Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 29

WP → Wikipedia shortcut

Pleeaase can someone sort of powerful admin-like person consider making the change. On the English-language version, typing WP in a link will automatically expand to Wikipedia, saving time (No, I'm not just lazy, I'm not just lazy, I'm not just lazy).

Of course, this might complicate things, but what with Parser functions and templates and everything I reckon it's worth it to speed things up.

However, I'm just being lazy, so don't sweat :)

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? --Isis♠(talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good solution, but I'm afraid I don't know how, and I'm sure it's a protected page, probably a special page. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, actually, it would be much better to create a disambiguation page. But to redirect a page, you just click the red link to WP (or whatever article you want to redirect), then put #REDIRECT [[name of article to redirect to]]. Also, even if the page you are redirecting to is protected, you can still create redirects to the page without a problem. --Isis♠(talk) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done You know what, I think I goofed. I may have confused myself. Sorry, and thanks for the help( :) ), Drum guy (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I confused myself, thinking it was part of the MediaWiki software that had been customised to automatically change WP to Wikipedia in namespaces; I don't think that's right. I really appreciate your input :) Drum guy (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record: an administrator can't do what is asked here. What is asked here is called "aliasing", because it makes "WP" an "alias" for "Wikipedia"; only developers with suitable access can do this change. - Huji ^reply 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, cool, thanks very much! Could I contact one? Would people think it was helpful for it to be changed? Drum guy (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

I would like to know whether this Wikipedia attempts to be appropriate for children in terms of image censorship. You say that your main targets are adults learning English and editors translating between Wikipedia languages, but with a little bit of censorship this would be very useful for children. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

as to What Wikipedia is not we do not adapt the language or images for special groups. When you find images, they will generally be tasteful, or they can be considered art (like from a museum); Some graphics show the facts as they are, and not as they are supposed to look for a certain audience. As you might expect, the article about breasts, has some images showing breasts, as an example. --Eptalon (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this is an encyclopedia! Encyclopedias are supposed to have images that may be a little graphic; otherwise, how would you go about getting a picture of a, for example, penis, or vagina? Those were just some examples of topics where images would be extremely helpful in understanding the topic better while having the pictures not be appropriate for children. If we were to censor these kinds of images, it would cripple our ability to provide the best possible information on a bunch of topics. What people should do instead of suggesting that Wikipedia get censored is to censor your children from being able to access this site if you are so worried that they will come onto this site. I hope this explination has helped you out in your quest. Cheers, Razorflame 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arctic, I don't like it anymore than you do but it's the way they are...I do think a Medical drawing of breast would be better than the actual thing an much more informative. But I'm not getting into a fight like this again cause it got me banned on enWP--  † ChristianMan16  22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a thin line between nudity and necessary content. A photo is nearly always more explicit than a drawing and rather than keeping a child's mind pure by denying him information, we are keeping him ignorant. This has already happened on En Wiki, I believe.

There is even a quote from our old friend Jeffpw on that page: "photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV" --Gwib ^-(talk)- 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) By holding the camera, focussing to a certain point, chosing the angle of view (etc) you are already interpreting reality.Not to mention, that in the time of image editing tools everywhere, you cannot really say that a photo is better than a painting. For myself, I'd prefer more educated children, even if this means that at some point in time they need to be shown how things really look. As to the article about breasts, it heavily needs cleanup/extending. --Eptalon (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(I can't believe I'm getting into this agian...I'll try my best to keep a cool head this time) What if they were your kids? Would you want them to see the real thing before they were like 16?--  † ChristianMan16  17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Children should start being taught about sexuality from an early age. They should be taught to speak openly and frankly about real life so they don't become embarrassed or scared about talking about it when they finally get to puberty. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to agree with that, EchoBravo. There is no logical reason why a child is going to be disturbed by the type of nudity on Wikipedia. Please guys, think about this properly rather than immediately switching to "think of the children". Our aim on Wikipedia is to educate, and therefore we must provide children with the best possible information on sexuality. By censoring this material, we encourage a culture of shame which is totally ridiculous. If children are old enough to be able to get to this website and type in an article name like that, they're old enough to handle it easily. Archer7 - talk 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily it could be some horny teenager looking for some free soft porn.--  † ChristianMan16  20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So? Why is that a bad thing? -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I also really doubt they're doing that. They'd be better off for using their imagination and doing a google image search. I mean good grief, there are a lot more graphic images available on the internet than on wikipedia. -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your condoning teens doing/looking at porn.--  † ChristianMan16  23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot worse things they could be doing. How's the old saying go? "Sex can wait, masturbate?" Better looking at porn than having sex at that age. -  EchoBravo  contribs  00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From a Christian POV it doesn't matter both are just as bad as the other. But from a non-Christian POV your right...But I'll stick with a Christian POV.--  † ChristianMan16  04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues and disclaimers

There is a (in my opinion) quite important discussion going on at Wikipedia:General disclaimer.

