Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 67

I was pointed out this talk page on IRC. Is that really the best way to be treating an expert on the subject? Blocking them? I personally feel that they were treated a little too harshly. COI is all very well, but when the subject is improving our project, we shouldn't be driving them away. That's another potential editor lost. Majorly talk 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Why was it not explained to the editor that instead of editing directly, someone could help him by sourcing his edits. Or at least explain how to source and he can source his own. There were *many* other ways to go about this without blocking the editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was not handled the best way it could have been. Potential for COI does not mean that there is COI. More than adequate references exist for this topic. I will create a new page, more in keeping with simpleWP's needs. fr33kman ^talk 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would   Support unblocking with alternative measures. This, even if inadvertant was biting the hand of a newcomer to this project. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree actually. Strongly. If he was making an improvement, then why was his version deleted through community consensus at RfD? He was asked twice on his talk page to not edit the article. COI was cited in the RfD, by many editors. He did not feel it was wise to discuss his actions, and he made a choice to ignore the warnings. In doing so, he was blocked for his edits to that article. As admins, you are able to view the deleted revisions of the article. If you notice, not one inline citation existed in his version. This is a clear conflict of interest, and it was handled appropriately. I have since been in e-mails with an intermediary (noted on my talk page; from the foundation) over this, and Markus Schulze will know exactly why he was blocked. It was not bitey, nor was it punitive in any way. Best. Synergy 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Synergy, Herr Schulze was given ample warnings on what he was doing wrong, what was wrong with his article but he seemed (silently) adamant that he would do nothing about it. Publicising one's own "invention" should always be actively discouraged, regardless of how "notable" it is perceived to be. If it is truly notable, someone else will write about it. I care neither way particularly if Herr Schulze is unblocked, but if the only article he edits is his own invention (and pages discussing his article) then I would suggest the block remains intact. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If he edits the article again, I will solicit another admin handle the block but only if he goes back to editing the same article. Synergy 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the block. I don't see a reason for unblock him. But I don't want a wheel war and so I don't block him again. I monitor this user now and if he edit the article one time again, I will block him idef. Barras (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be making a much larger statement soon, but as for right now, please don't block him. I will explain why very soon. Synergy 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new article for Schulze method. I hope I have made it more in line with our needs here at simpleWP. I understand the method but may have messed up the wording. I'd like to invite all editors to review it. I am willing to work on it until it is right. fr33kman ^talk 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus to keep the editor blocked? I would support unblocking at this point. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support unblock. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support unblock. fr33kman ^talk 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked per this is stupid. And, you can't exactly block for a "policy" that doesn't even exist here. Furthermore, where was the consensus for Synergy to have his rights re-instated? Or was it just a "we are 'crats we're better than the rest" action? Goblin 11:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the policy not exist here, it's not a policy; it's a guideline on enWP. fr33kman ^talk 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus my "policy" ;). Now, i'm going to get back to what this is about - making an encyclopedia. Goblin 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do technically have a policy which says if a policy doesn't exist here we use en's. I would assume that extends to guidelines as well. -Djsasso (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out Goblin. I reinstated Synergy's rights as there was no real reason not to. No-one opposed. No-one has yet to oppose. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin rights can be returned on request if they didn't give them up under bad circumstances...or "under a cloud" so to speak. -Djsasso (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly chilled. I just wondered why they had been returned. Besides - it's courtesy to at least ask for them in a public area. @DJ - can I please have a link to this so-called "policy". Goblin 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to this is frankly silly. COI might not exist here, but it does exist on enwiki. It should exist here. As for Synergy, he resigned in uncontroversial circumstances, so of course he could just request his rights back. That is the norm. He requested on AN or Simple talk; it was very public, but it didn't need to be. There's no need to be so brash. No comment on the unblock. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad I just realized it too is a guideline. But the link is Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia -Djsasso (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Perhaps this topic has exhausted itself? I'd suggest a nice cup of tea for all involved. (imho) fr33kman ^talk 13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't remember Syn resigning under questionable circumstances, so as far as his adminship goes, I have no issue. My only issue was with the block. We all make mistakes, the block was lifted. I would like in the future to see if we can do other things aside from blocking if possible. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet again, displeased at how things are handled by way of overturning admin actions. I was never notified about this thread, and was never given a chance to speak about it before it was overturned as being "stupid". Regardless, the block was done after two warnings, both of which received no responses (as well as a notification on en.wiki back in oct. 08, also with no response). I believe Goblin is picking and choosing his methods here. I have placed a block on Markus for COI and this is perfectly acceptable given that we are to follow the norms of en.wiki when in doubt (in other words, if it has never happened here before and we do not yet have a guideline/policy, we are to follow en.wiki). COI on en.wiki, if read properly, will tell you a block can be placed on an editor in this situation. Now, I ask you all here and now, what is the justification for unblocking? Why is Goblins comments aloud to stand? His remarks in the block log are far from what I would expect an admin to be making. Synergy 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given above are WP:BITE, and that he has the potential of being a very constructive editor to this project. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff to support the accusation that I did this? Synergy 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did what? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the reasons given were WP:BITE... After TRM requested he stop, I gave a second warning. He ignored both, plus the one on en.wiki in 2008. Blocking is not bitey, and he is not a new editor, by far. So these are invalid reasons for overturning a block. Synergy 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the warning on enWP doesn't count because it uses different policies/guidelines than we do. Second, although his editing holds a COI, wouldn't it be best to have an expert on the subject like him? and Third, although it was perceived that he ignored the warnings, we should always AGF in cases like these where the editor is (IMHO) editing constructively. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffin:No it doesn't. We don't have a COI guideline here, so its the exact same guideline as en.wiki. As for him being an expert, the answer is no. TRM said it much better than I, in the first section of this thread. As for AGF, I was assuming it, which is why he wasn't blocked 3-4 days ago. I could have blocked with no warnings, but I decided to wait until he edited "after" the second warning. There is nothing out of the ordinary with this block, it happens all the time. Regardless of how constructive he was being, it was not suitable for simple english, as established by the RfD. You guys just aren't used to seeing it happen. Best. Synergy 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created new articles that are avaliable in other languages in Wikipedia. Should I link it to them manually or the bots will take care of them ?! Specially there are some unicode languages and I think the bots won't be able to recognize them. All the best :). Mohannad (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on English wikipedia with the same name my bot will find it automatically, otherwise you should put on atleast one interwiki link. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 (change conflict)  There is at least one interwiki link needed. Put them on the end of the article like [[en:ARTICLENAME]]. Regards, Barras (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it :). Thank you so much guys :). Mohannad (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would do the interwiki mapping myself, but I'm definitely in the minority on that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, EVula, is because you clearly have too much time on your hands..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer that to my usual explanation of "EVula is a few fries short of a happy meal". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now (and in the past also) there has been on-wiki and off-wiki discussion regarding the usefulness of anonymous editors and if they should edit here at all. As such, I think it's probably time that the community discuss whether or not we wish to continue to permit editing by anonymous editors or whether we want to disable it. Some smaller WMF projects do prohibit anonymous editing and the MediaWiki interface allows this to be implemented with ease. I'd like to invite all editors to hold a rational, and polite, discussion about this topic. All editors are invited, named and anon alike.

