Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Simple talk
Shortcut
This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.

You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages.

You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.

Are you in the right place?


Twinkle

There seems to be something wrong with twinkle. It's leaving QD notification on the talk page of someone completely independent from the page instead of the one who created it. I am not sure what's causing it, so leaving a note here to see if anyone else is facing that issue. And if there are any ways to fix it if this is a bug.-BRP ever 11:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One issue for me since long is that occasionally no warnings is given to page creator. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My guess without digging too deep is that they aren't using the Twinkle through preferences. They are calling something from their javascript. Which would be why its happening to them and as far as I know, no one else has seen it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it happened so because that vandal was redirecting the talk page to some other page, and TW issues a warning on the redirect target page. JavaHurricane (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't look too closely, that would do it. -Djsasso (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth borrowing something from the enwiki version, since that stops the warning if the user talk page is a cross-namespace redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAM

Hello people, my usual annual thread. Who is interested in organizing this, been doing this for the last 2 years, it really don't need too much of time just making sure the article is meeting the usual standards (very similiar to the recent women edit-thorn in requirements I will say). IMO will be good for 2 or better 3 judges to be effective as if judges were to participate, it need to be marked by other judges and do remember there can be a person in competition with the judge for the title, so some sort of COI is hard to avoid if there's only 1. In other words, if there is only 1, the judge is better not to participate. I can try to guide any new judges if needed, but sorry I am quite busy recently IRL, and I simply don't have time yet to restore IRC access, so it will need to be on wiki, and I expect 2nd half of Nov to be busy. However, as usual I will try to do my best if needed as a judge.

For participants, is 4 articles related to Asia, new ones not expansion, 3500 chars, 200 words long, properly simplified and having references for all content and no maintenance templates can be slapped on them, then it's a pass. Welcome all to participate, as usual the judges won't make it hard. Prizes include postcards and barnstars (on simple at least).

If there are some participants and judges, I will then set up the page for this year. Best, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can judge again this year --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @つがる for volunteering again, appreciate it. I had set up the pages for 2021, I will also tentative be the organizer. Do sign up at the sign up list on the page if you are interested, and some more organizers will be much welcomed :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, I will try to participate this year :) -BRP ever 09:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I were eligible, I would, but I'm not and I'm not sure if I can join since I don't live in Asia (unless you consider the Pacific regions to also be part of Asia as well). SHB2000 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 Hello, anyone can participate, the article needs to be somewhat Asia related but not the participants. Anyway, like Association Football, Timor is also participating in the ASEAN cup, just as how Australia is in Asia Qualifiers for World Cup, so those can be in scope too. Welcome your participation. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bump: Last call for organizers, I will soon update meta on the local team this year. @つがる Last chance to quit if you want :P. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Nope I am not quitting! :) --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, it starts in 2 days time, welcome all to participate :). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am -- Pulls his sleeves -- ready.- BRP ever 09:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And one more note: Only articles created from 1 Nov UTC counts, anything before doesn't. This year I guess I will be more liberal in the judging, as long as it looks sufficiently simple, and there isn't any glaring issues I will give a pass to encourage more to participate, last year I might be a little too strict. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Purplebackpack89..

This discussion has lasted for over 3 weeks and it's safe to say that there's no consensus to unblock Purplebackpack89 at this time. Purplebackpack89: I suggest you next appeal in no less than a year from today. Best regards, --Ferien (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello all,