If not important because I think it is, the important because I added a link to en:Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and I'm not a legal person ... (don't worry, I'm sure I haven't broken anything, although it has slightly annoyed the formatting.) :)

Many thanks! Drum guy (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Literature

I know we have most of the basic classics down (Just a few of many: Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Odyssey, Animal Farm, I'll even go as far as to say Harry Potter). But what about other books. Like New York Times bestsellers? Children and Young Adult books that have been on the New York Times bestseller lists, too? Should there be articles created on such books? So far, I haven't created any such articles, because I guess I'm coming from a different direction than anyone here, based on the sketchy knowledge I know of old classic novels and how much I know about certain other kinds of literature. I think some "modern books" (is there a better term?) have become notable enough to have their own articles here, considering the sheer number of people who actually read these books.

Is there any...guideline or policy I may not have noticed dealing this sort of thing? Because when you look at it from from a certain perspective, all the missing literature articles here are a huge gap in this encyclopedia. Plenty of music articles. Literature, all kinds, is just as important. --Isis♠(talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of that could conflict is notability (Which probably is not an issue, once th story won an award of some kind. Harry Potter is a childrens' book, not really liteature). And as always, when you create articles about some subject, start with the better known before you do the more obscure. --Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

I am annoyed by the talk about it, people know about it, and the only reason to keep it is for people looking for that kind of stuff. Wikipedia should be for everyone, not just for adults and that kids should be blocked from this Family-Friendly (Or at least I thought) site. We need to keep this site at least a little bit accountable, unlike 99% of the rest of the web! Powerfully and Purposely yours, AmericanEagle 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

... You are annoyed by the talk of censorship? Because people know about censorship? And why exactly would people be looking for censorship? Also, in my opinion, this site is accountable - for providing information. -- Creol(talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not annoyed with people talking 'bout it, but just in a "It's for research purposes" way, What? If you want to see that, go look at almost all of the other sites on the web. I just want Simple to be clean, and safe... for everybody! See? AmericanEagle 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would people talk about censorship for research purposes? For that matter who would actually go looking for sites that contain censorship just for censorship's sake? All this annoyance you have about censorship makes one wonder why you seem to have an issue with Simple since we have a policy against it.. -- Creol(talk) 04:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NO!!! I am annoyed because people said it is fine 'cause we need to have more information, not that their talking about it. And you go to the sites to see whats underneath their "censored" content, not to see it covered up. AmericanEagle 04:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just getting more confusing.. You are not annoyed with people talking about censorship, just annoyed because they say censorship is fine because we need more information? Now you clearly stated right of the bat that you were annoyed with people talking about censorship, but we'll move on from that contradiction. Who is saying censorship is fine? and how would they say it is fine because we need information. Censorship removes information, it does not add it. Censorship is bad and against policy. It is not fine. Also if censorship on sites is being covered up, why would we be looking at what is under it and not what it was under? And what site would cover up censorship? This whole conversation is realy making little to no sense.. -- Creol(talk) 05:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW. This is confusing. OK, I was only saying I don't like improper things on Simple (That's not for kids). Oh, I'm a kid too! I think that rather than censorship, we should not have the things that need to be censored. Here what drives home my point, it's what RazorFlame said "If we were to censor these kinds of images, it would cripple our ability to provide the best possible information on a bunch of topics", No it keep the mind of kids (And adults) pure. I disagree with that. I agree with what ChristianMan16 said to take a medical drawing or something like that rather than any nudity , which is what I meant about other sites, they have nudity... a lot! Understand? AmericanEagle 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a thin line between nudity and necessary content. A photo is nearly always more explicit than a drawing and rather than keeping a child's mind pure by denying him information, we are keeping him ignorant. This has already happened on En Wiki, I believe.

There is even a quote from our old friend Jeffpw on that page: "photos show the reality, while paintings interpret the reality, and are thus POV" --Gwib ^-(talk)- 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how old you are, but I am still young. I know what nudity and other related content does to a young mind. I am not pushing for paintings, just that we be concerned with who is reading (and seeing) the content on Simple. It does not keep us ignorant, just protected. Many parents trust wikipedia to be a safe and useful tool for their child's use, and not wanting their child to exposed to things they're not ready for. Just because things are real, doesn't mean they are good for kids, teens, and adults. Like I said I am still young and need to go to bed. Thanks for talking with me Creol and Gwib, Good Night, AmericanEagle 05:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. now you are for censorship? You started of saying you were annoyed by the talk about it and that people know about it, and the only reason to keep it is for people looking for that kind of stuff. That pretty much says you are against it. Now you say rather than censorship (still sounds like you are against censorship) we should not have the things that need to be censored. Removing things that need to be censored is censoring and thereby censorship. You also say that you are annoyed because people said it is fine although you never say which people say that censorship is fine. You say that Razorflame says that censorship is not fine, but that doesn't seen to answer the question of who thinks it fine. It is somehow the whole point here that RF says censorship is bad, which you stated in your opening senctence, but then you go off and say things should be censored to protect mental purity that the nudity on 99% of other websites have. (not that I have been to a significant crosssection of sites to quantitatively state how many have nudity, but if 99% of the sites you know of contain this problem, you may want to rethink the site you go to.. you know of way too many internet porn sites.)

