Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 41

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main page changes

So, in order to remove "white space", which was really more appropriate called "blue space" for this design, I asked Krimpet to tweak the code. In Monobook, it looks great. However, in all other skins, it removes the white background, putting all text for the intro and TFA on blue. Personally, I think it looks fine, but other opinions are requested.

The issue in greater detail, for any who may not know what I'm talking about, is that the section on the left that tells about Simple English Wikipedia is a certain height. The TFA section (on the right) varies in height depending on the article being featured. That difference in height causes the shorter one to have blank space under it. In my original code, that space was blue. In the current code, on Monobook (the default skin) the space is now white, which looks very good. In all other skins, however, the entire box is now blue, and I'm not sure if others agree that it looks fine. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an off-topic comment, but I think having the "Sister projects" at the bottom and the "Other language" above "Sister projects" would be better... in other words, they should switch. It was originally like that, and I think it would be best like that. Thoughts? -- RyanCross (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think having "Sister projects" above "Other languages" is better. It makes more sense to give more prominence to the Simple English Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my proposal for the en.wiki main page redesign, I didn't even put other languages on the page. So that should give an idea of where I stand on that matter. I think it's sort of redundant of the sidebar. Of course, en has a lot more stuff on the main page. Keeping them on the bottom is my vote. Should I take no comment on the blue background as "It's fine"? Jennavecia (Talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bisquits

Why has this user been blocked indefinetly when they have only made three edits? As far as I can tell none of them were vandalism, so an indefinite ban seems a bit harsh. Is there another reason? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block log suggests abuse of multiple accounts (ie sock puppetry). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet of blocked user used to vote multiple times along with User Typhon in one of Razorflames RfAs. Another account used in that same RfA is also very likely a sock of another puppetmaster. -- Creol(talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just wondered... can you get blocked for having two accounts or does one have to be misused first? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing officially wrong with having multiple accounts. The problems come up when the multiple accounts are being used abusively (multiple voting, block evasion, false consensus, disruption in general, etc) -- Creol(talk) 19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as the policy says: "Some people feel a Wikipedian should not have more than one account. Some others feel if sock puppet accounts are used for good purposes, then it is fine." --Gwib -(talk)- 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example: You can have multiple accounts for certain purposes. Like my alternative accounts for example. I have two others besides my main account which are RyanTest and RyanPublic. RyanTest is for making testing new templates, page designs, ect. RyanPublic is my account that I use when using public computers to prevent account compromising or any other things that can harm my main account if I use it in the public, so instead of using my main account in the public, I use RyanPublic. Though, if I use my alternative accounts disruptively (i.e !voting in RfAs using the accounts and my main account, vandalism, or anything that is disruptive socking), my alternative accounts and my main account will probably be blocked because of disruptive sock puppetry. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

