filter out bad articles than to throttle the ones coming in. I would also note that the existing WikiProjects are not very active- we do what we want to and there are generally too few contributors to make groups dedicated to particular subjects viable. To those of you who volunteered: thanks for your interest in helping this Wikipedia expand, it is much appreciated. You can also do so by finding articles in your subject of interest that do not exist, copying them from the English Wikipedia, and simplifying them (as I know Chemicalinterest has been doing at a rather impressive rate). More information here. Thank you. sonia 18:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know where this is going, but would caution against encouraging inexperienced users from bringing over whole articles. They usually don't have the skills, or the work ethic, needed to do the job properly. They usually leave a text dump for someone else to struggle with.
    I'm a bit doubtful about encouraging unregistered users too openly. It's very useful to know, by virtue of a name's previous work, that said name can be trusted. To be successful here some commitment is needed: registering is an opportunity to show that commitment.
    Teaching newcomers how to do a page? Well, that's good, it'll be interesting to see how you go about it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Alpha Quadrant talk
  2. NicFreed (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If simple agrees -- DQ (t) (e) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I strongly support this idea. Hydriz (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per DQ Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired users

Would it be good to replace the userpages of any editors who haven't edited in one year with {{retired}}? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Yottie =talk= 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that sounded a little nasty, but I don't think it's respectful. Yottie =talk= 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Users have come back after long periods of time, and it's not respectful to claim that they have retired when we just don't know if that's the case. Plus, it doesn't really serve much of a purpose. If somebody is that interested in a user, they can easily look at when they last edited. Kansan (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that the "retired template" says "of their own desire", so it wouldn't make a lot of sense for us to put it there without asking people. Kansan (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not, putting a retired template on someones page is a big nono...even if they have been gone for years. There is often a negative conotation to that template, and people don't wish to be associated with it. That template should only ever be added by the person whose page it is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two no's and one nono means opposition. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A definite no. Just because a user is inactive does not mean that they are "retired". Per Kansan, users retire of their own will, so adding the template wouldn't make much sense. MC10 (TCL) 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Take-A-Nap

Why are there so many sleeping and sluggish WikiProjects? Some of them have so many members and haven't had any change in such a long time. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, we have little structure for WikiProjects compared to Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 21:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take User:Tanthanyes/Wikiproject Chemistry, for example. It was sleeping for so many years with only the founder as its member. Is it just the dearth of editors here. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because people come over here thinking it's a clone of enWP and start the same old portal/project/etc discussion/idea, and it never takes off because we haven't got the userbase to sustain it. We struggle enough with PAD/PGA/PVGA/DYK etc on that front. There's no structure because, simply, there's no need or ability to have full scale WPs here. And don't start discussing that we need them, because we simply don't. Go read the archives. I think the discussion has appeared about 5 times since I've been editing. Goblin 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
One thing I've found is that people generally create the content they want to, even without a systematic wiki-project, or do what they want to do. For instance, there's a generally inactive WikiProject devoted to fighting vandalism, but people patrol recent changes and revert vandalism all the time without the need for a formal wiki group. Kansan (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to mention it, but there are plenty of sluggish portals/projects at EN as well Purplebackpack89 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan, Bluegoblin, and Purplebackpack all seem to make a good point. However, Kansan says that "people generally create the content they want to, even without a systematic wiki-project, or do what they want to do". Yes, vandal-fighting is so well known we all do it without a wikiproject; but things such as Baking, for instance, doesn't really help unless there's a project. The old projects that are now rather dead could perhaps be closed, such as projects that the founders retired from. But projects that are already here (and generally active) shouldn't be disregarded as "taking a nap". Dearest Chemmy Cookie here is giving a big hand to my project for the present, and I'm trying whenever I can as well. I suggest we should begin closing the old projects that no longer are, and perhaps remind the founders of projects that seem to be slowly dying away? ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 00:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with the number of active editors here, we are all one wikiproject, dedicated to improving the encyclopedia however we see fit. Along those lines, I think that setting up our own collaboration for one of the WP:VITAL stubs each week (or just working on the translation of the week, for that matter) would be more effective than wikiprojects are. sonia 00:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me--how does the Translation of the Week get updated on the New Changes page? There are two new winners: en:Tsūtenkaku/ja:通天閣 and en:Environmentally friendly. Thanks Ted (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Here is the stub for Tsūtenkaku but needs more. Ted (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would peer review be good to see whether this should be demoted from VGA? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, or even better would be the dedicated review process. :-). If you think it needs work, don't hesitate to nom it! Goblin 18:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Wernher von Braun has also been tagged for demotion, though many of the concerns associated with the original tag have been fixed Purplebackpack89 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam guard

