Wikipedia talk:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a page to talk about the Simple Talk page. If you want to ask a new question, click here.

New button for Simple talk header[change source]

@Auntof6, Chenzw, Macdonald-ross, Peterdownunder: I am proposing that the button (below) be added to the 'Simple talk' header, after the instructions and prior to the "are you in the right place" section. The reason for adding this button to the page is that new users occasionally overwrite other comments or put their questions in the wrong place, which starts them off on the wrong foot, and reduces the chance that their question will be answered. This button (which is similar to buttons or instructions used in other locations, including on this very talk page (at the top), will be easy to see and make it clear where to start typing a question. (Please note that this copy of the proposed button is 'live' and clicking it will start a new topic!)

Put new text under old text.
Click here to ask a new question.

Etamni | ✉   14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Might help. Would be a better button if the message could be got on two lines. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. The current button is not a "true button", however. Would an InputBox (with parameter hidden=yes) be better? There is an example on my user page. Chenzw  Talk  17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Chenzw. Were you thinking something like this? (remember these buttons are live):


I tried to set the background color (to match the formatting of the button to the page formatting), but all I got was this:


I spent some time over at MediaWiki reviewing the documentation (such as it is) for the inputbox but found no option to set the button color (and several requests for same that have gone unanswered), plus no option to set the formatting of the text (thus the ALL CAPS word "HERE" in lieu of making it bold like in the first example. I'm fine with using either method to make an easy-to-see (simple) link that gets the job done. The question for everyone is deciding if this is needed (I think it is) and which version looks better on WP:Simple talk. Etamni | ✉   19:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I do not mind which version is used.--Peterdownunder (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Great idea! Some users don't understand the wikicode completely, so having this button could help prevent formatting errors. eurodyne (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Blue format: so unlike the usual text that it might well be missed. I am sceptical that these messages will be heeded by users who rush at everything without reflection. Still, I have been wrong before... Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Does anyone think this needs wider discussion or would it be OK to go ahead and implement it now? If the latter, an admin will need to make the change because the talk page header on Simple talk is full-protected. Etamni | ✉   15:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Range-left files[change source]

I'm finding that I cannot place graphics files range left in the text of articles. They appear at the bottom of the text instead of in the designated place. This is so even if I copy a paragraph straight from English wiki. Any thoughts~ Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an example I can look at? Etamni | ✉   11:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: Edit to add ping Etamni | ✉   11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: The first left-aligned image was after several of the right-aligned images, and it won't appear any higher than the images that precede it, even if that forces the image well below text that it was meant to precede. I've rearranged the images on the page for a better presentation, but feel free to revert or rearrange again as needed. This might be a good candidate for use of the "gallery" functionality. Etamni | ✉   12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. Galleries are not always the answer. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Inviting many simple english wikipedians for wikiproject india[change source]

Question[change source]

Hi and Hello i was wondering if i can put my sandbox of rise against in the simple Wikipedia article of rise against. And if you ask because the reason why is that the title rise against is a Chicago based - punk rock sounds more better and pacific than rise against is an american melodic hardcore. P.S i am not doing it for me there are other users outside and in that i know that feels that same way. 165.155.208.108 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Janata garage review[change source]

Janata garage receiveing very good positive response from Usa. jr.Ntr block buster in his carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.180.82 (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016‎ (UTC)

It is unclear what you are asking, but this is probably not the right place. As indicated above, THIS page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Simple Talk page. Good luck and happy editing. Etamni | ✉   12:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Check global locked edits[change source]

Please, someone check the edits in this wiki of this user, global locked. PauloMSimoes (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: None since January, and that one was reverted. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: ok, was only to be checked. Thanks. PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing/deleting[change source]

Hello, I'm very new to wikipedia so please bear with me. I'm an old guy with more than 50 years of study on the subject in question and so when I came across a title with glaring mistakes I edited it citing numerous sources I could have given a whole lot more. when I returned to the site it had been deleted so I rewrote it out again, same result. The citations were enough to prove my point. I did mention that I had rewritten the item which as I now know is wrong what I don't understand is why it was not edited rather than deleted. what can I do? please help.Breakingchina (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Breakingchina: you should bring your discussion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thubten_Choekyi_Nyima,_9th_Panchen_Lama. You're currently are on Simple English Wikipedia. We are different from the English Wikipedia where you made your first edits. You'll want to discuss this further there. Note, though, that your edits were removed because you were writing personal comments in the article. You can't use "I" statements in an encyclopedia article. Only (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's blatant political bias[change source]

It has recently come to my attention that many Wikipedia pages have a strong liberal bias - and I feel that the website is intentionally misrepresenting opinion as fact, which is worrying for a website supposedly based around ideals of free and factual information. The site should either allow for right wing and conservative edits or clearly state it's political bias. Samuelallen2002 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samuelallen2002: Wikipedia shouldn't have any bias, toward any point of view. One of its basic tenets is to have a neutral point of view. Where there are conflicting points of view on a topic, we can report on both as long as there are WP:Reliable sources for both. Can you point to an example here on Simple English Wikipedia where you've seen bias, or seen opinion presented as fact? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Samuelallen2002: Do you have any examples? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Based on his edits at English Wikipedia, I doubt there is any concern for us here. Only (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not likely to have perfect content in the articles. It is entirely possible that some articles are slanted in one political direction, while some articles are slanted in other political direction. If I were to subscribe to a particular political direction, then I might not be the best person to observe that an article leaned in "my" direction. (Also, perhaps one should try to be more considerate in how one blows off (or say that a person's arguments can or should be disregarded) the claims/arguments such as those of Samuelallen2002's. His/her arguments might even be valid (or not), even when one disregards how or what edits, that wikipedian has made. Sju hav (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
We've waited a few months for substantiation; no problem if we must wait a few hundred years more. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists about scientists. Being polite on user talk pages.[change source]

Lists about scientists are a good thing. They should have at least one reference. (For information: Wikipedia in English does allow lists which have entries which are red-linked (or without articles). If a list only has red-links, but at least one notable reference, then it might be appropriate to send one of those lists to a deletion discussion, is my opinion. Unless a precedent has been set within the last months, I think.

I have no plans of writing an article about Kimal Akishev, even if someone was to ask me nicely (instead of ordering me to do so).

If someone experiences something on their user page, that might not be polite, then feel free to contact my user page. (I quite recently experienced two different posts that I found somewhat odd, from a perspective of politeness. Do many talk pages on wikipedia have problems when it comes to politeness? Sju hav (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm new and confused. I'd like to edit articles in the humanities and social sciences.[change source]

I love the idea of this Wiki. I joined to write for people who are not natural English speakers. I hesitate to start topics of my own. Are there any articles I can cut my teeth on? I write well. I also have experience with copy editing. I'd love to lend you a hand, but I feel out of my depth with wikis. I was a member of the English wiki years ago, so I'm not completely new, but I'm not up to snuff. I am moderately confident with philosophy and the social sciences.

I do this by reading on topics I know. On all broad areas some articles are poor, with strange words and idioms, long tangled sentences, errors in fact and balance, and other problems. You could start with Category:Social sciences and follow links from those articles to others. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)