• Personally, I started out as an anon for almost two years before I registered an account over at enWP in 2006. Deep within me I fundamentally believe that anons are as valid a user as any other; including Jimbo. I still feel this way! I have, however, seen much bad come from anons editing here. We are not the same as enWP, who have hundreds of editors who just sit around and watch for acts of vandalism and revert them within seconds of it occurring. We are a small community and many acts of vandalism occur without us finding out about them. Named editors are easier to see a pattern in. For example; take the infamous "Pakistani-editor". Many users have found it hard to decide whether or not this person is making good or bad changes. Some changes are good and many others are POV pushy. Recently S3CR3T found herself in a pickle regarding this user and whether or not he was a bad editor or a good one. A named account would make it easier to track changes given that this user often changes IP address. On the other hand during the breakfast hours we often get many useful anon edits as (I believe) people from other WMF sites come over and make small changes that are helpful and often maintenance actions. Too cut a long-story short I am beginning to lean towards banning anon editing; sadly so, given my own origins. Please feel free to comment on what I've said, and to engage me in dialogue. Thanks! :-) fr33kman ^talk 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No. "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit" is one of Wikipedia's core policies. We can make the warning policy stricter, but an outright ban? I'm not really warming up to this idea...Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can still edit it. They'll just have to take the extremely tiny hurdle of creating an account to do so. Majorly talk 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree; "anyone" refers to the actual human being, not their "user account". "Anyone" can make an account and edit; that doesn't mean we should let all user accounts (anons, named, socks, etc) edit this project; they could be anyone, socks, vandals etc. We need to have accountability for edits made to this site. Most anons are dynamic IP addys and that means it's impossible to tell who owns the copyright to any given edit (since the person using the IP changes daily/hourly (depending on DHCP settings at ISP)). Requiring editors to use usernames protects their interests and' our interests. I'm a believer on anonymous editing, but this is an encyclopedia; "the sum of all human knowledge". It's not a blog, a vlog or other such website. WP is useless for serious students; most universities have banned its use in students work, for this very reason. If we want to compete with the "big boys" we need to run it like a proper knowledge resource; not like a fun place for people to hang out and edit; if they want to! fr33kman ^talk 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking through the contributions, there are a lot of good IP edits here, though there are also a fair number of bad ones as well. I wouldn't be opposed to preventing IPs from creating articles or opposed to expanding the length of semi-protection on oft-vandalized articles, but preventing IPs from editing is going way too far. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes "IP editor" so sacred? It's just another form of a username, one without letters and one without permanence (ie: dynamic IP/most ISPs) Let them lo (iogin if they want to help us out. It's not like anyone can resolve an account name into an actual human being; is it? Being an IP buys them nothing, in the long run! fr33kman ^talk 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that anons cannot create pages and edit certain articles, but I don't see why we should ban IP editing. Think of how many one edit accounts could stuff up the server. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically; it's not an issue. Stopping anons from creating pages, yet letting them edit them is much harder. It's an "all or nothing" kind of event. :) fr33kman ^talk 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike en, we don't get a massive amount of one edit IP users. And I would say that the majority of one edit IP users are one edit vandals. -Djsasso (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a Foundation issue? Unless the Foundation give approval, wouldn't Simple have to leave the WMF umbrella? Soup Dish (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, other small wikis already do it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good solution to stopping vandalism. If the vandalism problem is that bad we should install flagged revs or mw:Extension:Patroller. --Chris 11:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, the vandal isn't all that bad. Most unproductive edits are reverted within a matter of seconds. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about just turning on the functionality already built into the software and already in use at en? meta:Help:Patrolled edit could really help spread the load and make sure garbage doesn't get through. If we're still overwhelmed, then blocking IP edits may make sense. EhJJ^TALK 12:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolled edits are already turned on I do believe. It's just no one actually patrols. I don't think his comments are about being overwhelmed but about stoping it period. -Djsasso (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I see which edits have been patrolled or mark them as such? Unpatrolled edits in Special:RecentChanges are supposed to have a red exclamation point, but I have never seen any. That said, I've never seen the elusive red exclamation points at en.wikipedia either. Is there some way of getting RecentChanges to be more powerful so that vandalism or bad edits (i.e. all lowercase) can be removed or fixed, as appropriate? EhJJ^TALK 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red exclamation points you are thinking of is flagged revisions I believe. Let me see if I can find the page. -Djsasso (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:NewPages The highlighted yellow ones are unpatrolled. Click the link to go to the new page and then click patrolled at the bottom if you want to patrol it. btw patrolled pages only works on new articles. -Djsasso (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I forgot there is new page and single edit patrolling...can't imagine single edit patrolling being worth the hassle but can't hurt to flick the switch on. -Djsasso (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems with all the commotion about Oversightship, this conversation died. However, I think it's an important issue we need to resolve as a community. My impression is that the vandalism:good edit ratio for IPs is about 5:1 (or worse). I wish this were not the case, and we could continue to allow IP edits, but I'm leaning toward blocking them. That said, I think it is much more important for us to have a better system of edit patrolling. Blocking IP edits may help in the short term, but eventually (I hope) this Wiki will become increasingly popular and the current haphazard edit patrolling will be insufficient. EhJJ^TALK 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Very_good_articles#Very_Good_Lists. Goblin 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I speak for all those involved when I say the onslaught of oversight requests were extremely rushed and unecessary. Would anyone object if they were quietly archived? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, archiving them would be best. I think that the idea should then be discussed. It does have merit and the community should be given the chance to decide if we want to have local oversighters. fr33kman ^talk 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Requests of Oversightship or oversight requests (i.e. to a steward or elsewhere)? EhJJ^TALK 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. As with CU requests, we only requested CUs when we found that we were running over to Meta pretty much every week or so to ask for help dealing with sockpuppet issues. And having local CUs, who know the project, is actually much more important than local oversighters (oversight is simply removal of information, CU requires knowledge of the editors, background etc). Until we find ourselves relying on stewards on a frequent basis for oversight requests, we should not even be thinking about it. We are not that big a project really, and we should not be falling over ourselves trying to get as many rights as possible in use here. It's just not necessary. Majorly talk 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup, that'd be for the best. I was kinda surprised by how quickly the whole thing moved, but *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think just close all of them, and forget about it for a while. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine by me. I may have some comments on all this later, but not for a while. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've "archived" (deleted) them - hope this is ok, if not just undo and it won't be wheel warring ;) Goblin 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would you delete them? There is absolutely no reason why these could not have been simply archived. Either way (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, I think deleting them was a bad idea. I'd restore them myself (since you said it wouldn't be a wheel war), but as a candidate, I think it would be appropriate to recuse myself from doing so. Someone else want to? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think restore would be better. There was a vote and archive isn't delete. The next think is that here isn't a consensus to archive or delete. There are two options: First: a 'crat close them early per SNOW and archive them correcly. Second: The candidates withdrew their requests. BG7, the closure of Rfx is part of the work of a 'crat not the work of an admin. Barras (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine - I interpreted "quietly archive" as a delete. @Barras: in clear cases of SNOW 'crats don't need to close RfXs, any admin can (or indeed any user... i'm sure I actually closed a SNOW at en once... [unless i'm getting forgetful, which is more than likely]). Goblin 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good to know that all can close Rfx' per SNOW. Barras (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team,