Is there any way to avoid having to type in the word after every edit? It's making my life miserable. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits you won't have to be annoyed with it. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after 4 days and 10 edits your account becomes autoconfirmed, so you don't have to worry about captchas anymore. Since you already have 10 edits, all you need to wait for is the 4 days. mc10 (u|t|c) 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal drugs"

Hello all,

We do have an article called Illegal drugs that needs to be moved to a new name. The article talks about drugs that are taken for recreational purposes, and that are illegal to make possess and take in many countries. I add this comment here because I see no action being taken. IMO, there are a few problems:

  • What is "illegal" and what is not is specific to the country. Note that there is also a class "illegal, but tolerated". Cannabis-related products are illegal to trade in the Netherlands, you can however go to a so called "coffee-shop" and get them, and consume them there.
  • Most of the drugs mentioned can be used legally (in a medical context, eg. as a painkiller, or to treat certain diseases like ADHD or narcolepsy.
  • There is also the problem of the "generics" (same active ingredients, other name) and that of "counterfeit drugs" (the drug claims to have certain effects, but doesn't. Can often be found with the "Viagra over the Internet", and similar).

In short, we need to move the article to a different name, narcotic and illegal drug trade have been proposed so far.The problem with narcotic is that some of the drugs are not narcotics, but stimulants. Illegal drug trade may have the same problem I am currently pointing out with "illegal drugs". Depending on where the article is moved/merged, we may need to update certain sections. --Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VG question, thanks for raising it. I see enWP redirects to en:illegal drug trade, and produces a reasonable article, which is nevertheless under constant discussion and flagged more than a ship! (whereas we have a nasty stub under that title). I think that's a viable way to go. To look at drugs from the consumer's point of view is more difficult, because of the legal differences. Since the drug trade is international, I think we should put it on one page. Then there is a case for surveying legal differences, and for having a series of pages on different types of drugs. Incidentally, whatever became of psychotropic (aka 'mind-altering substances'): that was the word of preference once upon a time. It captures a lot of what we mean, but is not (as psychotropism) a substitute for an article on the illegal drug trade, which I think we really do need. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Psychotropism/pychotropic may indeed capture some of this. Take Amphetamine as an example: as a drug is taken to treat clinical depression, and for doping (to increase the ability to concentrate over a short period) or to treat Asthma. It is taken as an illegal/recreational drug because it causes euphoria (and delusions, and paranoia). The trade in Amphetamine may be completely legal for medical purposes, but it needs to drop off a lorry at some point, to become available as a recreational drug. --Eptalon (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on GA/VGA process

Just to let you know, I have started a discussion on the GA/VGA process. Comments welcome, esp. the comments of the more regular users here. --Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site notice

Why is it that I have a lot of problems getting rid of the site notice most times? Am I the only one?  Hazard-SJ  ±  20:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the CentralNotice, it's being worked on as we speak. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and fixed. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Rights

The regular English Wikipedia does not allow IPs to create pages. I personally think the same, because then the articles (might) fill with tests or vandalism. Yes, accounts can vandalize too, but a study from ENWP shows that 95% of vandalism comes from IP addresses.[1]

Also, article creation is a right.

Here are my sources.