When dealing with mental purity and the young, I would only wonder how it can be so damaging when the purest amongst us see a naked brest every time they feed. I would think you saw a penis or vagina (one or the other depending on sex) every time you bathed. Has this made you impure? The four-year old boy who goes into the changing room at the local pool with him mother and sisters (while his dad is off at work) - is all that female nudity making him impure? Apparently impurity is an age related issue. It does not seem to apply to very young children. Only those that can understand that it makes them impure can be made impure by it.. It seems it would be easier just to not let people know it can make them impure. That way it wouldn't affect them and they would stay safely pure.

As to "not wanting their children exposed to something they are not ready for", again - Newborn suckle naked brests.. they are pretty much ready for naked brests from the time they exit the womb (and that is not even going so far as to comment on vagina.. they just passed through one after all). Nudity is something we are all born ready for.. its as we get older it gets to be a bed thing.. naked old people.. *Shudders* I would be more worried about children and My Lai. -- Creol(talk) 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I really wonder where this is going? - This site is an encyclopedia, it is supposed to provide information. As to the no nudity discussion, this is ridiculous, most of us have seen the other sex nude by the time we turn 10. And now, based on some view (partly instilled by Puritanism), they tell us that we should rather use graphics than the actual image? - I agree, a cross-section of a breast to show what is where, and how things work may be a worthwile graphic in the article. There are some images currently in the article that show how things look (really, photos of breasts). These photos really are without any sexual content. Don't tell me please the image of a baby being breastfed turns you on? - Our prime goal here is to provide information. There are plenty of other sites out there where it is much easier to get (also more sexual) images. I am ready to discuss replacing some images by others, which are better suited for the purpose; I am not ready to leave out explicit images for the sake of protecting a certain group of people against themselves. --Eptalon (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see how the photos like we have here will corrupt young minds. Everything that Creol and Eptalon have said is true. We've had this discussion so many times in the past - Wikipedia is not censored. Archer7 - talk 09:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would further like to state that if we were to remove images like a picture of a breast from the article about breasts or a picture of a penis from the article about a penis, we would be crippling our ability to provide our users with the best possible information for the artciles. I would rather us have the pictures of the breasts and penises in their respective articles rather than us not having any at all because I know that there are people out there that learn better through images instead of words. Would you want to deny the users who are like that from the ability to learn through images instead of words? Just some food for thought... Razorflame 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I came across this and I couldn't resist adding my two cents. Nudity on Wikipedia is inappropriate. If children want to learn about sexual behavior or body parts, they should ask their parents. If adults are looking for that type of thing, they're sick. Those who defend the nudity here on Wikipedia are pornographers. End of story. --Andrew from NC (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, think about this: if someone types in "penis" or something of the like into Wikipedia, then they are no doubt trying to find information on the subject they are looking for. If the way of incorporating a maximum amount of learning material into the article is by adding a picture, then so be it, but if someone tpes it in without wanting to learn about it, then they should be know at least that there may just be a picture of one up there. Also, if a child must ask his or her parents about a topic, then why dont they just do that, why do they look it up on Wikipedia?

Finally, those who defend the nudity on these pages have resons for doing so, like the ones I mentioned above, and to all those who want it removed, make a good enough reason apart from moral backgrounds, which do not affect those who would like to learn about the article's subject, and we may just start to see things your way. Telling people that they are pornographers is just your own personal view, and if you are to make this comment to Wikipedia, why do you not make it to all the other sites that host this material, such as google, yahoo and others. --Kiamnomch - talk 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Those same parents should be monitoring their children's use of the internet regardless, same for teachers at school. Parents also normally do a poor job of explaining sexuality so I bet the kids would best get their info from wikipedia. And also, more importantly, I personally don't like being called a pornographer nor do the others I would imagine. This constitutes a personal attack, so I suggest you do not do it again. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, do you want us to censor all the wrist, neck, hair and ankle photos in wikipedia because it might offend our Muslim viewers? Nudity (or amount thereof) is relative according to countless external circumstances. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Wow, you have really missed the point.

• Kiamnomch said to "make a good enough reason apart from moral backgrounds." I can't do that. My "moral background" (a.k.a. Christianity) is my life. And those who do not see it this way are wrong. They are not wrong because I say they are wrong, I am a sinful human being just like the rest of you. They are wrong because God says they are wrong.
• Kiamnomch asked "if you are to make this comment to Wikipedia, why do you not make it to all the other sites that host this material such as Google, Yahoo, and others?" The difference is that these sites have filters that keep viewers from seeing pornographic images unless they are sick minded and turn the filter off. Ideally porn would not be on the internet, but seeing as it is, it is always a good idea to have a filter. Wikipedia does not, and that is wrong.
• Gwib asked "Honestly, do you want us to censor all the wrist, neck, hair and ankle photos in wikipedia because it might offend our Muslim viewers?" No, I don't. Wrists, necks, hair, and ankles are not pornographic. In this case the Muslims are wrong, not Wikipedia.
• EchoBravo said "I personally don't like being called a pornographer." I'm sure murderers don't like being called murderers either, but that doesn't change the fact that they are murderers. It is good that you don't like being called a pornographer. Perhaps that will lead you to change your ways.