It's starting to irritate me slightly that when I view recent changes, I have to scroll down the page to actually see it. The box at the top is too big in my opinion and need slimming down somewhat I think. Majorly talk 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the excess be auto-hidden, with a [show] bar on it/ - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly was a lot of extra information in there that was either not usefull for that page or already linked on the page (a link to Simple talk?? en:wp iw link?). Parts of the page dealt with how to edit/how to write Simple English (Archiving a talk page, MoS) and are not realy needed for fast access to someone patroling new changes. Most of this I removed. Parts still apply to that area (page requests, improvements, simplification) but this tends to be the only place many people instictively look so I left them. Depending on screen and text size, this should shrink it down enough to get close to seeing the main.
I tried adding the capability to hide all or parts of it via css (see here) but I am getting iffy results there (mainly due to my .css not always liking to refresh properly even when forced). The seperate sections "longest", "shortest" and "most wanted" should be able to be turned of individually, or the entire header can be turned off by adding the correct line to you css page:
  • table.hide_NC_header {display:none;}
  • table.hide_most_wanted {display:none;}
  • table.hide_shortest {display:none;}
  • table.hide_longest {display:none;}
With nothing set, the only noticable difference is the slight extra blue in the header for About us/Useful Pages. Turning of individual sections leaves a small amount of extra spacing between groups. Removing all.. not entirely certain as my css isn't accepting that one yet but in theory it works amazingly! (in theory..) -- Creol(talk) 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: full css refresh finally happened. table.hide_NC_header works perfectly.
I don't know what the hiding bit is actually doing, but you've made the template look odd as "Page requests", "Improvement" and "Simplification" have no line on the far left of the table so are shunted slightly left. The "Improvement" section has a different background colour than the others too. And by the way, another way to make the box shorter would be to remove some of the most wanted articles so it's down to one line. - tholly --Turnip--07:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The left line missing is a problem with Firefox not displaying it (shows fine in IE7).. looking into that. The color issue is a interesting one.. the color never changed but because the old box had more lines, the alternating color scheme (#f5f5f5 and #ffffff) used needs to be adjusted. -- Creol(talk) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both problems corrected for Firefox, IE, and Safari (1024x768 and 800x600). There is still a small width issue with the headers on 800x600 that I need to deal with though. -- Creol(talk) 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Disney Vandal

Just to let everyone know the so called 'disney vandal' who has been annoying everyone for a while with disney and gumby related articles may have autism/and or be a young child. I say this because of this account which has a very similar edit pattern to bambifan 01 and various other accounts. I just though admins should take this into account before giving long bans to ips or accounts of this user. F S M 13:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why... if the user is vandalising, we're suppose to just let it go? I think not. And whoever wrote that on the userpage is wrong - we are preventing damage and disruption, not punishing. Majorly talk 13:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Majorly. Even if the user has a medical condition, our aim is to make this an encyclopedia. The edits did not help this, and I assume were reverted. Kennedy (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suggest not blocking him but I just thought maybe using less warning templates and more tailored messages he can understand... something along those lines. I don't suggest for a minute we just let him vandalise but I think we should try and be more lenient. As I see it most of the edits may be bad but he thinks he's doing something good for the encyclopedia. F S M 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about suggesting that the user copies the article into a personal sandbox, makes changes there, then gets someone (a parent or another Wikipedia editor) to look at the changes before transferring them to the main article? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page

I've renamed "Wikipedia:Talk Pages" to "Wikipedia:Talk page" to comply with article naming policies, and have revised it. For some reason it isn't marked as a guideline yet. If everyone is happy with it, I will add a {{guideline}} tag to it. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 16:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm going ahead to do it. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes foh-pah

I've noticed that you guys have taken out the total number of articles from the recent changes box. That was one of the things on the recent changes box that I liked seeing the most when I got on here. Do you think that there could be any way for you guys to re-insert just that information back into the recent changes box, please? Cheers, Razorflame 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged it with Wikipedia:Announcements. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Hello all. Since I have been the recent magnet for drama, I need to take a long Wikibreak to clear my head out and make me be able to better edit this site. I should be back on the 5th of September. Until then, ciao, and I will miss you during this break. Cheers, Razorflame 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PVGA votes needed!

Hello everyone. The PVGA vote for Powderfinger closes in two days, and two more voters are needed. Please compare the article to the VGA criteria and vote accordingly. Thanks! —Giggy 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for most articles on PGA and PVGA. We really don't get enough people looking at them. They should be linked somewhere more prominent. F S M 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbots

Why do users create bots, for example, "Eptabot", and "Beefbot"? What are they for? Can't we just use the regular user accounts? Minor or Prime 11:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can, but most of us prefer to separate bot edits from real human edits. In addition, if the bot gets blocked, you won't get blocked either. Chenzw  Talk  12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it stops clogging up Recent Changes with minor edits (as it can be filtered out easily). They are often automated, and are really just programs doing tedious tasks lots of times... so a human doesn't have to do it. Microchip 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these Userbots just normal users with another name? How do you create one of them? Does it run on its own and what does it do? I thought these Users are just people with the name of "bot". Minor or Prime 08:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most bot accounts are used by programs to due certain specific jobs. If you look here, all the ones marked as Interwiki bots just go around fixing interwiki links. Nearly all the accounts marked as bots are work this way. The couple marked AWB are users who use AWB to do many short simple edits very quickly (for example - changing categories, adding the stub template, etc). These are run manually and each edit they check before saving, but there are often so many edits in such a short period that these changes are all you will see on New Changes. Depending on the purpose of the bot, either the pywiki bot framework, AWB, or some other program are needed to realy need the bot flag most of the time. -- Creol(talk) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bots a run manually, but they can do thier job alone? I'm still confused. Minor or Prime 08:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They run a program. It asks them if they want the program to save automatically or should the program wait for them to hit the save button. The program loads the page and edits it. It then either waits for them to save ("running manually) or saves automatically ("running automatically"). The program then loads the next page on its list of pages to edit and repeats the process. -- Creol(talk) 12:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of get it now. How do you create one? Minor or Prime 10:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Policy/Guideline/Essay

I wish to propose a new policy, Wikipedia:Don't Judge Based on English Wikipedia. This is to try and reduce the amount of times people get ignored / opposed, because of their actions on ENWP, or other wikis. --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this involve a change to WP:Rules or do you intend this to only apply to a user's edit history (WP:Rules asks users to consider policies on the en.wiki)? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I think Da Punk is proposing is that what people do on the English Wikipedia (or any other wiki) should not be considered or looked at when they are on simple. During some recent requests for adminship, there were issues with who people were on en as well as what they had done there. Da Punk, if this is not what you want, please say so. Some examples of people getting "ignored / opposed because of their actions on ENWP" would be good, because I'm not 100% sure what you mean. I don't think you're talking about taking policies from English. Still, we do need an essay that says how we are different than the English Wikipedia, especially about policy and voting. Staeiou (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excatly, one would be people opposing my RfA(s) because of what I have done on ENWP (IE Daniel earier this week). --  Da Punk '08  talk  06:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Just 'cause I set the house down the street on fire is no reason for me not to have matches here. That was at a different place!" Do you realize our blocking policy actually allows us to block users blocked/banned on en:wp without any vandalism here? Actions elsewhere are usually a good indicator of all actions. A rogue admin, stripped and blocked, on en:wp is just as likely to go rogue again if someone else gives them admin. Grawp and Jtv are just as likely to vandalize a new wiki as they have every other wiki they ever show up on. Do you think parents in Australia would not be doubtful about letting Michael Jackson babysit for them just because his supposed actions took place in another country? -- Creol(talk) 07:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am of two minds on this. First, I agree completely with Creol on his reasoning, though there is a reason "global blocks" are restricted in their application. However, as policies are different between wikis, it seems there should be a consideration for that as well. Perhaps a statement along the lines of "don't look at how someone applied policy on en.wiki because the policies (and thus application) are different here"? On the other hand, enough policies are still similar enough to the en.wiki that that may be unnecessary. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed page notes NPA and AGF. I think we should leave it at that and reject this proposal. To me (and I'm not assuming the best faith, admittedly, but there's evidence and justification for doing so) it seems like the page was written to make it more difficult to oppose the RfAs of users here. I'm not sure that's a good thing, if the oppose is otherwise justified. I think we should trust our 'crats, too. —Giggy 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the experiences we have had with editors blocked and banned from EN, I would suggest the idea behind ht essay should be reversed. If an editor is banned or blocked on EN, there is little reason to suggest they would ever pass an RFA here MindTheGap (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol - "...The sole exceptions of this policy is if a Wikimedia Foundation order is issued that we ban a user or a user is deemed a cross-wiki vandal...." Micheal Jackson would (in a wikiworld) be deemed a Cross Wiki vandal. --  Da Punk '08  talk  02:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gary Glitter would be a better example, because he was actually convicted of a crime.:) Sticky Parkin (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would be opposed to this as I think what someone does on another wiki is highly important to how they will be on this wiki. As mentioned above, someone who burns down a house in one country is not suddenly less likely to burn down a house because they are in another country....Your past no matter where it is, is relevant. -Djsasso (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Perhaps like an editor with 16,000 edits to English Wikipedia having his votes struck on Simple Wikipedia's RFA because of "not enough edits". If you're (this is a collective you) going to claim that English Wikipedia is relevant, you (again, collective you) don't get to cherry pick which parts are ok and which parts are not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this 1,000,000% cause both of my previous RFA's has had someone oppose me solely based on my enWP ban.--  † ChristianMan16  16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually say this is different, 16k edits on en-wiki doesn't show that you know the policies of simple-wiki. Whereas tendencies to use sockpuppets or vandalize is something that doesn't change based on the policies of individual wikis. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and procedures here are in large part based on en-wiki, so much so that when there is no policy here, we draw from en-wiki for the rule. If it is relevant, then it is always relevant, whether it produces the outcome other editors prefer, or not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno I used to agree with that. But the longer I have been here I have found some policies are light years apart from what I would consider normal from my experience on en-wiki. This place often seems like a totally different world when I am here. -Djsasso (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. When a policy is made here, it's got more weight than the policy at en-wp. But that doesn't meant he policy at en-wp lacks merit, or has no weight here; WP:Rules has seen to that. That's my point here...if you want to say "a user that is banned on en-wp should be banned here" you need to at the same time say that a user who is trusted to vote in an RFA at en-wp is trusted to vote in an RFA here. It doesn't go both ways. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't think the ban should be carried over. Just that the fact they were banned should be fair game as a legit reason to oppose them in RFAs. -Djsasso (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that just because a user is banned over at some place like ENwiki, doesn't mean we should ban them here. We should judge by their behavior here and only by their behavior her. en:User:Yegoyan is a banned user's sockpuppet on the English Wikipedia, and links to an interwiki as User:Yegoyan here, who is an admin. So please don't be judgmental with an ENwiki user banned with a sensitive or dubious matter. Vandals like Grawp should be blocked wiki-wide, however this is not always the case with all banned users on other wikis.