  1. The ENWP: Vandalism Studies. "Most vandalism is from anonymous users."

Wpeaceout (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that a lot of vandalism comes from IPs, but I do not think that this has reached a level where we need to prevent IPs from creating content. There are many IPs who also create valid content. Many times when I delete a "valid content article" that contains only graffitti, I replace it with a stub on the subject, which other people will then extend. --Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike english wikipedia, we need IPs to be able to create pages. We have a very small userbase, and while yes alot of IP edits are vandalism, there are alot of IPs who also create useful pages. As such there is not alot to gain by blocking their ability to create pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people ready to qd any bad page that hits RecentChanges or improve any page created. Most vandalism is from IP addresses, but we still don't get much vandalism. I think that IPs should be allowed to create pages here. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good percentage of our articles are created by IP users. Many of them also create bad articles, but those are very easy to delete if need be. Vandalism levels are not out of control so I don't see a reason to change the policy. Kansan (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article on tin(IV) bromide using the same keyboard-hammering method I use on almost all of my articles. I got this message:

Note: It looks like you have copied the text of this article from another wikipedia. This should usually be done differently: Ask someone to import the article Write a similar article, and link to the original, using interwiki links In general, articles from other Wikipedias are difficult to understand, and should not be copied to this Wikipedia without change

If this edit is constructive, please click 'Save page' again, and report this error. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the names of the articles you are creating are very similar. Its working as expected. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should only look at the content. None of the tin(II)'s did it. I'm done with those for now. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have disabled the filter now, as it didn't work as expected. Will debug some day. --Eptalon (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filter changed and re-enabled. --Eptalon (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How do you build a Simple WikiProject? I want to build one. Loudclaw (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject tells you about the policy and how to make one. wiooiw (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wiktionary logo vote

Hi guys, it is your regular editor here, Hydriz.

The Simple English Wiktionary is currently conducting a vote for the change of its logo found on the top left corner of the website. Click here to vote! Your comments are greatly needed as it is a very small community here. Thanks! Hydriz (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Do we have the ability to add page edit notices, such as en:Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2010? If so, could an admin add one to Deaths in 2010 and 2010 to encourage citations? Many thanks--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

We can get editnotices, but I forget how.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't figure out how to get it to work here either. Exert 01:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, although I tried. sonia 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try using MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Deaths in 2010 Hydriz (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... Why? We do not have a Wikipedia-namespace page by that name. sonia 05:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I saw the topic of the discussion wrongly. Sorry! Hydriz (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this discussion, how do we show editnotices on our userpages and user talk pages? Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. Editnotices here are set up in such a way that you can't, I think. sonia 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs) has one when you try and edit his userpage? Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 08:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we do have editnotices, but they're in the MediaWiki space (eg. MediaWiki:Editnotice-2-Hazard-SJ). But editnotices here have to be set up by admins and are pretty pointless for the sake of it. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Screw that then. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 09:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He should't have one, they aren't supposed to be used for user space. Only for actually important messages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken article template?