My point is that nudity is not necessary on Wikipedia. I know that most parents don't teach their children the way they should. But that is not an excuse for Wikipedia to host porn. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is no reason why someone would come looking for a sexual article unless they were up to no good. Please forgive my frankness, but I know where my sexual parts are and how to use them (in a biblical manor, mind you). I don't need Wikipedia to tell me. --Andrew from NC (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wrote a really long message in response to that challenging the logic of every single point, but I don't want this to continue any longer. Do not call us pornographers again. That is a personal attack, and this is now your second warning. Archer7 - talk 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that discussions go on for as long as the admins like, but as soon as they start to feel a little bit offended they end the discussion and dish out warnings for personal attacks. Can you spell "double standards"? I'm sorry the pornographers are unable to see the truth. --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

People try to stop the conversations when it's clear they don't go anywhere - the vast majority of people are in favour of our current policy. Andrew, you are perfectly welcome to think that I am a pornographer because of my views on this, but please try not to offend people on-wiki - that's all I'm asking :). Discussions don't go anywhere if people call each other names, people just get annoyed. There really is no point arguing - let's just move on and make an encyclopedia. Archer7 - talk 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion to you, do not take this the wrong way, but I think that if all you are going to do is complain, then you might as well leave. It is good that you are an editor here, and even better that you have created a wikiproject that seems to be going well, but if you sign up and come to the Simple English Wikipedia often, be prepared to accept the things on this site.

if your real aim is to erase all nudity on wikipedia, then start small, like making your own wikipedia where Christians and other religious people will join and create a religiously balanced wikipedia, all Wikipedias are created equal and I hope that if you do this, then many people will see your view and rally to your cause. It is a simple process to create a wikipedia, and it is almost immediately added to the front pages of all the other wikipedias, so word should spread fast. I hope that you are able to solve this nudity problem some time, but do not expect it to be on this Wikipedia, as we work hard to incorporate all knowledge possible into our site and make it a good place for learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiamnomch (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy of calling us pornographers when you're above reference above: Muslims have it wrong not wikipedia. The bigotry reflected in that statement blows my mind. The nonacceptance of multiple points of view goes against everything wikipedia stands for and the tenants of most of the world where freedom of speech and religion hold true. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship - pros and cons - Simple.wiki says it is for children to understand

Support I am all for this. Defining suitable censorship is difficult and controversial. Nobody who says "censorship is not worthwhile" is concerned with protecting or keeping safe people and, by and large, they say so. They say "You would censor everything and we dont want to keep it safe". By and large they have interests in stuff not allowed for children and censorship threatens the stuff being everywhere. Simple.wiki clearly makes out that its purpose is for children and non-english speakers. There is a priceless value in promoting children/public friendliness and Jimbo Wales put out a video recently showing how laptops given out to children in poor countries have links to wikipedia. For a good example of the results of non censorship see "Sexual intercourse" on en.wiki. "Human sexual intercourse" directs to this page. There are pictures of men and women on their backs. Men having other men sex and captions like "the reverse missionary position". The only picture of naturally positioned sex is of two lions and at the bottom of the page, beside the "Wikiproject Love" box, there are dozons of links such as "infantilism", "sex toys", "swinging", "asexual", "rape", "sex magic", "sex in space", and "sexual slang". This is a product of "Non-Censorship". ~ R.T.G 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, what is there to discuss here? Wikipedia doesn't allow censorship. End of story. Some people may like not that we don't censor. These people either need to learn how to cope with this fact, or leave. People are starting to make this personal, are attacking others and calling names. This "discussion"/"vote"/"argument" or whatever you want to call it is nothing but destructive to the community. Let's just accept the non-censorship and move on with creating an encyclopedia as Archer7 suggested above.· Tygrrr... 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, your prefered method is destructive to the credibility and respect of the wiki. Jimbo Wales is promoting how wikipedia is being given directly to third world children as the reason to fund Wikipedia and claims he got a poor response. The Wikipedian response to pro-censorship consists of four incivil things ignorance / discredit integrity / compare to murderous oppression / crazyness or abuse. ~ R.T.G 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I could make sense of what you're saying, I'd reply. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you just said. · Tygrrr... 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what don't you understand? ~ R.T.G 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the words you've typed, just not the order you wrote them in. I have no idea what point you're trying to make because your sentences don't make sense. · Tygrrr... 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thats okay. They wont make much difference. ~ R.T.G 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Provocative statement