As i'm sure you know, there's been some gaps in Simple News recently, for various reasons, but we're going to get back to the bi-monthly updates hopefully :).

The latest Issue is just about ready to go and will be out on Monday. If anyone has anything they want to add, either feel free to add it it or let myself, Kennedy, Yotty or Shappy know if you're not sure how to.

Regards,

Goblin 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As this is a Wikipedia for people learning English and for students; should we not be trying out hardest to write each article with the best grammar possible? A small vocabulary with good grammar is what will help people learn. Articles like Red Ring of Death have terrible grammar. Even myself, a person with English as his first language have a hard time following that article; and many others like it. I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. --Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, some of our articles fall short of our goals. However, given that this is a wiki, it's something that anyone can fix. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So true. I am going to be spending some time going over the article I posted above, and then I will look for some more that need work.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to look for articles that need work is Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup. Either way (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already been looking there, but thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Is happening with DYK? There are multiple hooks that have received {{DYKyes}} but have been moved to Stale/Expiring section. Surely this is incorrect? If they've been approved, how can they be "dead"? Could another editor who works on DYK please review this? Thanks!! :-) fr33kman ^talk 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and moved the definite yes. The others i'm not 100% sure about and will have another in depth look later on, unless someone else "beats" me. Regards, Goblin 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... you can blame that on me. Methinks I moved some of the wrong ones. Sorry. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgiven; please check more closely in the future ;-) Thanks! fr33kman ^talk 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

I know that an ARBCOM has been proposed before and been shot down, but I'd like to get some discussion going on what people would want to see in an ARBCOM if one were to be set up. We have regular issues between editors here and a trawl through the archives of ST, AN and various talk pages will show that this is nothing new. One issue that seems to occur over and over (since 2004 at least) is editors leaving because of a lack of enforcement in behavior disputes and also in content disputes. We're often trying to think of ways to attract new editors but one thing we tend to miss the boat on is how to stop good editors leaving because they just can't take behavioral problems anymore. One of the problems, I think, is that we currently have more active admins than we have active non-admins. Another issue we have is no means of resolving disputes between editors. Now it is my hope that we can propose an ARBCOM being set up, but before that I'd like to invite people to discuss what one would do and how it should be structured.

Thanks for your time! fr33kman ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss what you'd like to see in an ARBCOM (if you'd like to see one at all); what you think it should be able to do, what it should be able to solve, what it would be structured like and how it'd be run. Discuss also what it would not do, and what it's limits would be.