I know the project has been at a standstill for a long time, but I bought a headset, and I want to start recording some of our GAs and VGAs as spoken word articles. I think this would be especially useful for English language learners. Having said that, in articles with existing spoken word recordings, you see a small logo at the top right that links to the spoken word article. Many of the people who might not read English as well might ignore that logo or not know what it means. For our purposes, might a small template in italics at the top of these articles that says "A spoken version of this article is here" or something be better? Kansan (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful idea, Kansan! If it were not for my slightly South Korean accent, I would sincerely like to help you in the recordings; I'll try and see if I can record Bald Eagle through words as well; and I do believe that it would be much better noticed in italic on the top of the article than in the logo. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan: Template:Spoken Wikipedia. Have fun! :) sonia 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it does have that at the bottom of the page, but perhaps we could make it more prominent by moving it up? Kansan (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on another note, a few other templates linking to images/records such as Template:Commons or Template:Sisterlinks are all placed on the bottom of the page in the section of Other websites. Would it be really necessary to only place the recordings on the top of the page? ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 06:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. While Bella may be right here, I do think that especially since one of our purposes is to help people learn English that the spoken articles are particularly useful above the other sisterlinks. They use the same div id, so changing the template to float somewhere else would require quite a bit of tweaking. sonia 06:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of no more words at the top; there's already quite a lot that may come before the actual article. But I welcome a renewed interest in spoken pages. We can help by making sure the intros are well written, so they are easy to read. They are our shop window. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To those of you who record, do not be afraid of your accent; accents are what makes a language interesting, and after all, everyone has some kind of accent.Understanding accents is also part of the process involved in learning a language...--Eptalon (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can train yourself to speak clearly by working with a tape recorder. Professionals do this. Clarity is what counts. Accents may or may not matter; I know some British accents are given sub-titles on American television! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I think in general, we should not punish people who take the time and record an article for their accent, provided they make an effort to speak clearly. As I say, accents make a language interesting; it is ottally clear that the English spoken in India, Pakistan, and Belize "sound" totally different from what is commonly referred to as "British" or "American" English. With the template, it might be important to point out the exact revision of an article. Also, when it comes to prioritizing, VGAs and GAs are probably good places to start. --Eptalon (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is difficult to find the project unless you're specifically looking for it (and the target audience probably isn't going to be specifically looking for it). Maybe an alternative solution would be placing a small link on the front page, somewhere near the top? I know we already have a cluttered front page, but a link simply stating "Spoken articles" wouldn't take up that much space. Kansan (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When this has come up before it's always been popular for a bit and tailed off, but I certainly support it. Let's not waste time worrying about guidelines on exactly how things should be spoken though, just get on with speaking them! Remember: they should be uploaded locally as Commons is not appropriate. Regarding where to link, definitely bottom of page to avoid clutter, and keep the links to the spoken versions on the VGAs that have spoken versions only, to avoid clutter. RC would be a better option. Also, prioritise VGAs, /then/ GAs? Why... it's in the name! I also believe that it (used?) to be a guideline (policy?) that SAs should be VGAs only. *shrugs*. Goblin 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Just one more comment in support of accents! As long as the recording is clear and comprehensible then accents shouldn't matter--native English speaker accents or non-native speakers. Learners of English as a second language can learn a lot from good, non-native speaker examples. They can be motivating and give learners a realistic target. Besides, many ESL/EFL learners will be speaking with other non-native speakers much if not most of the time. Hearing and comprehending accents is a natural part of language learning. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the VGAs are already recorded, and I do want to record some of the GAs, but I don't want them to be deleted after I record them just because they're "only" good, so we should probably get this cleared up. Kansan (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reason behind the restriction? Recording quality content first should be emphasized, but I don't see why more should be discouraged. sonia 03:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the rules, and it says that only VGAs should be requested, but it said nothing about what could be recorded. In fact, it specifically says we're going by the rules on English, and the rules there don't restrict what can be recorded. Along those lines, I agree with sonia that more content is better (and that we should go for important articles such as World War II, Great Britain, etc., because the need for those is honestly probably more than more obscure topics that nonetheless are GA or VGA). Kansan (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good opportunity to explore ideas. In the first place, if WP was run along conventional lines, we would have some idea as to how useful this facility was on enWP. I think I'm right in saying they have (as usual) not collected any evidence of readership opinion, but if they have I hope someone will give us a link so we can see.
My first thought (like Kansan) is that we should not limit ourselves to VGA or GA articles. There are plenty of good articles which will never be put forward for the promotion process, and other criteria are possible. For example, we do have data on readership usage (the annual list of reader hits on articles). There is surely a good case for doing any article in the top 500, so long as it looks halfway decent.
My other thought is not to speak whole articles, at least not in the first place. With some articles as long as 90,000 bytes, recordings could be impossibly tedious. With many articles the intro would be quite enough. Whole articles are shorter than some intros.
By watching the way professional newsreaders, announcers, presenters speak one can get some good ideas on speech clarity (the discussion on accent is irrelevant; no-one has suggested accents be tailored).
Finally, for technologically challenged people as I am, I hope we can look forward to a detailed how-to-do-it guide. Then I'll get myself a 'head-set'... Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Macdonald-ross, for suggesting so well. Although I think I know how to record and upload "spoken article"s, I wouldn't be too sure my methods would work for other people internationally, so I won't create the guide myself—however, this idea does sound very interesting, and I look forward to hearing your voice, Macdonald-ross! And I'd also like to thank Gotanda and Eptalon for your comments about accents; I hope mine is comprehensible, but I don't know, for I haven't had a nice discussion in English with someone else around me here for about three years (that is, not including the talks I have with Clementina or Dewy at home). And I think GAs are quite as important as VGAs, so I don't have any objections to them being recorded as well. :) Well, that's enough of my rambling, then, and—oh yes—thank you, Kansan for proposing this wonderful idea. I hope all of you enjoy a very cozy winter! Belle tête-à-tête 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I think we should change the template to link to the exact revision of the article recorded. This would make it possible to get that exact revision, and to also show the changes that happened since then. As a matter of housekeeping, "old readings" shoulds be removed/redone, once there have been important changes. --Eptalon (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EhJJBot3 not working?