• Badly informing about what sexuality is about (sex education) can lead to unwanted pregnancies or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
• Unwanted pregnancies in teenagers may end in abortions; this constitutes a risk for the teenager. Alternatively, if the teenager is not allowed to have an abortion, she will either have to give the child up for adoption (may be immoral), or she has to forgo most chances of rise in social status. In other words: a teenage pregnancy probably ruins your life.
• Some sexually transmitted diseases can be avoided using contraception, such as condoms

For this reason, I think our interest is higher in informing our users about those facts, than the interest of protecting whoever of seeing some images deemed unsafe or immoral. The alternatives are to either force teenage mothers to live miserably, or we endanger them with abortion (which some see as immoral as well). This is my last statement on the subject. I propose to close the discussion about it now; there are no new points, so everything is settled.--Eptalon (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

There's a new Wikiproject out there. Military history. Just sign up if you'd like to join. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Parents Control

What I am saying by all this, is that I believe is that parents should decide what their child sees, not editors on wikipedia. Once a child turns 6 or 7 (the age where they learn to do right or wrong), they begin to be tempted for things. A young child has no concept of things of nudity. On the page telling how to write a good article it says "First, think about your readers... Other readers may be young (they may be children)..." Instead of just saying by ten, we've seen everything, we should let the parent of a kid keep control, and for many, they are offended. Why don't we put graphics on several articles instead of full nudity, that isn't stopping us from giving all the information, just making Simple useful for everyone. AmericanEagle 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the solution is that parents be responsible and monitor their children's use of the internet. Nothing of the sort you are suggesting is needed. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is rather than clean up Simple, we should just hope parents don't let their kids on here? Why not make it usable to Everybody? Which is what Simple is all about; making it Simple and usable for all. AmericanEagle 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that is what they do anyway. It is not on us to restrict ourselves because parents are incapable or unwilling to monitor what their children do on the Internet. Personally, I'd be more worried my child is chatted up to meeting a pedophile than by the harm that is done by them reading up (and seeing related, explicit) images of human anatomy. And before criticising us for using explicit images, please look at en:vagina,en:penis,en:breast and compare them with what we have here; You will find that they also contain similar images. As you can read in Nudity, adults may feel uneasy (or ashamed) naked. Making the feeling go away may take a little as a length of string. As since you seem come from the Puritan school: Please note that marriage contracts were not valid if the groom proved to be impotent; also, that the wife was disciplined if she refused to have sex during marriage. Also, be sure to read en:Excommunication. There you will read that (according to the Roman Catholic Church):

• Those who habitually lack the use of reason are considered to be incapable of a delict, even if they violated a law or precept while seemingly sane. (Canonical Law 1322)
• The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept..: 1. a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age, 2. a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance (Canon, 1323) (links to both law texts in English)

This is by the way the same definition used in most law texts (though of course, the age varies).. In short, parents are responsible for their children.--Eptalon (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If by "clean up", you mean delete appropriate content then I disagree. By your logic, we should delete (or 'clean up') every article which could be viewed as inappropriate to any population (saying otherwise would be discriminatory). This includes articles such as God paradox (for Christians), Hair (for Muslims) or even every article ending in "man" such as Chairman since it could be viewed as sexist. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Right... I'm sure you serious. Why are you defending this so much? I am not kidding, we can work in not offending other people with Hair, Men, and God. But I, and I'm sure others, think that at least Simple (I know Wikipedia is even worse) can be a place where parents can feel safe about letting their kids visiting for research, not hoping and watching to make sure their kids don't stumble into explicit images that some are saying "Without it, we can't give all the necessary information". A parent should be the one to talk and reveal in their own timeline such content, not for editors. Right? AmericanEagle 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is leading nowhere. So: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is official policy here. It states: Wikipedia does not provide censorship to minors. This can distort the facts of an article. - Thanks for your understanding. --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note: have a look at en:Wikipedia:Options to not see an image--Eptalon (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what your saying is: Simple is for adults, and kids should always be monitored by their parents, even on simple. But that is what I'm saying, I want it to be useful for everybody in this way, not only for adults and unmonitored kids. If everybody is against me than I will submit, I am just one editor. AmericanEagle 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line: Wikipedia's not censored. Tasteful, educational pictures are chosen for articles wherever possible. You act like we've got a picture of a wet t-shirt contest on the breast page instead of a black-and-white diagram and a painting of a mother breast-feeding. If that's too wild, racy or shocking for you, I believe that sounds like a personal issue and is far from a compelling argument to change a long-standing valued policy of Wikipedia. Your options boil down to two: 1. accept that we're not censored and that we do our best to make sure images in articles have an illustrative, educational purpose and aren't just be there to shock or 2. leave. It's as simple as that. · Tygrrr... 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Censorship_-_pros_and_cons_-_Simple.wiki_says_it_is_for_children_to_understand ~ R.T.G 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy change..

Spured by the discussion above, I think WP:NOT should be changed, the following way:

Item 6 currently reads: Wikipedia does not provide censorship to minors. This can distort the facts of an article.