I'd like to see nothing out of an ARBCOM. I think we complain about having too many conversations that direct us away from working on the project, and I think that this discussion will only further waste all of our times. Either way (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some specific cases/examples that have occurred here that would have benefited from having a ARBCOM to deliberate and resolve the matter rather than our current community methods (or the methods used at the time of the incident)? Either way (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be helpful, and would only dredge up old wounds. This is about discussing what an ARBCOM would look like, not the merits of whether or not one is needed at this time. fr33kman ^talk 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why waste our time discussing one if one isn't needed? Either way (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding out how one might look like, will help us decide if one is needed or not. Talking about possible improvements to the project is never a waste of time. fr33kman ^talk 03:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented) I don't think there is a need for an Arbcom yet; we are such a small community. We are going to be a laughingstock having a need for such measures for a community on this scale. Chenzw  Talk  10:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what do we need an ARBCOM for. It's the same as that idiotic oversight request. We don't need any. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that having an ArbCom would help us focus on the Encyclopedia more. We often have full-blown, over-dramatic discussion that prevent all of us from working on the Encyclopedia. With an ArbCom, it would be just a few trusted administrators so the rest of us can work in other areas of the project. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 10:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Thoughts on this are:

1. An arbcom will create more drama than it solves and WONT help people focus on the encyclopedia. Elections, boundaries, discussions, appeals, banning in spite of community consensus etc etc does not sound like the magic solution its being made out to be. I also note that arbcom will most likely consist of your best editors, meaning they will have to focus on in-depth and technical litigation rather than actual editing.
2. The English Wikipedia, with 9,818,423 (158,605 active, 1,659 admins 31 crats) registered users editing more than 17,003,809 pages, Needed an arbcom because there were many disputes in proportion to the amount of people and pages, One man (Jimbo) survived quite some time resolving serious disputes without the need of an Arbitrary body being implemented. Simple Wikipedia however with 66,863 (893 active, 41 admins 5 crats) registered users editing 142,891 pages is not of the size where a dedicated Arbitrary body can be justified. The fact that 41 admins (compared to 1659 on en) cant get along peacefully, agree and follow rules sends the message that that Simple consists of a bunch of amateurs with ENWP penis envy, Sorry but that is what it looks like to outsiders. The fact that an Arbcom is even being suggested despite being shot down several times is redundant, the consensus was that simple doesn't need an arbcom. Simple Wikipedia is not even 0.005% (by active user count) the size of English wikipedia. How on earth could an arbitrary body be justified knowing this?
3. Arbcom is not a timely or efficient matter of resolving and sort of dispute.
4. Implementing an Arbcom should never occur (or be the very last resort such was the case at enwp) on a community project as a body of users arbitrarily enforcing anything is not in the nature of a Community project. This will also reak of "Wikipedia has one so we need one too!"
5. There are bureaucrats here, Perhaps one should be looking at giving them more "control" rather than implementing another body all together. Promethean (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently been involved in a (still ongoing) Arbcom case on en.wiki, I can guarantee that we get a heap more drama with an Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is simply not needed. AGK 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Why? Driveby comments aren't really helpful, AGK. Majorly talk 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for an Arbcom ONLY if I will be the benevolent dictator. PS: Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Destub_of_the_week.3F. Maxim_(talk) 14:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, ArbCom here would be a solution in search of a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree with the above that a SE ArbCom isn't needed. Promethean's comments are almost line for line what I would have said (especially #2, the argument about our relative size to enwiki). While I totally think the spirit of the idea (decrease drama, increase productivity) is an excellent one, I think this would have the exact opposite effect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This wiki is comparatively smaller than most. We simply (pardon the pun) don't have the large, complex issues that others do. At least, in my time on this project, I've not seen any need for complex arbitration. I've seen issues, but they generally resolve themselves. On a wiki of this size, anything that threatens to become a timesink for editors, threatens the goals of the project in taking to many editor-hours. It is my belief that an AC would be more of a hindrance rather than a help. Thank you for reading, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that an ArbCom isn't really needed here, per above reasons. The number of active and especially of discussion-active members is still small enough that we don't really need a separate board for conflict resolution. Note especially that en.wiki has 15 active arbitrators, which is over half of the number of "active" admins listed at WP:ADMIN and just under half of the editors who have responded to the census above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit at en much, I'd like to know exactly what ARBCOM is. Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee. The end-all be-all of dispute resolution. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This project is nowhere close to the size where we would need a ARBCOM. For example, if it were a 3 member ARBCOM, that would mean that the ratio of ARBCOM members to active users (per above census) would be 1:12. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the fact that I think it's an outright "No.", we seem to have overlooked something... "Arbitration Committee" is hardly simple. And what about other things before resorting to ArbCom? Dispute Resolution and MedCab all spring to mind... or just getting on in the first place :DD. Regards, Goblin 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be at the italian wikipedia, and I decided to go to their recent changes. They only get 50 edits every 48 hours, and they are a much larger project, so I think we are doing a great job here. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were on italian wikipedia. Because they have 50 edits in the last hour... Maybe you were on itallian wikiquote or wiktionary etc. -Djsasso (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will check later, gotta get back to my wikibreak. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the Italian Wikinews, which is considerably smaller than we are (us vs. them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Rice Riots of 1918 which is the translation of the week (well, actually last week as it's flipped over now. Please feel free to create redlinks. :) fr33kman ^talk 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in seeing Candidiasis as a good article. Take a look, maybe comment on talk or edit? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-vandalwarner.js. It would be easier for me and others to welcome users if we had a welcome template (something that explains what simple is, and where to start) so that we can get this information out. I would rather click a link then to have to type the template in, this gadget offers simplicity. Thank you for your consideration, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's often been debate as to how many active users there are on Simple English Wikipedia. A simple way of finding out how many users we actually have is to, quite simply, organise a list. So? How many active users actually are there? Please add your name here, and we'll get a nice number. We can then break that down into statistics, e.g. % admins &c;. —MC8 (b · t) 22:23, Monday May 18 2009 (UTC) (I Protest!)