This needs to be updated. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been down. We do need to find a replacement. Kansan (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling man changed the layout of that page, so that the bot no longer works. And since EhJJ isn't around to fix his bot, it currently has to be done by hand. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I think that finding a bot to update the TOTW template should be a bigger priority, but even that can still be done by hand. Kansan (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really I don't even think we need TOTW on there... So I don't have a problem with it being done by hand. Especially since very rarely are the articles actually translated as opposed to just being created as a one sentence stub. (although I notice you have been doing some good ones lately) -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is locked from editing by sysops. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotanda and Chemicalinterest have been working on it too beyond just the one sentence stubs, so it's starting to take off, I think. Kansan (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a million admin. I am sure it won't be a problem for one of them to update it until we can get EhJJ to get his bot going again or have someone write a new one. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi everyone. My name is toboar and I have recently made several edits and new articles. I aspire (want to be) an admin in the near furture and was wondering if I could have a mentor or someone to help me when I need it and take me under their wing. Thanks Toboar (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All admins can do is delete articles, and block users; more "specialised" admins can do other things (like make people admins, or help the community fight vandalism). I suggest, before you try to become admin, try to be a normal user, and write articles as such for a few months. The "community" will pick its admins when it needs them; forcing things usually isn't a good start. --Eptalon (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources again

Back in April, I made a proposed addition of a paragraph to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. This paragraph was basically a summarization of the English Wikipedia's policy on not giving undue weight to fringe theories ("WP:FRINGE" there). However, only one editor said anything about my proposal at the time (and it was a favorable opinion). I really do think it's time to make a community decision on it in light of the discussion on DYK about considering young earth creationism (which falls under the WP:FRINGE umbrella on English). Kansan (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really important we keep to the same guidelines as enWP, and the addition you proposed should be put in place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed username

Why do some admins remove the user name from some of their comments? Is it to hide their IP address when they forget to log in? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if somebody forgets to login and wants their IP address hidden, it's well perfectly fine to ask for it to be hidden.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A vandal vandalised the List of Greek gods and goddesses, and when it was reverted by someone else, the edit summary did not show the same vandal [1]. This discussion here is similar to what happened. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit being reverted was before. Undo doesn't just work on the top edits; as long as there are no conflicting revisions, it will process correctly. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat and Twinkle conflict