I propose to change this to: Wikipedia does not provide censorship to special groups of users, such as children, political or religious communities. Such censorship can distort the facts of an article.

Open to suggestions. --Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe change the "special" to something like "particular" or even just take it out altogether? Special seems like a euphemism and isn't really necessary. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

certain, specific, particular ? --Eptalon (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with this change so long as the change is read Wikipedia does not provide censorship to certain groups of users, such as.... That is the change that I think should be spurred into motion by this.

Also, while we are at this, can we add a new section to WP:NOT stating that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm/link repository if it isn't already on there? Cheers, Razorflame 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Already there, two items up. --Eptalon (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just making sure :) Razorflame 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(triple edit confiict)Wikipedia does not provide censorship to groups of people. This includes schools, polital parties, religious groups, and the like. Thats my $0.02 worth on how it should be worded. But I Support the whole idea, having read the last topic. Also, I Support Razorflames proposal. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I am fine with anything as long as

• It is clear we don't censor
• It is clear that the groups listed are just examples--Eptalon (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide censorship to groups of people under any circumstance, including schools, polital parties, religious groups, to name a few - is that clear that those groups are just examples? --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, that makes more sense, it should include more than just one thing like Religious and political issues. AmericanEagle 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Da Punk '95's proposal looks much better than mine. --Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add this: Wikipedia is not a poll to the list of What Wikipedia is Not. Otherwise, your suggestion is even better than mine Da Punk :) I fully support your decision Da Punk :0 Razorflame 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with what de punk said, just get the spelling right with Political :]

What's wrong with the simple and straight-forward "Wikipedia is not censored. Censorship can change the facts of an article."? · Tygrrr... 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Censorship_-_pros_and_cons_-_Simple.wiki_says_it_is_for_children_to_understand ~ R.T.G 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you oppose...? The oppose template is not a replacement for discussion and should not be used as such. Thanks. Also, this section is only discussing the wording of the policy, not the policy itself, which really is not up for debate. You're in the wrong place if you discussing anything other than the proposed wording of the policy. · Tygrrr... 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear section. I have a clear link to my discussion on the matter. You dont seem to know what you're on about. I see votes. I understand what the vote is about. I agree that this is not the place for the vote. I wish to show my opinion and bring attention to [1]. I believe this is futile. But I do believe. [2] ~ R.T.G 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Archer7's Tip of the Day: Did you know... that every time you start a poll, a puppy dies? Polling really isn't an alternative to discussion. Take a read of m:Don't vote on everything for some good reasons why. Archer7 - talk 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[3] ~ R.T.G 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tygrrr: your proposal looks good too. The main thing here is to keep it as simple as possible, so it is easy to understand. --Eptalon (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Changed to:Wikipedia is not censored. Censorship can change the facts of an article.--Eptalon (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Is it just me, or are we voting on everything now? I think we should probably stop, per m:Don't_vote_on_everything. Maybe I've just got too annoyed by the string of Benniguy votes, but I can't stand seeing all the supports and opposes (perhaps a bad attitude for a bureaucrat). I much preferred things in the form of "Shall we do this" - "I like it" - "I like this better" - "Me too" - "And me" - "Done!". Archer7 - talk 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, I think we are voting more than we should. Oysterguitarist 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, I do think voting on many things gives users a purpose. But get the point. AmericanEagle 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably like voting more than most and I think votes are popping up more often. If there were consenus to have a vote on an issue that's one thing, but that's not what is happening. Somebody pipes "Well let's just vote on this," and then certain users just add fuel to the fire by jumping in with a "Support" or other like "yes" or "no" comment before someone who has thought about it a little more steps in. I know I and some other admins have chimed in with something like "you guys know this doesn't mean anything, right?" and the less experienced users start asking "why?" and we have to go through the hoops of explaining what consensus means and then they still don't understand. I think it starts on the RfA page. We've had some users who literally create their account and put up a RfA. I get on in the morning and there literally are established, regular users who have voted "oppose" instead of doing the obvious thing and archiving the request and pointing the user to our criteria page. -  EchoBravo  contribs  00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I also feel like as a community we're voting excessively and using it as a replacement for discussion. I think it's mostly a bad thing, but if we all back up our "support" or "oppose" with a thoughtful reasoning, it's tolerable. For what it's worth, I think this situation has been fueled by the {{support}} and {{oppose}} templates. It needs to be clear that using such a template is not a replacement for discussions. · Tygrrr... 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with all the points that have been brought up or that have yet to be brought up. I believe that we are voting more than we should, and I believe that we are not a poll. We should not vote on every single issue, because, for one thing, Wikipedia is not for voting, but for concensus. Voting should not replace concensus and it should not replace discussion. From what I have seen, people are just putting in the support or oppose template into almost every single discussion, and for one, I am completely sick of it. I created the {{support}} and {{oppose}} templates solely for the purpose of using them on the RfA, RfD, VGA, and GA process pages, and from what I have seen, they have been abused and completely used without disregard. If this continues, then I will have to ask that they be deleted because I don't want anything that I create to be used in these ways. What we should do is instead of voting on every single issue, we should instead reach concensus first before initiating a vote; and even in these cases, a vote might not be appropriate. As far as I can tell, they have been used in inappropriate ways, and I would like people to stop using them on any page outside of the RfA, RfD, VGA process, and GA process pages. Thank you for reading this long message, Razorflame 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New log?