Are going to use this list to update this page? -- Marawe (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article is now located at User:Mighty Wodan/Wijerd Jelckama

I made the mistake as well. I did not even check any other wikipedia(s) for this article. Perhaps we should include into the criteria or process a check for other versions from enWP, to ensure the articles or not mirrored in part or whole. So that we don't do what happened again. Barras et al, good catch. I and others missed it. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not Barras who first noticed it, but Pmlineditor - I then removed the template (twice) and Barras eventually re-added it. So the honour of "catching" this goes to Pmlineditor. PS: the article is now in my user space. So to anyone who wants to help me re-write it: be bold and do so, I can use some help! Mighty Wodan (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the template was removed twice... does that not breach WP:3RR? Just wondering. Goblin 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

No it isn't. A not-sysop removed. This is imo the work of a sysop, not of a "normal" user. Because of that I re-added the tag. Barras (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said. I didn't say you 3RRd. And sysops != better than "normal" users as you call them. All users are equal - if an admin broke 3RR I would do the same thing. Goblin 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I think only admins should remove QD-tags. They have to decide about deletion, because they can delete. And I never said sysops are better then other!!! "Normal" users are only users without sysoprights. I am a normal user on most other projects. My problem was, that a not-admin removed a QD-tag. If anyone disagree, say can use the wait-template. And again: I am not better then others! 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not how I read it. There is nothing wrong with non-admins declining speedies, i've done it before. I don't see how this links in to 3RR though... I see edits from Wodan and Pmlinediter that break the 3RR policy (Well, my interpretation of it, as i've heard different ones.). Goblin 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Well, this is probably an enwp rule, but I don't work there. I refer to the dewp rules... Barras (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here for en's. I would suggest reading it as we have a guidline saying "Refer to en". Goblin 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Only sysops should remove QD tags after they have been placed by a user. RFD is community consensus for deletion; QD is sysop only to decide, yea or nay. fr33kman ^talk 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor not involved in editing the article can remove a speedy. Speedies are overturnable the minute someone objects unless its blatantly vandalism. An objected to speedy can then go to Rfd if the person who placed the tag so chooses. -Djsasso (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on editing it. It has potential. I did not notice a GFDL note in the edit history for GFDL compliance, do you know how to do this? Also I do want to discuss potential modifications to the PGAVA process (the purpose of this thread) in order to prevent this from happening again.  :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin, I started the thread to talk about PGA process. I think the 3RR issue is done. Very Cheerfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmlineditor wanted the article Wijerd Jelckama removed. He added the Quick Delete template - I was strongly against this, having written the article myself. So I removed the template - twice, I believe. Then I thought it was over and done with, but Barras re-added the template. As a result, the article has been deleted. Because it was still a GA nominee, ex-DYK article and had 96 revisions, it was moved to my user space. I was told to inform some admins (Chenzw or Barras) when I had the article ready, they'll move it back once it no longer looks like the EN version and then I'll take it to DYK again. I'm hoping for some help (the article had potential, as I was told), and I'm no native speaker of English. Mighty Wodan (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i've got this, but clearly there has been a 3RR breach. Please link me if this has beem brought up already, but i'm certainly not letting it slip if it is. And the copyvio in the first place. And the fact it says use {{wait}} in the QD template... Goblin 17:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Since I am not entirely familiar with all the rules (there so damn many, afterall), I did not understand at first why the tag was placed. I was like: come on, don't you guys have something better to do? And using {{wait}} didn't cross my mind. I was really angry at the moment: after all the time I have been working on the article, I hated the idea of seeing it get deleted. Mighty Wodan (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be familar with the rules (and there aren't that many) before starting to edit - you can find them in the welcome message. The question stands: Is this a 3RR/Edit War? Goblin 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

This also looks like a 3RR from Pmlinediter. I am following up. Goblin 17:41, 13

• There is no 3RR issue, there was, but not anymore. Too much time has passed for blocking and the article is now in userspace. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Don't you get this is why this wiki has a bad name? Because we don't "care" about people breaking policies etc and getting away without warnings? Goblin 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I understand. Much time has passed. What would it accomplish to block now? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are solely to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not to punish users or make the wiki look good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much time != less than a day. It would show that we are serious... and when did I mention the words "block". Goblin 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

What would be the purpose of taking action hours after the fact? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just said... though admitedly that's not the point, but why has no-one else spotted this...? And i'm not dropping it. Goblin 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

(outdent) Apologies, my assumption. block action. I think about the only thing that could be done is to explain nicely on the user's talk page, what 3RR is. The editor clearly wants to contribute, lets not discourage him, but gently reinforce that we do have rules. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)ce[reply]

That works.   Doing.... Goblin 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

  Done both users have been warned. Goblin 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I would note, since this is a common misconception that doing something 3 times is a violation of 3rr. It actually takes a 4th time to violate 3RR. -Djsasso (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About my query regarding the PGA process?  :) NonvocalScream (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...that DYK is still active but hasn't been edited in the last 3 days? Please feel free to drop by, nominate an article, approve a hook, or just comment on what you like. fr33kman ^talk 01:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, i've overhauled the queueing system, and it's similar to what the EN 'pedia use - comments please. Goblin 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, so confusing. :( –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate and I can changey :). Goblin 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Crosspost... Discussing a change to the Recent changes over here -->Click me to view/discuss. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw some attention to this proposal. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing some talk from people who only edit Simple about how certain users here are turning us into a "New EN". Let me just point out and say than EN's formula works, EN is one of the top ten most viewed websites. I'm not quite sure ours is. Our articles are of poor quality, and we're looked down upon by other wikis as a dumping ground for immature users. What are people's thoughts on this? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this wiki's main problems are:

1. Spends too much time discussing things rather than making an encyclopedia.
2. Is too "nice" to users blocked elswhere or who have prior histories
3. Tries to overcomplicate things
4. Hat collecting by certain users

What we all need to realise is that if we focus on building good, quality articles and don't harbour banned users then people at other wikis will realise that we are a good wiki to come too, and one that is useful. And we need to get over the unecessary drama. Goblin 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending too much time discussing things....this is one quality a community who is building an encyclopedia should be doing. The real problem, is after the discussion, they don't edit the articles. Blocking users who were banned from other wikis get a certain amount of chances, and if they resort to the same tactics it should be simple, warn, block and forget about. Nothing to discuss there. As far as over complicating things... that's too broad of a statement to get a response. Hat collecting, yes. But unless its hurting something, or someone, this isn't a real complaint. There is no damage, so there is no issue. Synergy 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are well known I imagine when it comes to us and EN. Our admins need to be well read on how EN handles problems, because they have hashed out the majority of issues already, and we can learn from their mistakes. The rest is content building and maintaining active users willing to do this. I'd be more interested in hearing what damage can be caused by operating in a fashion that our parent wiki performs on a daily basis. Synergy 20:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I've got no problem with us being like EN. None at all. Bluegoblin7, your argument could apply here too. You guys put up with StaticFalcon for ages, and made a huge fuss when he was banned, despite his disruption. And yet he's still not banned. We spend loads of time discussing stuff when we should just be getting on with it – all wikis do, that's why we have discussion pages. Seriously, the only things that divide us more from EN is our small editing base and Simple English. We should be holding the same values, not trying to break away from the mother ship. This is a big deal over nothing, and I'm getting tired of saying so. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Synergy: I'm actually starting to agree with you. There are definitely some things that it would help to follow EN with, but at the same time we do need to not be an absolute clone of everything. By "discuss too much" what I mean is that some people seem to forget about being bold, and also we often drag out discussions - apparently it's "bad" if there are only 4 or so discussions here. Agreed, some things need to be discussed - we are a community and need to take things forward and agree on stuff, but not overly discuss things - if you catch my drift? The same of "bad" editors hold true. Now, I believe everyone is entitled to a chance, but not as many chances as some users have got - Static and CM being prime examples. Especially if there is a history from other wikis. Don't be worried about hurting their feelings - if they can't handle the punishment of not editing, they shouldn't mess around in the first place. That's life. And yes, agree with your last point Pete. But I don't think we need to be "another mother ship" - just a "baby ship". Regards, Goblin 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great project. Coming from EN this project isn't as harsh. It is a great place to start. If we could get more people aware of this wiki and get more people from EN helping out this project could turn out great. Of course Wiki's are always a work in progress and there is always something to do!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, Simple has drifted away from its purpose and beginnings. Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is said that, "Simple English is not the right place to put the same articles again. Instead, we write about the most common subjects so that people from every language can read the pages easily." This is no longer true. Hitting "Show any page," articles like The Fortress of Solitude come up when important articles such as Country are stubs. What needs to happen on Simple is that Notability guidelines need to be a lot tougher to weed out articles that are not "the most common subjects." Otherwise, simple is not much different than EN. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't agree, but the community has mostly rejected that part of What Wikipedia is not as being antiquated and no longer relevant. Mostly because no one can agree on what common subjects are I think. -Djsasso (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a small SQL query to the enWP database will provide an answer of what subjects people go to enWP for; then we can do the same to our database and the two should give us an indication of where to start. fr33kman ^talk 03:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should restrict ourselves to these "Common" subjects. I think our goal now is to write simple English articles on as many topics as we can.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Cyclone Tracy, which was viewed 16,000 times at enwiki last month, remains a redlink here; however, Ocheyedan, Iowa was viewed a grand total of 198 times over there. We desperately need to address the uneven coverage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think we should only cover the common articles? I think the common articles should be a high priority but I don't think we should just forget about the other subjects.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should focus on the important subjects before creating any more one-line stubs, yes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you on the one line stubs.W e have way to many pages on small towns in the middle of nowhere that nobody is ever going to read.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a change of focus is needed, not necessarily ignoring the "less common" items entirely. Once we've got our important items covered better, we can move on to the more obscure stuff; that's exactly how Wikipedia developed as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I am a newly registered user an I saw this discussion. I just want to say that Wikipedia (Simple English) is perfect! Big changes are not necessary. The only problems are that the Simple English articles are too short, and we also have to prevent people giving false information or changing articles for fun. Other than that, Wikipedia (all) is perfect! There is always an article for my curious mind! From Alpha to Omega, that is! I really would like to help financially but since I am just 13 years old, I can't/don't have a credit card. And now that I have a Wikipedia account, I would do everything just to improve it! Long live, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Tar the mouse (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Tar the Mouse : June 20, 2009[reply]

I have noticed that on this Wikipedia there are few or no references on articles. Would it be possible for a group of editors to come together and begin to select one article a week and fully reference that article. Just a thought, The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be good for our high traffic articles. All pages should have references but it would be hard to go and find all that need them.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many of them here: Articles lacking sources. I suggest you to select articles from the List of articles all languages should have. :) -- Marawe (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should add references as they create articles but of course, new people are very welcome. Majorly talk 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, most people will not do that. It can start with country articles be cited with references from the CIA Factbook, etc. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for helping, perhaps in a project wide blitz for the most read articles! I always add references when I create or edit an article (in a substantial manner) and I personally think it should be q violation of policy to not add them. An encyclopaedia that has a lack of references is absolutely and utterly useless! I am required by law to live my life by citing sources for the treatments I offer patients, I'd be struck off and sued if I didn't. I know we're all volunteers here, but similar rules should apply! fr33kman ^talk 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I want to propose clear rules for de-adminship of inactive sysops. Actually, we don't have a policy. At the moment, we creat for every de-adminship an extra page with a request. I think it would be helpful to have a policy. So, we don't have to vote for every de-adminship. We could remove the tools easier. My thoughts:

1. We request the removal of the sysop tools after one year of inactivity without an extra proposal on WP:RFA.
2. We post a note one months before the deadline of one year ends on the admin's talkpage and send him probably an email with the same content.
3. After the removal of the tools, if the user come back, he can re-request the tools with a new request for adminship.