Twinkle is not working while HotCat is On, is this known issue? or m i the only one with this problem. --Dalibor Bosits © 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its happened for me too. Toboar (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me using IE8, Twinkle does not work at all, but I do have Hotcat. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think twinkle works with any IE version.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone try to fix this? Or maybe knows where the conflict occurs? Is this recent error or what --Dalibor Bosits © 11:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both gadgets are working fine for me. I use Google Chrome. Hydriz (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a "your browser" issue, not all gadgets work on all browsers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FireFox 3.6.12 on lin, nothing special. i'll see with some other browsers, thanks for feedback --Dalibor Bosits © 08:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why is checkuser considered such a sensitive right? When anon editors edit, anyone can see their IP address. Why would finding the IP of a logged-in user be so much different? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because people log in to actually hid their IP and their location for example. All those things can be determined by an IP address. An IP address from an user is considered to be a private information. -Barras (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also get to see more than just the IP. The ironic thing and what alot of people laugh at is that often IP users think they are being more anonymous by not creating an account when really its usually the opposite. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, some users(like me) prefer not to disclose the country I am from. Hydriz (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wondering peoples opinions on disambiguation pages, particularly like this one: Ray Crawford where there is only one actual article, the other a red link. Should we have a disambig page for this or just link straight to the available article and perhaps a 'see also' link? --Normandie Talk! 12:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is no longer a red link, so I don't find it necessary to link it straight to the available article. Wikipedia is a growing place; there are many edits in it, and I'm sure all the red links will be filled up soon. We just need some more patience. If you want a certain article to be created, though, you can do so yourself or let me know, for I'm glad to help in whatever I can! :) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well thanks Belinda, however I didn't necessarily mean just that one example, I have come across others, including one where all the pages were redlinks. I was just curious as to which way was preferred in this instance; a disambiguation page or a 'see also' link. Also thanks for the offer of help in creating articles. I should be fine though, I have quite a bit of experience over at, but feel free to correct me when I am wrong :) --Normandie Talk! 13:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are usually a good thing as they may encourage people to actually create the pages. If the whole page is red links it may not be as good... I would still like to change disambiguation to a simpler word.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, I've always thought the word disambiguation was a rather complex word. But I can't think up of any other word that exactly fits the page: do you have any suggestions, Gordon? ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 02:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no simpler word in English; the question has been asked before. It's very unusual to find a five-syllable word with no simpler alternative, but there it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And remember our goal is to use the most simple language possible, but that doesn't mean than none of our language will be complex. It only means that we try to be simple. In this case there is no more simple alternative that doesn't become a mouthful of words. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with DJsasso. While I would like to change it, when I asked about this last time nobody could find a replacement that would make sense, and I can't find anything that would be sense either.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I have to keep changing sentences over and over again for them to flow. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is difficult to simplify in one word, but does it have to be a single word? I don't think so. Some other languages use more than one word for this function. Cebuano (a language from the Philippines ) uses "Mga pulong nga may labaw pa sa usa ka kahulogan." [2] If more than one word is allowed, how about something like...
  • Choose_the_correct_article
  • List_of_articles_with_this_name
  • Title_with_many_meanings
Just a thought. Gotanda (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is a category. You can say what you like on the page, but let's not change what is a precise and useful category for a long phrase. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people don't understand what disambiguation is, we should just create an article explaining the concept. That seems like a relatively easy fix Purplebackpack89 21:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about calling it something like a "Signpost" to the correct article? Keeping it simple... Normandie Talk! 13:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anybody there?

Somebody need to check out WP:VIP. One report has been on there since 10 am. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the report that was pure vandalism. The other report was a likely promotional username. Other admins are free to disagree with me on whether it should be immediately blocked, but I did not because it has not yet edited (and there's an outside chance a name like that might not be intended to be promotional; admittedly a small chance, but I figure that there's no real harm at the moment as it has not edited anything.) Kansan (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the account as it had edited. Check the deleted changes (admins only). Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What should I do about unified login? I have made an account on the EN wiki but it really bugs me how when I visit the simple wiki the account transfers. I am worried I might be called a sockpuppet and be blocked. (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get only blocked if you use the accounts abusively, like voting twice in a RfA. It is not forbidden to have more than one account. -Barras (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having accounts on each wiki is not considered multiple accounts. They are all still one account, ie a Unified account. So you would not need to worry. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing on what Barras said, it is acceptable to have multiple accounts if you tag them properly. For example, I have this one for regular and Trail for when I am away from my main computer. Trail is tagged as a legit alt acct., and it shares a talk page with my main acct.. I also have several dopps designed to make sure people don't imitate me Purplebackpack89 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody there no.2?