As I was looking through the Special:Logs page, I noticed a new log has appeared in the list of logs: Global account management log. Just thought that I would let everyone know about this new log, as I have never seen this log before. Cheers, Razorflame 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I saw it too. What can people do with Global account management privileges? No-one even has them. Necknoise 09:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CfA made into guideline.

Hello,

we have been living happily with our Criteria for Adminship page. I have therefore changed its status from proposed guideline to guideline. --Eptalon (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you on this move Eptalon. We have been using this page and living happily with this page (as you put it yourself) and I, for one, have been constantly referring to this page and referring new users who wish to become administrators in the future to this page. Since we have been using this page so heavily, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be a guideline. Cheers, Razorflame 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm while I disagree with a lot of what is written there, I suppose it is pretty much a guideline now. Majorly (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with some points, why have they not been raised? - I mean as everything, it is up for discussion, but the fact that there were no relevant changes to the page, or its talk page tells me that we pretty much use it as a guideline; hence the replacement of the proposed guideline flag. --Eptalon (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the objectionable things are no longer there (one was request for an absurdly high edit count that I personally didn't meet). Majorly (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon, That is to becommunity discussed before it's changed from proposed to official. I'm changing it back till we have a community consensus.--  † ChristianMan16  17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the change to guideline instead of proposed guideline. Most people should and probably do understand that a guideline calls for general guidance and not to the letter adherence like a policy would. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, silence equals agreement here. If anyone has any objections or suggestions of changes, please bring them up now. If there aren't any within a few days I think we can safely change it to a guideline. Everyone already treats it like a guideline anyway so I don't feel like Eptalon's jumped to any outrageous conclusions here. · Tygrrr... 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we'll solve this problem now.--  † ChristianMan16  18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the poll. We don't need to vote on it. Majorly (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me where it says that. Cause last I checked it had to be voiced approval from the community to be approved.--  † ChristianMan16  18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

m:Don't_vote_on_everything. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, that poll was a consensus poll. Which doesn't fall under what you just showed me.--  † ChristianMan16  19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Most people have voiced approval above. It doesn't always have to be in the form of a poll. Majorly (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easier to read a confirm though or at least use the {{support}}/{{oppose}} templates on your comments.--  † ChristianMan16  19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ChristianMan, if you have a specific issue with the content of the page that makes you not want to have it as a guideline, please voice it now. If not, you have nothing constructive to add to this conversation. A vote is not needed. The conversation we are having right now will suffice (as others have already said). · Tygrrr... 19:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I just want to see that community does approve by voicing it before it's move to official status. And it hasn't long enough for people to do so. Give it time is all I ask plus use the templates I mentioned above.--  † ChristianMan16  19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

7 months is plenty long for people to have seen it, make changes, and voice disapproval. Giving it a few days for people to voice any last-minute disapproval is more than generous. How can you possibly take issue with that? · Tygrrr... 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't but it hasn't been a few days and people are already changing the template saying it's been approved and promoted which hasn't happened.--  † ChristianMan16  19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ChristianMan, you may wish to look at the section above called 'Voting' to see why we're so reluctant. When we have a vote, it means people are more inclined just to throw a support vote in rather than raise a new point. Archer7 - talk 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I now understand now why u don't like voting but this is protocol on enWP and I think it should be applied here for the sake of having something everyone likes.--  † ChristianMan16  19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A few days starting now. Once again, unless you have any disapproval of the actual page, you have nothing more to add to this conversation. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)The only problem I have with this page is this line: Candidates should also be familiar with editing. For this reason, a user should have at least several hundred edits in this Wikipedia. . I think that we need to define what is meant by several hundred edits. I mean, which section are they talking about? My take on this is at least several hundred edits to the mainspace. Also, there is no set definied number for several hundred edits. I think we should come up with either a set number of edits in the mainspace or a set percentage of edits for the mainspace. I would like to suggest at least 500 mainspace edits, or 50% of a person's edits to the mainspace. What do you guys think about this plan? Also, I would like to add some points to this area of the Criteria for Adminship. I would like to add a clause that states that a user should know how to revert changes to a page, and also that candidates know how to use the Quick Deletion and RfD tags. Cheers, Razorflame 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in, the article you are all voting about needs wikified. I would suggest moving [4] to between "Definitions" and "Who can become..." And rewording it : "Possible candidates can file a request to become an administrator at the Request for adminship page. This is called self-nomination. A named editor can nominate another editor to become an Administrator. All requests are decided by voting. The nonminated person must accept the nomination (only persons who want to be an administrator will be voted on) and the nominated person must meet these requirements:"

