[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 49

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global Rights policy page

I think we need a policy page about the use of global rights like global bots and global rollback. Anyone want to make a draft? Techman224Talk 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add something to the current bot and rollback pages. It's all meta-related so it doesn't need too much depth. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-in global rollback

Global Rollbackers are people who can use revert on all wikis as well as some other tools to revert vandalism (see here for more detailed rights). These users know what vandalism is, and because there's few people who actially have global rollback, there's strict requirements to become a global rollbacker. I think we should allow it. This will formally determined if global rollbackers are allowed to use their tools. There hasn't been any formal policy about global rollback. Techman224Talk 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Global Rollbackers know what vandalism is, and have done it on many wikis. Techman224Talk 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Some people are good on some wikis, bad on others. As we have seen a few times here. Kennedy (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Misunderstood, I see it is granted by stewards and there are strict guidelines. Fair enough. Kennedy (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say there is an opt-in requirement for Global rollback, only global bots needs community approval, rollbackers are free to go whereever. -- Creol(talk) 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as It's not given out wily-nily; so no problems there. However, it's just another rule to make... instruction creep is bad. Please don't make this into an actual policy; we don't need one. MC8 (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, just say that global rollbackers are allowed as long they follow our rollback rules. Techman224Talk 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Simple English Wikipedia

All of the articles I see I understand. But I'm worried that not everyone who reads it will understand it. I don't think words like published, based and developed should be used. ♠Chocolates♠ 11:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those ones are that bad. In which article have you found those words? Kennedy (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halo 3, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and most gaming articles. ♠Chocolates♠ 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development is one of the basic words.
  • Published is not but we have an article on Publishing and the wikilink would help people to understand.
  • Base is a tricky word and although we have an article it may be that something might be more understandable if another word was used.
--Matilda (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while base is a bit tricky, the VOA Simple English word book does define the term in both its noun ("military base" not "Base of the tower") and verb ("based on the book") forms and it is listed as a BE850 word (same level as development)- "base - n. a military center; v. to establish as a fact ("Her research was based on experiments.")". -- Creol(talk) 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Chocolates, but you need a </font> at the end of your signature or else your sig font will continue down the page. Could you fix that? And the words you mentioned aren't that complex. If you think an article is complex, then add {{complex}} to it at the top. — RyanCross (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based:- Made from the ideas of... Developed from... First known as... Halo 2 was based on... :- The ideas for Halo 2 came from the first Halo game.
    • Published:- First sold... New version sold... This version sold... Halo 2 was published... :- Halo 2 was first sold on November 9, 2004.

~ R.T.G 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on BE850 words?

Following on from Creol's point above about the VOA Simple English word book defining base, our article on base doesn't cover the use as a verb. That was why I thought it might be tricky. If the intention is that it be understood in both forms, should the article be updated?

The article is currently categorised as a disambiguation page - should it have more cats - that is included in Category:Basic English 850 words.

Is a disambiguation page compatible with a page on a BE850 word? Should we have a separate article for disambiguation - ie Base (disambiguation) as well as the article on the word?

This issue may apply to other articles on BE850 words or similar categories.--Matilda (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Although there should be pages detailing each different meaning a word has, there should be no pages with (disambiguation) as it is the least simple of words for the term more or less. I think the article base and other articles should have a more suitable word to describe such as (list of meanings). ~ R.T.G 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Recently, I have been visiting other wikis to try to sort out my SUL, and it is very hard to find the page where I would request a usurp. Anyway, my point is that people coming here would find it difficult to locate WP:ANI to talk to admins. There is no link on the main page, in Useful pages, at the top of Simple talk or in Help. Perhaps we should make WP:ANI more accessible? Kennedy (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with it but, any experienced user or admin will type in WP:ANI into the search and show up on our admin noticeboard. Still, adding it in various places with the link should be fine. Synergy 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. They called it other things on other wikis, so it was difficult to find. Kennedy (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking this for new users (n00bs if you will) who don't know the WP:ANI code Kennedy (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm thinking perhaps have some sort of directory of helpful/important pages, and link that in the sidebar? ס (Samekh) Talk 11:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy: If you're a new user, you won't know what ANI is in the first place, which is why it won't matter to them. But it still needs to be put into certain things like the standard welcoming template, the block template, etc (if its not there already). Synergy 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, use proper termage, noeg. Not n00b: It is considered unconstructive, insultive, vandalism. 216.114.210.66 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static: yes, again