Somebody review Toboar (talk · contribs)s unblock request pleeeaaasee. Nobody out there. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient we already discuss privately. -Barras (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what barras said, posting on ST will not help things. There are ALWAYS admins out there, they just don't show themselves (often due to laziness ;)). So, don't worry about the administrative side of things, us admins can take of it just fine :) - DYK could you some reviewing though. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the block. Exert 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you taken away his e-mail and talk page? He's innocent. Ian P said he would not be lying! Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 08:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't think IanP knows what he is talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is idiotic, would such user vandalize????!!!! Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by such user. This user has less that 250 edits here, its not like he is a long standing editor. Not to mention his account on en was blocked for vandalizing. And checkuser confirms that he has sockpuppets who vandalized. It generally doesn't get much more clear that someone is a vandal than in this case. This is pretty cut and dry. Although it doesn't surprise me that someone blocked on en for sockpuppetry is sticking up for someone who was sockpuppeting. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was two years ago. And he clearly says he's editing from a school IP. Two years ago. He's learnt his ways now. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 16:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the CU could check the ISP of the IP. If the IP is indeed from a school, the ISP will usually state the school district. I'm sure our CUs have done this after the school IP claim and as there has been no CU unblock I can only assume that the ISP wasn't a schools. I can only say so much, as I'm not a CU and don't know the details.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to conclude that the two sockpuppets were him (fact from checkuser), we can conclude he did it because his RFA failed, we can also reasonably assume (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was him as well. Taking all this into consideration and his history on en I declined the unblock and changed the block settings accordingly. Exert 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, that's a wrap. Surprised. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 17:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Berty (as well as IanP), I would like to acquaint you with the alter ego. People can vandalize and revert vandalism at the same time. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from en.wikipedia

Is it okay to copy articles from the regular wikipedia so long as one simplifies the article, and explains where it comes from in the edit summary? Thanks!--Piast93 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I'll just be bold and do that. If I'm doing something wrong by doing so please inform me on my talk page. --Piast93 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia, which gives you a general idea of what you need to do. Also, you need to use a template on the talk page that attributes where you got the content from. The template is {{enwp based | url= (URL of the exact version of the page from the other Wikipedia)}}. Welcome! Kansan (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! That's definitely helpful to know.--Piast93 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to look at an example of a talk page with that tag, you can look at Talk:Plumbing. Kansan (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would note, that that tag is not required if you place the information in your edit summary. Personally I prefer it to be in the edit summary than the talk page, so it can be seen immediately by someone looking at the edit history. Putting it on the talk page can eventually make it out of date and out of context if the page is eventually completely rewritten, whereas when you do it in the edit summary it points that that edit specifically was taken from en. As long as you indicate when/where you get it from it doesn't matter which you choose. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images?

Hi. I would like to propose that fair use images can be uploaded here, because there are loads of albums and company articles without any pictures, plus we all know fair use on commons is not allowed. I would love to hear your opinions. Thanks! Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 08:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the man power to take care of this. If we'd allow this, we need to allow all uploads and we need to check them... We don't even have enough people to clean out the new page and control of they are properly formatted. -Barras (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Barras. While I am in favor of being able to use fair use images, I just don't think it would work on this wiki.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defeats the purpose of this wiki, this wiki is trying to be simple in all accounts, fair use laws are not simple. Secondly we don't remotely have the man power to be able to handle it. Pictures are a nice to have, but are rarely a need to have. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know

Whenever I click new changes, I see the number 7 inside the ( ) next to the word DYK. I click the number excitedly, wondering how so much hooks got up on that page so fast—and find that there are less, as usual. However much I try to tell myself to remember, I always forget. But as nobody can fix my bad memory skills, we'd just as well fix the number next to the word DYK. I thought this problem had been brought up and solved last time. Can anyone fix it again? :) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 05:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution would be for one of our bot owners to volunteer to take this over because EhJBot is no longer running. Yes, it can be done by hand, but I personally find it very handy to know to check DYK when I see that a new hook has been proposed by the number changing. Kansan (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than EhJBot that is not working, some other bots are also not working either. Hydriz (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the permission to edit the number can be loosened a little--to autoconfirmed. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese class project?