Any thoughts? Barras (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barras,

We did actually sort of agree on guidelines for these when we did a large de-sysopping late last year. We agreed that it would be 1 year, with vote, and they could get them back if they wish. I agree it might need to be formalised though, and also agree about the notification. Regards, Goblin 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

But wouldn't it be easier to say: One year of inactivity means de-sysop without a voting? If there is a clear rule, it would make it easier. I know this system I described above from the German Wikipedia and it works good. Barras (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any agreement that they could ask for tools back just like that. What would be the purpose in removing them otherwise? Majorly talk 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I understand that's what the latest de-sysop was closed as - a "per the last lot", even though consensus was a no-consensus. This needs more discussion ;) (That or i'm completely wrong...) Goblin 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

A good majority of the people if I recall did say they only supported the mass desysoping if the people could have the flags back upon request. The only reason I can remember that people thought they should lose them at all was for security reasons. No one really had any reasons other than that. -Djsasso (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be automatic. What is there to discuss really? All of the de-syops discussions I have seen have closed as de-syop and that editor can get them back if he returns. I think after one year the tool should be removed regardless. !voting just wastes time.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on something like this is never a waste of time. Yes the user is inactive but just automatically stripping a user of their flag could change a user from a user that for some unforseen circumstance couldn't be on and will possibly come back to one that will definately not come back. Atleast with a vote they will hopefully understand some reasoning behind it and consensus etc. Besides, how long does it take to say Yay or Nay. -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should definately not be automatic, and as Goblin7 said it was pretty much hashed out in the past. As for Majorlys comments a good number of the people in that discussion did say they were only supporting the removal should people be able to just ask for them back when they returned. Enough that I would say it was consensus if I remember correctly. -Djsasso (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link this discussion so I can read it? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think each person becoming a syops should be told that you cannot go inactive for long periods of time. If you know you are going to be away you should give the tool back in good faith.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new template to replace the traditional typing of None currently or None at this time at {{none}}. Your edits and comments are appreciated. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you envision this template being used? fr33kman ^talk 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PVGA and WP:PGA I'd guess. It seems like a good idea. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I've no issues with it existing. fr33kman ^talk 23:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does QD A3 cover the copying of the entire article or of parts? For example, if an article was created here at seWP containing the first paragraph from enWP without a change, will it be QDd? Does A3 mean copying of the entire article? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something is copied from EN then chances are it is not in simple English and should probably be removed or re-written anyway.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 6 QD'S have been declined in spite of meeting the criteria. 8.12.144.17 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which QD were declined? I'll take a look and review. I'm sure others will as well. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edits of today. I decline several QDs --Barras (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how much of the article is copied. A3 does generally mean the entire article, as we often copy articles from en and then simplify. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the ones Barras declined, I too would have declined those as a single sentence is not enough to be a copy vio and those sentences are simple enough to be considered simple english. -Djsasso (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would have deleted those either. It is a judgement call. Those are a sasso stated, simple enough. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they were not QD'able. If the English is simple enough an editor would help the project out by using the {{Enwp based}} template on the article's talk page, rather than QD tag them. The article (regardless of length) would then no longer be a copyvio. fr33kman ^talk 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Vostok I page which was initially a copypaste from enWP, not to those domain name stubs. Regards, Pmlinediter  ^Talk 07:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I probably wouldn't delete that one either, but would mark it with {{complex}} instead and do as Fr33kman mentioned above with the enwp based template. -Djsasso (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy be archived? Should we put a notice there for people who want to propose changes to the policies post them here (at Simple talk) instead? -- Marawe (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would we? These things are talked about on their respective pages. All that should come here is a note linking to the discussion on the other page. The whole conversation should not be brought here. -Djsasso (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all,

Final call for any Simple News Articles or Announcements - please send in anything you have as it's looking quite sparse at the moment.

Regards,

Goblin 11:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I am preparing an article for Simple News. It'll be ready by Tuesday. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it'll need to be held over until Issue 9 then, as Issue 8 will be released on Monday:

change

Regards, Goblin 11:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Okay, I'll try to knock it off by Sunday. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, feel free to add it straight in. Goblin 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Are we using the CM16 Q&A that I sent to you? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Goblin 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

(outdent)Created my article. I have few minor fixes to make. It'll definitely be ready by tomorrow. It's quite long though. :( Pmlinediter  ^Talk 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Just add it to Wikipedia:Simple News/22-06-09/Articles when it's done. Regards, Goblin 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Already   Done. Can you please tell me the date of the next publication. I'll work on another article accordingly. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great :). Publication is every two weeks, so the next one will be the 6th July. Goblin 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