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

Some of you may or may not know that I have a bias in Static's situation (I'm using that lightly) but the moment I saw this I almost snapped. Static was told, by me, on irc that he must: become an honest editor on Simple English Wikiquote without vandalizing and resorting to the same shenanigans he was banned for, before the community would even think about bringing him back. To my knowledge, this has yet to happen. This "remedy" proposes that he be blocked up to three times or hes put back on his original ban. I see no evidence that he has changed. Hes banned. Do we really want this, here? Again? Your thoughts. Synergy 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where it is. I'm not deleting it. Two weeks is not enough time for change. We need to see a history of being a good contributor. Synergy 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an idea that Shapiros originally came up with. We're running it by WQ, but it's really consensus here that will decide on it. The proposed remedies will be put on Simple talk, and members of the community will either support, oppose, or not vote (abstain). But the time isn't right yet. ס (Samekh) Talk 21:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<nods> It needs about 2 more years. Synergy 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Synergy, leave this alone. Some users are creating a project. If you have a problem with it, you go to them. It's not even finished, Synergy! -- American Eagle (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone who goes by the two axioms, "One good turn deserves another" and in favour of returning the deed. He told me and nine of us fuck you. Thus, I say the same on proposed return. alexandra (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let this explode into another 50kb argument on whether or not Static should be allowed back. Voting will NOT happen, and in my opinion, we shouldn't even start to discuss this until all proposed 'methods' of rehabilitation are drafted and completed. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even used now, and I'm positive it'll be months...but I'd rather it stay on-wiki so it can be developed. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always tried to help him but he need to stay blocked...not banned.-- ✧ CM16  21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. That's the same thing. Banned only means that its either blocked forever by the community, or blocked indef and no sysop will overturn it (making it a de facto ban). Synergy 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my eyes as just blocked he has a chance banned he doesn't; I'm a case in point on that.-- ✧ CM16  23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even banned users can appeal their bans. Banned doesn't necessarily equal banished forevor. Anyway, that page is still a work in progress. ס (Samekh) Talk 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


DYK

I would like to bring to your attention that DYK has not been updated since the 5th of this month (the previous hooks were put there on the 4th, removed the next day).

  • There is one hook on Next Update
  • Another hook is on T:TDYK waiting
  • I have 4 hooks nominated on T:TDYK

DYK is kind of getting out of date. Someone needs to get it back up to speed. I am only saying this as posting 4 of my own hooks on the MP would be a bit of a bias.

--  Da Punk '95  talk  04:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are some unresolved issues at DYK and until they are sorted it is kind of in abeyance. Never post or approve your own nominations. --Matilda (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true (I don't participate there, as everyone knows), then we need to either quickly update it, or remove it from the main page until this gets sorted out. We shouldn't have stale items listed. Synergy 22:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK still inactive

Since DYK has not been updated since my last post, and the hooks there are now twenty-five days old (every over lot but the last was there for 3 days, last was there for one day), something needs to be done. Therefore, I am taking a strall poll to what should happen, as we still need two more hooks. Please feel free to add other ideas.

  • The hooks removed on the 5th of November are reinstated, as these were only up for one day
  • DYK is removed from the main page until we have a backlog of hooks
  • The DYK project is sent to RfD as inactive
  • The hooks at next update are posted, despite there being two more hooks needed
  • Nothing is done, we leave DYK to rot.

Please sign under as the option you support. --  Da Punk '95  talk  03:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - DYK updated. Will no longer be delayed - my aim is every three days. Archiving the !vote. BG7even 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option 1 - Reinstate November 4 2008 hooks

  1.  Da Punk '95  talk  03:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - Remove DYK from the main page

  1. Matilda (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. No point in reinstating old hooks; we should wait until there is a better participation and a more regular circulation of eligible articles before putting it back. RfD'ing it is a bit much though; it's worth keeping for the future. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I said this above, and I suppose it's what prompted this poll (as evil as it is). Synergy 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - Send DYK to a RfD

Option 4 - Post new hooks

  1. We need to get DYK active again. It's a great idea that needs to be expanded. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't see why we can't remove every proposal and start the whole process all over again, with a clean slate. Its a worthwhile project and definitely should not be shut down until all other approaches have been tried. FSM Noodly? 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not trying to shut it down, shut it down. Just remove it from the main page until we have more hooks. Not delete it or anything. :) Why have old hooks and info? Synergy 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've been inactive recently due to GCSE Exam Mocks, but now i'm active i'll get it up to speed... NOW! BG7even 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5 - Leave DYK as is