Then would add an underlined heading "Voting" above "Who can vote". And alter the heading "Successful requests", possibly moving it to the bottom as an underlined heading. ~ R.T.G 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CFA template was once again changed from Proposed to official which is not true until Thursday if approved...could an admin please change it back.--  † ChristianMan16  23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, ChristainMan, no one set a deadline on when the discussion is over. · Tygrrr... 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

no exact date but it said to wait a couple of days for opinions.--  † ChristianMan16  00:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)When the CfA were discussed originally, the following problems came up:

• No agreement could be reached on the number of edits (beyond the several hundred edits), thats why they are there
• This is (or should be) a guideline; I do not want to turn down a candidate based on an absolute number of edits required. In other words, if the gudeline said 400 edits and the candidate only had 300; but was fine otherwise, I want them to be able to get admin status.

On a side-note: It is not that hard ot get to several hundred edits (mostly outside User/Talk namespace) in the three months given.

Guidelines are there to work with them. They are not policy, but most (active) editors will agree with most of the guideline. --Eptalon (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we went with the wording purposefully for its vagueness. I like the vagueness. And like others and I have said before, this is a guideline not a policy. -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, except for my additions on CheckUsers (last monh), this guideline was not really touched since the end of last year. Therefore, I assumed everyone was fine with it (Silence is consent, see this article), and made the change. --Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Template found on en.wiki possibly not suitable

Can be seen on this page: Robert H. Grubbs ~ R.T.G 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the state that it was, I would have to say that it wasn't suitable for the Simple English Wikipedia. However, now, after I went and simplified it, I now believe it to be completely suitable for this site. Cheers, Razorflame 20:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How is {{expand}} significantly different from {{sectstub}}? I suggest a simple redirect. · Tygrrr... 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest a redirect, but {{sectstub}} should redirect to {{expand}}. I like graphics and I understand the message better when it is in picture form :) Razorflame 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its looking better. Maybe for medium size articles this template is better than the stub. ~ R.T.G 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback/Patroller rights

Can we enable rollback and patroller for users to request? I wish I could use rollback here, and be able to patrol new articles. --Maxim_(talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is patrolling new articles enabled here? --Maxim_(talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling articles probably isn't worth it, though rollback might be nice. Majorly (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We have new page patrol enabled but it's only used occasionally. You can find the old discussion about rollback here - it didn't really lead anywhere. Archer7 - talk 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that I would rather that rollback was given to users who would use it on this Wikipedia. I, for one, am completely tired of having to go through the reversion process of going through the history and having to click on the date and stuff like that. I would rather have rollback enabled so that I can be able to quickly deal with incidents as they happen so that, in the cases of mass vandalism, I would be able to revert things quickly so that I can protect the integrity of this Wikipedia. I would really like to see rollback given to users upon request in the future, and I would really like it if you would do it. Cheers, Razorflame 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'undo' button might make it a little quicker for you, Razorflame. That's one reason why I think it's not a major issue, reverting has become a bit quicker now. I'm undecided on whether we need non-admin rollback or not. Archer7 - talk 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I said that it is slow is because when you have to revert multiple acts of vandalism to the same article, you have to go through the process of going back and editing an old version of the article to get rid of the vandalism, which takes a lot longer than the simple click of the rollback. Cheers, Razorflame 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer rollback to popups/undo. That's why I asked, as it's not much of a big deal IMO. Maxim_(talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback can be used in other forms. The amount of users to grant rollback right to is minimal. Most of our trusted users are admins, unlike enwiki where many trusted editors choose not to be admins. Majorly (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I strongly doubt that I'd pass RfA here with experience or not. There are other users that would probably be helped by having rollback. Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you doubt you'd pass? Get some experience and you'll do fine. Majorly (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, since you are already an administrator over on the English Wikipedia, it should be much easier for you to become an administrator here. Razorflame 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

No country with copyright laws would object to simple.wiki using copyrighted images as it is a non-profit organisation. It may be a waste of time to censor copyrighted material as it is not illegal to display it here, and all the latest stuff could be posted. ~ R.T.G 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they would. It is not countries, but organisations that would have problems. There are many reasons why organisations would not want a copyrighted image released. Even if no-one would complain, as a professional organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation has to respect the law rather than doing things because they can get away with it. The only copyrighted images allowed on Wikipedia are 'fair use', but Simple as a project does not allow those either - not many countries have fair use laws, so therefore our content cannot be redistributed as easily in print or even in web form. Archer7 - talk 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No image is "fair use"... Fair use is a term for using any image with a good reason. Should Wikimedia censor itself just because these business and political interests want them to? That would be like censoring one of the wikis for schools. ~ R.T.G 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikimedia should stand by copyrights - not doing so is copyright theft. I'm not sure what can be discussed about this - Wikipedia has to stand by the law. Archer7 - talk 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)