There have been a number of new pages which look like they have been created by an English class at a Japanese university, probably Kanda University of International Studies. They are on a number of Japanese businesses, products and customs. Several editors have offered assistance, Gotanda and Sonia. As soon as we can confirm the class project we can put the class project template on the pages. In the meantime, please be kind and do not delete the pages yet. Last year we got some good articles from Nagoya so it is worth being patient.

Articles that might be part of this project include:

Thanks, Peterdownunder (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna help a bit as well. I've done a few grammatical changes on the Shichigosan page. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 17:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to try to let them get on with it themselves. Obviously it means the article isn't 100% but it's better to let them learn on their own and eventually become better editors. Major issues can be fixed but possibly just leave it to them as much as possible? Normandie Talk! 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the first part of the last article on this list. I still think they need a little more training, but maybe you can contact them (how?) to tell them what I did. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shuzo Matsuoka may also be an article from the same group. I did try leaving notes on a couple of Talk pages, but the users haven't noticed or haven't responded. I'll keep an eye out as much as possible. Gotanda (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "let[ting] them get on with it themselves", what I think is the best approach is to fix structure etc with a clear edit summary, and leave a note on the editor's talk page with the diff explaining (clearly and nicely!) what exactly could be done in a different way next time. Actually, this probably doesn't apply only to school groups, but more so to them.
However, when dealing with university groups especially there is a major difference that has to be taken into account, and that is this: they are not here to learn to be Wikipedians, but to contribute their knowledge in that specific field as best they can, according to their assignment. Therefore, learning to use the myriad templated references or wikicode in general is not necessarily first priority. Getting the information in is. While we may get some long-term editors out of this, complicating things by introducing too much non-essential information will create difficulties in the short term. sonia 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{italictitle}} not working

{{italictitle}} is not working. I've tried to copy it over from the enwp to try and fix it, but it still isn't working. What's wrong with it? Albacore (talk · changes) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's missing a few of the subpages, that could be an issue.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting bug

I have popped into Bugzilla and found an interesting bug: Bug 26372. It says that on all WMF wikis, whenever you type "Wikipedia:"(if on a Wikipedia), or "Project:" on the search bar at the top, you only get one search result.

I was wondering if it really is a bug. Do you have this issue? I have this bug. Hydriz (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting it. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 09:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you are not getting this bug? Hydriz (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hydriz, I believe I have the "bug" you explained, for Wikipedia:0WW comes out whenever I type so; but it seems quite harmless. I don't find it that bothering to my editing. Wouldn't it be okay to just leave it alone? :) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as Belinda said, you're worrying over nothing. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 10:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(bit off topic but who cares?) You're using a strange operating system. What is it? Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 10:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bug is that only one search result appears, which is a bug on all WMF wikis. I am using Ubuntu 10.10. Hydriz (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I get the same issue. XP and IE6. Normandie Talk! 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bug which they claim from the Lucrene search. Hydriz (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try doing user: and user talk: as well. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Chem, I remember User: and User talk: were both like that from ever since I came to wikipedia. Also, I've noticed that typing Template: has a similar kind of reaction as well. ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the weird thing is that it only happens on WMF wikis. Even my own wiki, running on the same version(1.16wmf4), installing all the same extensions, does not have this error. Hydriz (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bug. But it's nothing to worry about. Take it from the British WWII propaganda posters: Keep Calm And Carry On. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 10:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]