What are your thoughts on creating talk pages with talk headers (like enWP's system)? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are good, but it's better not to use special templates on vandalized or blank pages. Please say what you think about this deletion policy proposal for talk pages. -- Marawe (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "talk header" - there are various meanings of it, please elaborate. Goblin 12:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I think Pmlinediter is talking about banners (such as for WikiProjects), but I could be wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what they are talking about then I would have to go with a no because there is no need on a wiki this small. Especially since we don't really do wikiprojects in the same way en does. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. :) Goblin 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was talking about "headers" like the one he put on Talk:Zoo. My first comment about this proposal was based on it. -- 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case I would still say no because I have always thought those sorts of things were just eyes sores at the tops of talk pages. But that is just an "I don't like it" type reason. -Djsasso (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was referring to those talkheaders like the one I put in Talk:Zoo. That prevents an unnecessary tp creation by users who want to comment. We might also introduce a new system of rating articles (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, VGA) which Simple requires. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That prevents an unnecessary tp creation by users who want to comment" I have no clue what you mean by that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just a waste of time, in my opinion. I don't think we would want to add this template to more than 59,000 pages just to prevent "unnecessary tp creation". If anyone wants to comment, it is alright for them to create the talk page. It's not hard to create a page anyway. Chenzw  Talk  04:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think more formal WikiProjects (and by extension, the talk page tags) would be a good idea. The wiki is in a fairly desperate state at the moment, and to put it bluntly, most articles are crap. We need some sort of method to organize and improve articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Juliancolton is absolutely right. The main reason why enWP works is not only the fact that it has hordes of editors; it is also because of the organization of the wiki. Even if we don't add talkheaders, we might at least make WikiProjects official as well as start a rating system. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we might at least make WikiProjects official" Why? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough editors to have active project space wikiprojects... I don't think. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have 40 active editors according to MC8's census, which is enough to sustain a few major projects (geography, health, sports, etc.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have 40 active editors, but do we have 40 active editors who want to edit those subjects (whichever they might be). I personally don't think so, I think creating wikiprojects will actually make the situation worse in that people will only have yet another level of bureacracy to waste time on instead of editing articles. -Djsasso (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; we have a hard enough time focusing everyone on focusing on our core articles. We don't need to create a bunch of superfluous WikiProjects just so we have some false sense that we're on par with the English Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree; it would most likely create another level of bureaucracy. However, I feel it would be a necessary level of bureaucracy. With articles like country, plant, and color as stubs, we're going to need to some way to organize and encourage the creation and expansion of content. Little or no article work is getting done as of late, so I don't see how it could hurt to give it a try—even if on a small scale at first. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you're talking about a catch-all Article Improvement WikiProject, that I could get behind; I was interpreting it as having multiple WikiProjects for each (ie: Countries WikiProject, Plant WikiProject, etc). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. Wish I'd thought of that. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very excellent idea indeed!! fr33kman ^talk 08:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Point is, I was referring to the thing EVula suggested from the very beginning. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a wikiproject for overall Article Improvement.... -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was on wikibreak far away from thew net; A Talk header in the style of This is the talk page of foo,.. Only makes sense for very big talk pages, which change very often; we do not have them (Other than the generalised WP:ST, and WP:AN; And talk pages that only consist of said header kinda look silly. This is of course only my opinion, you are free to disagree with it. --Eptalon (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I have enjoyed my Wikibreak far away from all the evil inventions of mankind. I enjoyed my holidays in the sun, on a beach, somewhere in France. Coming back I am refreshed, I also have new ideas where Simple could be, in a few months from now. Or most serious problem is a general lack of editors; almost all of our editors are admins (which is not a problem for now). However, I'd like to propose to focus the project to some extent.

What we now need is not so much the articles on starlets, or rock bands, but articles about what I would like to call hard science. With this I do not only mean what you would call the natural sciences, but also other scientific topics, touching history, philosophy, the arts, and to some extent politics. If you look at the news of today, there will be some topics which are likely found all around the world. Certain world leaders, nations, or organisations will be mentioned; Making articles, or extending the ones we have about those topics might be worthwhile. I know their lifetime is limited (next week, the media will talk about other things), but such articles might help us attract casual readers who read the article in their own language and then find out about a new language that they might even understand.

I know that I do not need to convince those already convinced. Sorry, back to noise now. --Eptalon (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Most people voted against the old proposal of addition/changes to the deletion policy concerning talk pages. However, we need an official policy, because some of the current administrators blank such pages, while others delete them. What do you think that should be done to new talk pages unrelated to the improvement of their corresponding main articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marawe (talk • contribs)

• Why are we forking the discussion here? This belongs on the other page where the proposal is. Your not going to get a different answer just because you changed forums, I fear. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion belongs here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. -- Marawe (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   -- I was under the impression that they could be simply deleted on sight if they were over a year old and were IP talk pages with no new warnings. Named (but banned) user pages should remain forever, however. Talk pages for articles/projects etc., should remain forever also (as long as the talk is relevant to the article. fr33kman ^talk 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We might also care to introduce a rating system. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Personally, I usually delete these. However, I'd have no problem if the administrator does whatever they feel-it's not too big of a deal. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. fr33kman ^talk 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yup this is the option I was thinking we should have in the poll when I commented so I definately support. -Djsasso (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — RyanCross (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As pointed out at the other discussion, a truly useless talk page will meet one of the existing speedy criteria. More plainly, if it doesn't at least one of the criteria it probably isn't "useless" and should be kept. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   lol this is the same option as the one above. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. A "useless" talk page automatically causes it to be eligible for "talk on talk page is not related to main page". No change should be needed. Chenzw  Talk  14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to define useless. That is what the problem most people had with it. If the page falls under one of the other QDs then yes they should be deleted. But a talk page should almost never be deleted unless they are only vandalism. Blanking probably shouldn't happen either as you are not supposed to alter others comments. In otherwords this is why we choose admins, to make these kinds of calls on a page by page basis. There is no need to legislate it. When it comes down to it, I think in the other proposal most people actually said we already have policy covering these situations so why write more. -Djsasso (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]