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

Majorly back

Hi all,

My laptop was stolen 4 November, so I've had extremely limited access to here, and Meta-wiki. My new computer arrived yesterday, so I should be back to normal now. Cheers, Majorly talk 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Majorly! Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get a mac. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PC > Macs. Macs ftl. ס (Samekh) Talk 02:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have typed in the right address in an infobox but it is not showing up. Why is this? Tharnton345 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the infobox (if you were referring to Ford Motor Company in your message. You had to replace 'website=' with 'homepage=' so that the code was recognised. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revisions

I want to propose Flagged Revisions here on Simple Wikipedia. I'm not sure what configuration settings should be, but if anyone's interested, make one. Thanks. Techman224Talk 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think flagged revisions creates more unnecessary work. We don't need it so why enable it? PeterSymonds (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeterSymonds. We don't need those kind of permissions to do tasks that can already be done like normal by any user. – RyanCross (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It allows us to flagged the revisions that are the best and then be shown to all users by default. It can also be used to flag Good Articles and Very Good Articles. Techman224Talk 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC Flagged revisions were introduced to fight vandalism. We currently do not have such levels of vandalism to warrant flagged revisions. Also, who do you think will do the flagging for the 40k articles? - The 30 users we currently have? --Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a slow process yes. Techman224Talk 17:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A slow and rather unnecessary one. 95% of vandalism is spotted in RC and instantly reverted. We don't have much vandalism, as Eptalon says, so the process is rather redundant. The bits we missed aren't enough to introduce flagged revs. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say we hold off. If vandalism levels do become too much to handle, we'll need this--but not now. Let's concentrate on creating more and better articles first. Malinaccier (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a global flag; either all articles have this property or none do. Please note that when it was introduced on the German Wikipedia, flagging was used to simply say this version of the article does not contain obvious vandalism. Besides, named users have a setting so they can say whether they want to see the latest version or the last flagged one. Believe me, it is currently useless. As to biographies of living people, can you point me to like 3 cases where obvious vandalism wasn't discovered for a long time?--Eptalon (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged revisions are a chore for us. What makes it difficult is that what we see and the anons see may be different, causing unnecessary confusion. Chenzw  Talk  05:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Class Project

Hi, where did the thread about Thailand class project go? I'm the teacher, and I finally remembered my old account name. Someone writing the December newsletter had asked me a few questions but I don't remember their name and can't see it anymore because I'm logged in. Ok thanks.

I think all groups have finished the peer editing process and are now adding links to references as I have instructed based on admin feedback. I want to check out their articles for another week or so before letting other users make edits.

Also, we are going to do another round of articles soon, does anyone have any requests for article topics? Maybe something about the current unrest in Bangkok...

Thanks everybody.

SECUTOR7 (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the thread is archived here: Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 48#Thailand Content Expansion Project. I also think that the style of the articles needs some improvement (see WP:MOS) and will try to be doing some style edits on the articles. Jonas D. Rand T 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I were the newsletter reporter asking for infomation. --  Da Punk '95  talk  02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you see yourself, it is necessary to archive Simple talk (currenlty done once or twice a month). In the long term, we need ot think about another way of announcing school projects, we haven't had that many yet. Another note: please do not modify archicved discussions, they are there for reference. --Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I typed in the right name for an image but it is not showing up. Why is this? Tharnton345 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Where is this happening? Giggy (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be an image from the Wikimedia Commons. If it's a fair use image from the English Wikipedia, it won't show up here. alexandra (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV-Check

I have just created a new system for POV's. {{POV-check}} (same as on ENWP). POV violations are put into Category:NPOV disputes, to be checked. Please put your objections on the Talk Page. Thanks --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say redirect to the preferred name. Synergy 02:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Please delete this documentation page. Thanks, ס (Samekh) Talk 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also {{Neutral}} dealing with the topic. Little need for more templates to point out NPOV issues. -- Creol(talk)

CfA updated

Hello all,

given we had some update/undo yesterday, I updated the respective section; To clarify:

  • There is no lower age limit for admins or bureaucrats (though it helps if they are able to write by themselves)
  • As per the source linked, CheckUsers need to be 18 or considered to be an adult where they live (whichever is higher)

There are no other changes I made.--Eptalon (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Eptalon. – RyanCross (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_49&oldid=8893331"