Purplebackpack89 has recently requested for his block to be revieved. He was community-banned (after a discussion) in 2011. I think the community changed a lot since then, and it would be time for this decision to be re-assessed; after 10 years. Personally, I don't think that unblocking poses much of a problem, almost all people change in a decade. What do other people think? - Again: this is not a vote, it is a discussion; a support or oppose without argument is not really helpful. So, what do other people think?--Eptalon (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial thought here is no. The tone of the unblock request reads as openly confrontational, and looking back on the previous discussions it really is the same tone and behaviour that was part of what got him blocked to begin with. Doing some looking around, I found more recent discussions at en:User_talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive_17#ArbCom enforcement, and en:User_talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive_17#TRM running for ArbCom...really? where the user is still actively talking about how he dislikes the editors involved in this original ban discussion. All said, I just don't think the Wikipedia needs the drama that seems to follow this user around, and I am fine with the ban staying.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user need more patient to be unlocked Just do good (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As much as I'd love to say that it's been a while and is worth another chance (even with their 11 blocks on record, all of them were 10+ years ago and relatively compressed), the evidence why this is still necessary would be the edits on other projects that led to the block in the first place. And the unblock request, which has both en:WP:NOTTHEM and how EVERY few words is in CAPS. If anyone has missed it, it reads: It is INSANE that this block has continued for A DECADE, during a time which I have made thousands of edits on other Wikipedia projects. Can somebody explain why something that happened a DECADE ago should disqualify me from getting an addditional chance on this project NOW? Indeffing in the first place was excessive and it should never have lasted a DECADE. I'd like someone to explain why I don't get a second chance, even though editors with more serious issues, such as sock- and meatpuppetry, have been reinstated. If anything, it shouldn't be my job to prove reinstatement, after this long, it should be others' job to provide evidence why this is still necessary, which, to be honest, they never did in the first place. I feel PERSECUTED. In many cases, the evidence demanded is evidence that can only be obtained by letting me be unblocked for awhile. Naleksuh (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The tone of everything he has said after the block is an illustration of why we blocked him, plus the complete absence of any admission and promise to reform. It only just stops short of actually promising to carry on as before. I'm fine with the block staying. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, a Yes per Eptalon, pending reading about this specific person's case. People's editing styles change naturally over time. Frankly, I don't think any Wikiproject should have indefinite blocks. They should all have time limits, even if they're ten years. Per Macdonald-ross' concerns, if Purple does whatever it was again, block them again. Does anyone remember off the top of their heads? What is this person supposed to have reformed from? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The crucial point which you're not addressing is his lack of acceptance of his past behaviour, and his lack of promise not to behave that way again. No-one is released on licence who does not accept his misdemeanour and promise to reform. Whether a block is indefinite rests more on the individual than anything else. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The individual is not the one who decides to impose or lift a block. An admin or the community makes that decision, and it may in fact have very little to do with what the blocked person did or didn't do on-Wiki. I've seen people get blocked and punished for things that just plain didn't happen. A friend of mine got blocked from en.wiki for "lying" about Mars when he was quoting NASA and providing links to the sources he'd used.
But we're talking about Purple, and not my not-lying space fan friend. The problem you point out is very easily solved. Someone has to go to P's talk page and say "Hey Purple, you got blocked for [this specific thing that you did]. Do you promise not to do [specific thing] again?" This is more important than people realize. For one of many things, I've learned that Wikipedia admins are the opposite of a conspiracy: They don't always agree with each other, and they don't always know that they don't agree with each other. What if some admins think Purple is blocked for WP:THIS and others think Purple is blocked for WP:THAT? Then even if Purple apologizes for WP:THIS, the second group of admins will feel the way you feel: That Purple hasn't understood or hasn't owned up.
So what was it that Purple did? I wasn't here on Simple in 2011. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I read the conversations at the links that Chenzw was so good as to provide. I see a lot of "this person doesn't understand why they were banned." Again, the solution is simple: Someone with the authority to do so should just tell them. I feel like I might be projecting unfair treatment I've seen elsewhere onto Purple's case, so I'm going to take a break and come back clearheaded. EDIT: To be fair, some people did specifically cite "canvassing," "incivility," and "didn't change X when someone told them to," though that last one might not be misconduct, depending. Is that accurate? Is that what Purple is banned for doing? Could we, if we chose, go to Purple and say, "You were banned for incivility, for improper canvassing, for not stopping [specific], and not anything else"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I did in 2019. Ten years is a long time when there is clear evidence of an intent to change and improve. What is Wikipedia if not a group of people that chooses to Assume Good Faith. The trusted status on other wikis is sufficient for me to believe this person can be constructive and a good contributor to this project. I'm more than happy to believe this person's intent is to be a good community member, but I am also not blindly trusting. I think the community ban should be removed with a one and done warning for a term of 1 year from the date of decision. In this period, any significant behavior or disruption issues would see the ban reinstated. However, if they rejoin the community, the editor would be considered in good standing on this project and enjoy the same treatment as any other editor on the project. Operator873 connect 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this idea very much. PP89 wants a chance to prove themselves, but others here are concerned of a repeat performance. PP89 can hardly complain of getting the exact chance they've asked for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd be on board with this if the "clear evidence of an intent to change" part was more clear to me. From everything I'm reading, the user still thinks they were correct and the ban was wrong. I'm not sure what has changed. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblocking with the conditions mentioned in the comment above. To me, blocks have always been to prevent abuse and not to punish users. The block has lasted for a long time, and given their editing history in other wikis, I think the editor won't cause any further disruption.-BRP ever 21:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not convinced at this point, and that's too bad his actions ten years ago brought this block. I'm not convinced by the tone as well, and the mindset that Wikipedia is the only WMF project. SHB2000 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No based on PBP's own statements in the request. "Indeffing in the first place was excessive," shows they still do not accept why they were banned. "I'd like someone to explain why I don't get a second chance," ignores the long block history that led up to the indef; PBP had many, many chances. "even though editors with more serious issues, such as sock- and meatpuppetry, have been reinstated" is just plain whataboutism. "it should be others' job to provide evidence why this is still necessary, which, to be honest, they never did in the first place." again shows they have never accepted the reasons for the ban. Gotanda (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do/don't agree. They/(S)he has not even addressed the reason to WHY they where blocked, and I still don't understand the last line which makes absolutely no sense: "In many cases, the evidence demanded is evidence that can only be obtained by letting me be unblocked for awhile." What sort of evidence? It could and CAN be obtained without editing. People can see the contribs freely. 11 bans is... more than enough to consider an editor unworthy. This line: "even though editors with more serious issues, such as sock- and meatpuppetry, have been reinstated." is almost an attack on a group of editors, and both sock & meat puppetry are forgiven if the socks (if the same user) are blocked and the sock master account is used for legitimate purposes, like a regular wiki account. Also, socking is allowed for legit purposes like doppelgängers.
  • Now obviously 10 years seems too much for a block (I would go mad for even a fortnight) and I think PP98 could be forgiven and we can assume good faith. It is possible PP98 was an en-wiki member (only member) and just... disrespected the simple community. In that case, the conditions for unblocking will change. Different wikiproject members have different opinions. Here, look at Hockeycatcat but on en-wiki... oof.
I think the block can be forgiven if PP98 edits like a regular user for constructive purposes. 💠Ely - Talk💠 09:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nope, contrary to what User:Operator873 says above. I don't see any clear indication they intend to improve. They still blame everyone else for why they were banned instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. He is still openly confrontational which is a large part of the reason he was blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I have to say, looking through PB89's CentralAuth, I'm seeing some improvement, especially on en.wp and other projects. However, I'd like to suggest removing his rollbacker rights temporarily until he can be proven to regain the trust of the community. He should also address what he did that got him banned in the first place and realize what he has done has had negative effects on the community. If he can prove that he really does realize what he has done wrong and can prove beyond reasonable doubt he will improve, I'd give full support. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, I also oppose lifting the ban. Simply no indication that they have changed at all. Ten years passing is not enough alone to just unblock, they will have to show us they have changed. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be true reading their unblock request. --IWI (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context