As for Da Punk's proposal itself, I agree completely. We should assume good faith and not act like enforcers for the English Wikipedia. This is not English Wikipedia. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think anyone is saying that people banned on EN should be automatically banned here. I also agree that assume good faith means that you shouldn't oppose a user's edits just because they were banned somewhere else - it is about the edit, not the person. I also think we should give people a chance to start over. But at least for me, this issue is really about bans and adminship - if you should be allowed to oppose a RfA because that person was banned on another Wikipedia project. Now, my problem with this is that adminship is about gaining the trust of the community, and you can't legislate that with policy. If the community trusts a user to be an admin, the RfA will lead to a consensus that says so. If that user is banned on another Wikipedia project but has really changed into someone who should be an admin, they will become an admin. They may have to explain themselves and prove that they have changed, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Staeiou (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you on some of your points, Staeiou. I have become such a trust part of this community yet I still get opposed on RfA's because I'm banned on enWP.--  † ChristianMan16  14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that mean that you haven't yet become a trusted part of the community? (no offense meant by this, I am mearly asking.) Because if you were trusted then the ban at en-wiki probably wouldn't matter because the people here now trusted you. However, since they still point to that ban, in my view that means they think you haven't yet proven that you have changed. That's how I would read that situation. -Djsasso (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. And your seem to be out to offend people cause you keep offending me.They all trust me they just don't think I'm ready for adminship.--  † ChristianMan16  17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that is the same thing, not ready=not trusted with tools yet, but no I am not out to offend you. If you are that easily offended then I feel bad for you. -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to attack you personally, ChristianMan16, but I agree with Djsasso. I also do not think the editor reviews you linked make your point. Most people on those pages said that you were a good editor and was getting better, but that you were not ready for adminship for specific reasons that had nothing to do with en. Many people on your editor reviews gave ideas or suggestions and said to apply for adminship in a few months. Also, I didn't even know you were banned on en - I did not see anyone even bring it up on your last RfA. Staeiou (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not getting a successful RfA means they don't trust him as an admin. Just because they don't trust him for that doesn't mean they don't trust him. If they don't trust him to be able to juggle eight balls with perfect rhythm, never dropping any of them even once, does that mean they don't trust him? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This whole thing is about trusting to become an admin. He complained that his past is being used when he is trying to become admin. I never said they don't trust him not to rob their house or anything else for that matter.... -Djsasso (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ALWAYS being used against me. I'm not sayng you are but it's alwas being throun in my face or being brought up (Ex. 1 (Basically this whole page), Ex. 2, Ex. 3)--  † ChristianMan16  19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this: there are two kinds of trust: General trust, and specific trust.
  • Specific trust is a thing like trust to be an administrator, or trust to review and approve a very good article (I'm not saying that's how the process works, I'm just using it as an example). Specific trust, in my opinion, does not carry over across Wikimedia projects, it needs to be established each place you go. This is because it involves things like different policies on different projects. It's the reason why a person who is an admin on one project, is not automatically granted administrator privileges on another project.
  • There is also general trust, which for these purposes, I suggest means "This person has shown that expectations that they will be a good editor and productive user are met". Or, lack of trust means that the person has shown that those expectations will not be met. General trust, in my belief, IS something that carries across Wikipedia projects -- no matter how you slice it, a banned user has a lower general trust than a non-banned user, (even if they were banned on other projects), because there is less chance that the expectation they will be a productive editor here will be met.
  • With regard to ChristianMan16, a person can be generally trusted to be here, but not specifically trusted to be an admin. There are some editors who I could specifically trust to be an admin, but not specifically trust to write a very good article, simply because they're awful at article writing. ChristianMan16, you need to be very careful not to confuse multiple kinds of "specific trust" with each other, and also not to confuse it with "general trust". You're banned on another project, and that means that you're going to have to work harder than most people to meet their expectations that you'll be a good editor. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and my point about general trust is this: When someone has a HIGH level of general trust on other projects, there is no reason not to carry that over here. It is relevant. And while that doesn't mean that they should be granted adminship or something like that (something that requires specific trust here), it also means that you shouldn't do stupid things like discounting their RFA comments. If you're going to hold editors who are banned on other projects to a high level of responsibility, because they "might cause trouble", then conversely you ought to grant people who have a high level of trust on other projects more deference in simple things like RFA voting. The two things are inherently intertwined.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, if the person is a known troublemaker involved in politicking, I feel that that is a good gauge of how well the person handles him or herself for that matter. Good proposal, nonetheless.-- Tdxiang 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Swatjester sums things up well. —Giggy 08:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We also probably need a policy banning people playing the Asperger card. Daniel (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think we have enough policies to ban a person if need be.--  † ChristianMan16  18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me expand. If some people think that their disruptive behaviour on other Wikimedia wikis is irrelevant to their editing, surely them proclaiming they have Asperger's is equally if not even more irrelevant? Like, seriously, you can't start to cherry-pick relevant and irrelevant information just to suit yourself. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am new to Simple English Wikipedia and I am an experienced editor (and admin) at English wikipedia. I do not think the essay in its present form is helpful. I agree with Swatjester's comments above about specific trust and general trust. Perhaps an essay that expands on these ideas might be helpful, especially for those who come here from another wikipedia project. --Matilda (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Hi there. I would just like to ask that some editors review me at Wikipedia:Editor review/RyanCross 2. Also, I think it would be good if editors reviewed some other users, not just me, as it would be good for more users to gain feedback on their edits. Editor review is pretty quiet these days, and a few reviews would be great for others who are currently up for review. Thanks! -- RyanCross (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I would like to apologize for the damage I have caused Wikipedia today. I acted very immaturely and I was wrong. I know that just because some pages contain nonfactual information I am not entitled to vandalize the site. I am not asking to be unblocked because I know I don't deserve it. I just hope you can forgive me for causing so much trouble. Again, I am sorry. --Andrew from NC (talk)

If you are suggesting the work of Charles Darwin is "nonfactual" then may I suggest you find somewhere else to air your viewpoints? MindTheGap (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once your are unblocked, I'd be very interested to know which pages these are? --Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So my user page contained non-factual information did it? Thankyou for the apology anyway. F S M 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose you were behind this edit to my user page as well, even though it was under the name of Somewhere Out There? What exactly is the issue you have with me? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't like the Sexual Anatomy project and we are both members. F S M 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! I just had a look at the discussions on his talk page, and don't really see why he feels so strongly about the WikiProject (as opposed, perhaps, to specific articles). So far I've mostly been working to improve articles relating to the anatomy and physiology of the male reproductive system. I assume he doesn't take the position that the biological systems of Christians work differently from those of other men? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 08:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I, the creator, remained untouched :D. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The apology is welcomed but next time this kind of mass vandalism occurs, it will be the last time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Nonsense

Can someone tell me whats the policy on nonsense at talk pages the article in question is Talk:Bearded dragon. I replied to them as I wasn't sure what to do. What I wanted to know is in these situations do you delete the nonsense manually, leave it or tag the talk page for QD as there was no other content? Cheers. F S M 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will get QD'd. It falls under General maintenance: Talk on talk page is not related to main page. Chenzw  Talk  01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Atlantic hurricane season

I've created an article on this year's hurricane season. I'd appreciate any help updating the article when needed. Some information that will need to be updated are the formation of storms, strength of active storms, dissipation of storms, ACE, etc.). Thanks,--≈  Lights  χ  18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hit by one of these storms and another is on the way.--  † ChristianMan16  18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop inactive admins

See here. Majorly talk 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You right. Yael858584849 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should dates be linked?

Hi - there is no guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Calendar_items as to whether dates should be linked. I think linking creates unnecessary blue links and does not usefully take the reader to a linked article. However is it within the manual of style to link or not to link? Thanks --Matilda (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although our MOS doesn't detail it, generally dates are linked, especially if it's the date of an important event. It's helpful for us to link dates in case the reader wants to know the significance of a date, or the chronological context of an event.--TBC 04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following an extended discussion, English Wikipedia has decided to deprecate the linking of dates (date autoformatting; i.e., "[[27 August]] [[2008]]"). "en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting" now reads as follows:

The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. The use of these tools has several disadvantages:

  1. The supposed benefits can only be seen by registered editors, who are a small minority of Wikipedia’s readership, and even then only if they have configured their date preferences (My preferences → Date and time → Date format).
  2. The resulting links are normally to lists of historical trivia which have little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. The use of these formatting tools therefore tends to produce overlinked articles.
  3. Dates from before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar should not be expressed in the ISO format, which implies the dates are Gregorian. Also, conventionally formated dates from that era will normally be in Julian; they should not be wikilinked and autoformatted into ISO, which would consistute an false assertion they are Gregorian.
I would therefore support the adoption of a similar policy here at Simple English Wikipedia. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed come from English wikipedia and have been following the discussion there. For the reasons given there (and repeated above), I would support strongly not linking dates unless it was an important date and clicking on the link took the reader to a meaningful page.--Matilda (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we do tend to overlink dates a lot. The date pages should be a collection of (relatively) important events. Links to these pages should be from similarly important events. Births, deaths, treaties, founding of countries and disasters are all perfectly acceptable events which should be logged. First airing dates of television episodes, marriage dates (other than say, the marriage of Prince Charles to (then-)Lady Spencer level marriages), album releases (and band performances not on the level of the Beatles first performance on American television, Woodstock, Farm-Aid etc) and the like really do not need to be linked. The one issue with this is that it make the entire thing pretty much a judgement call on what is and is not important. Overall, I feel if you pull up the page for that date and look at the information given under events, if the information you are linking is not important enough to be added to the others, the date should not be linked. -- Creol(talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the previous policy required all complete dates to be linked as this would autoformat them if a registered user had specified a preference as to how he or she wished to have dates displayed. Users could choose between "27 August 2008" (UK/international) and "August 27, 2008" (US). However, for the reasons stated in my earlier message, English Wikipedia has decided that this is no longer a strong enough reason to link every single date.
I suggest that Simple English's Manual of Style be amended to state that full dates should not be linked unless there is some good reason to direct readers to the linked articles ("27 August" or "2008", for instance). It may not be helpful or possible at this stage to try and define what such good reasons might be, though some common examples might be given. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 10:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked dates in the past, but IMO dates should only be linked if the date has important significance.--≈  Lights  χ  13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important dates will still be linked, therefore will still be autoformated to the users preferred date. Kennedy (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following from the above discussion, I've made a proposal over at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal for new section on date and time". So as not to clog up this page, I suggest that discussion of the proposal take place over there. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week and there are no opposing comments, so I've implemented the change to the Manual of Style. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One point I see issue with is " Dates in ISO 8601 format (like "1976-05-13") are not common in English writing and are generally not used in Wikipedia". As ISO 8601 formating is for the most part mandatory on many of the cite templates (web, news and journal notably for accessdate and archivedate setting), following WP:VERIFY, nearly every article should be using the format. Even accepting the developers never turn on user date prefernces for smaller wikis, ISO 8601 is one of the few guarenteed formats which will actually work with it. The templates in question here all require the format for transposition into linked data (in non US notation - day month year format). Instructing people that a format is "generally not used in Wikipedia" but that in key areas is mandatory may not be a good idea. -- Creol(talk) 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

I just wondered, can we QD user pages if they are blatant advertising like this? F S M 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I would on en.wiki, so I would say yes... -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; {{qd|spam}}. mC8 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on; userpage? Erm... VIP report filed; just wait for an indef block and it is deleted anyway! Microchip 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage or not it would be valid in my view. Along with a warning on the talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microchip, your warning templates are way too big. It's a bit visually distracting. Why not use the generic warning templates?--TBC 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took predecent from the English WP version. After all, it's not as if there are going to be any more warnings on that page, is there? Microchip 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled requests

Should we have subpages for the bot flag request archives? There are currently 70 archived requests in total, and things can look messy when the page is very long. Chenzw  Talk  14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds sensible. Archive them by year, or if necessary, by year and month, e.g., "Wikipedia:Bots/Past requests/2008" or "Wikipedia:Bots/Past requests/2008/08". Perhaps we should ask the owner of Miszabot from English Wikipedia to deploy it over here at Simple English Wikipedia so that automated archiving of pages can be set up. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Misza13. mC8 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, brilliant! Where is the archiving bot actually located? Is it set up in the same way as it is over at English Wikipedia? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxobox

This template's instructions states that the color must correspond to the Kingdom the organism is placed in. But not all biology articles follow that rule. Do we have to undergo a huge editing of the Taxobox colors? Moreover, EN Wikipedia follows this rule, such that the color cannot be changed and is fixed, but here we can change the color. Minor or Prime 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Almost all the articles are very short? Maybe baceuse that people can't write in Simple English? Yael858584849 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres not a lot of editors to write the articles. Theres so much to do, and so little people to do it. More hands make writing a wikipedia light work. Kennedy (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_41&oldid=8876923"