At this point I think it is important for all participants to familiarize themselves with previous ban reviews:

I will be adding my thoughts to the above original section shortly. Chenzw  Talk  14:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chenzw. EDIT: But I'm not seeing a discussion with links and proof. Did it happen before the first ban discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the first link is the discussion that led directly to the community ban. Prior to the community(-sanctioned) ban, the editor was already blocked multiple times. Nevertheless, I will do another search in the archives and get back to you once I find anything new. Chenzw  Talk  16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Citrivescence's disruptive editing

You really need to block Citrivescence as they had sent admins to block similer IPs like this one,2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:849:F134:9A1F:9A1A on different wikis in which the IPs were learning to change Wiki sites. This message that Citrive left: [[1]] seems like he is tired of the messages an warnings. They want the harassment to go away. Can you look at Citrivescence's changes on the different wikis. --204.184.47.157 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking what one is and is not allowed to do about harassment is not Wiki misconduct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is a troll of Citrivescence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to be blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia, as the Chinese-language Wikipedia is totally different from other-language Wikipedia

Hello. As I see that the Chinese-language Wikipedia is totally different, I would like to ask you for this thing: Could you please encourage the Chinese-language Wikipedia to unblock my account, or could you bring me to the question part in the Chinese-language Wikipedia? I indeed don't like to be blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia for too long as I understand it is totally different from other-language Wikipedia which I used to experience it. I will be to much worried if I'm being blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia while I already experienced that the Chinese-language Wikipedia is totally different from all experiences that I feel in other-language Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 548asiaslavia (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each wiki decides for itself how to administer the blocking procedure. We have no influence there, and they have no influence here. I notice you did not sign your post, so a good start to your quest would be that you learn how WP works. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an LTA evading their global lock. SHB2000 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Apple’s iCloud Private Relay

Hello!

Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users. Usually, it has been about “open proxies” or virtual private networks (VPNs). Now, there's a new Apple service called iCloud Private Relay that obscures the IP addresses of desktop and mobile users of the Safari browser.

As Apple users adopt this new service, we estimate that 3-5% of all logged-in and logged-out editors will have these obscured IP addresses. If we don't change anything, they may be blocked within a few months. This wiki may be severely affected. A lot of people editing here use the Safari browser. Next, other browser providers may do the same. The problem will grow.

The communities, users with advanced MediaWiki permissions, the Wikimedia Foundation and others need to work together. We all need to decide how the security of the wikis can be maintained. At the same time, the pathways to editing should remain open for all good-faith participants.

Read more on Apple iCloud Private Relay. Answer the questions and comment on its talk page.

Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how Movement Strategy Implementation Grants can support your Movement Strategy plans

Movement Strategy Implementation grants now provide more than $2,000 USD to put Movement Strategy plans into action. Find out more about Movement Strategy Implementation grants, the criteria, and how to apply here.

Also, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee election is still ongoing. It would be great to increase community participation. If you haven't voted now is the time. Please vote here before October 24. Regards, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I explain how a biological procedure is performed without citing the research of scientists who performed the procedure?

I was warned not to cite sources too close to the author when attempting to put together a page on iPS cells to fill the gap of information available in simple English for EFL students on how the calls are produced. Context being that it's a common topic in English textbooks in Japan, and the new push towards BYOD means that students are encouraged to supplement the information in the textbook by examining sources online.

It's my first edit, and I was immediately arrested by the vandalism cops for using sources too close to the author. Which, you know, can obviously be a massive problem. But what's the actual procedure in this case? If I can't cite the article about how they were discovered then what do I cite? My background is in CS and not biology, and I can't imagine a reason it's mistaken to cite a paper other than the one an algorithm was originally proved and analysed unless it was withdrawn from publication when explaining how an algorithm works.

Am I insane? I've read the en wiki article on third party sources, and asked for clarification from the bloke who rolled me back but received no reply.

I'd really like to contribute to the wiki because I feel like it could be a useful educational resource going forward. Am I unwelcome? Do I have to wait for a professional biologist who is also proficient in simple English to write the page? What do you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fujippisensei (talk • contribs)

  • If you don't tell us what you are referring to, how can we answer you? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • En page on iPS cells is heavily flagged as being dependent on sources too close to the subject. My judgement is we should wait until the En wiki page is stable before doing our version. In any event, our version will need an experienced editor rather than a specialist subject-matter editor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I see. So I shouldn't inherently look at the English Wikipedia page as a model. If you really want me to hold off on touching the page until English Wikipedia has resolved its issues, I won't touch it, but hopefully there's somewhere else relevant to students where it's less controversial for me to practice writing Simple Wikipedia content using the guidelines about secondary and tertiary sources Darkfrog24 has pointed me to. Fujippisensei (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: I wonder if the user is really familiar with En wiki? The obvious place to discuss his point of view would be on the En Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fujippisensei:, since you're here on the Simple English Wikipedia, I'll tell you how to do this for here: Go to WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY. They're all part of our big No Original Research policy. The short version is that Wikipedia's favorite food is secondary sources. It sounds like you're trying to use an original academic study as a source. Here, we treat that as a primary source. You can use a few primary sources in an article, but they must not be the only or the main sources. That's because we require proof of notability, proof that an idea or thing is important enough to be in a Wikipedia article. The best proof is someone else, someone independent of the original research team, writing about it and getting published.
What you want is secondary sources: Did anyone other than the original research team write articles about the subject? (If "IPS" is "induced pluripotent stem cells," then lots of people did.) Newspaper articles. Magazine articles. Reviews. It may seem counterintuitive, but for a Wikipedia article source, Scientific American or the science section of a normal newspaper is a better choice than Nature, Science or Lancet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Also, the secondary source can help you to phrase the content in a way suitable for non-expert readers. We usually only have non-expert readers! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. I need to adjust my frame of mind from writing as an expert to writing as a non-expert, which means that I should rely on secondary sources, which makes sense because I'm definitely not an expert in biology. I will either return to the page mentioned with that in mind, or look for somewhere else to contribute along those lines. Fujippisensei (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not an editor of English Wikipedia. I'm coming at this as someone who writes simple English, rather than as an encyclopedia expert. The idea is that if I learn how to contribute then I can teach other language teachers in my region to do it, and expand its usefulness to students. Fujippisensei (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech

Read this message in another language

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Talk pages

How should I warn a vandal who redirects their talk page? AnApple47 💬 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnApple47 You could undo the redirect first, the do the warning. You could also manually edit the page and type in the warning over the redirect. The first option is probably better if there was other talk on the page before. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Thank you for the advice! AnApple47 💬 05:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overload of RfD

We now have over 50 items on RfD, and many of these could have been dealt with by QD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sometimes our users get frustrated when they request QD, then it gets declined because the case doesn't qualify. This happens fairly regularly with the A4 option (notability); sometimes users don't realize that any claim of notability prevents deletion under that option. Having QD requests declined, for that or other reason, might make people decide to go straight to RfD when it might not be necessary. Maybe we could do some educating about the QD options, either targeted at users who use it incorrectly or aimed at the community in general. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the requests for deletion currently on the page aren't eligible for QD and it is better to discuss older pages instead of quickly deleting them, in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of this, we can just quickly delete the pages that meet QD requirements among the ones nominated for RFD. Admins can close the discussion whenever they see it fit.
There have been many debates over the overuse of A4, and I don't this it's unusual for people to seek second or third opinions through RFD. I, myself, would like to do that for pages that have passed the initial new page state (where the article are usually nominated for QD or improved.)
Also, there has been some interesting development in a few cases that are worth considering. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Candice Pitts. I remember reading that she had become an ambassador, but I had no idea about the coverage she was getting. Although I think some more coverage is required and the article needs a fair bit of improvement, I think this one is a fruitful discussion.
I think the habit of RFDs should be encouraged for cases that are not black-and-white. And overloading is not really a problem as pages will be deleted even if there are no comments. It's only that the process takes place 7 days later. And in the cases where the page have already stayed here for a long time, I don't think it's a problem. Thanks :) -BRP ever 20:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't that people are going to RFD when they shouldn't. The problem we have is that people are using QD when they shouldn't. In particular A4 gets abused way to often. The most minor claim negates the ability to use it. Also remember our Rfd acts as PROD which means if there are no votes in 7 days it still gets deleted. So our Rfd is never overloaded because the deletes happen automatically if no one votes. And any of the questionable ones get more eyes on them than an incorrect QD. -Djsasso (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't our RFD sort of PROD elsewhere, so an overload isn't the issue. The issue is that we need to have people !voting based on policy / guidelines. Things like per nom - etc can be omitted as these seems unnecessary as our RFD work like PROD. Things like it's notable without giving sources / explanation doesn't. Socks are of course not helpful. The issue I think is not the load, is the quality of commentary on the RFD. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to err on the side of RfD over QD.
CamoM, do you mean that it's more of a vote with sources/policies situation than a vote with people situation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can act like PROD.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 I will say give QD a go, if it does fulfill QD, then RFD won't be unnecessarily loaded. Just try, if declined, we can always go to RFD.
As of RFDs it's always a vote based on policies, hence it's called !vote not vote. The absolute vote count doesn't always matter, unless in situations where the !votes are very close which is rare. Votes that are useful are always policy based, as of if you want to claim a subject have notablity, good quality sources needs to be provided to make it strong. It's pretty useless to do this  Keep notable and meets GNG. It will be more useful to do this:  Keep meets GNG as [good source 1][independent source 2] is presented. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some comments are so baseless that you don't even know what to respond. It's like they just state their opinion with no real understanding. But I guess we can always extend time for cases where the concerns are not sufficiently addressed.-BRP ever 09:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, Camo. I mean that I go RfD for something that is, for example, a hoax but not an obvious one. I use QD quite a lot.
I am familiar with the idea that Wikipedias aspire to be "policies and sources, not votes," but in my experience it usually is votes as in number of people and not number of sources. I had an idea for a whole different RfC structure once. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 Oh yes, at times it's sadly vote counting for some cases, but I will rather it be consensus counting. But to digress, isn't this what political systems around at times function, with first past the post elections can be won by 1 vote. However, Wikipedia is NOTDEMOCRACY that's helps at times. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep notable and meets GNG." is actually perfectly valid comment that explains what policy you think supports its being kept. Could it be more detailed sure it could. But it is a policy based argument which is a good one. -Djsasso (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to report sockpuppets and not request checkuser

Hello. I believe that I have identified a sockpuppet of an account that is globally locked. However, the master is almost certainly stale. I would like to know how to report this sockpuppet without requesting a checkuser (as I would do on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser). Is there a way to do this on simple wiki? Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10, you could just report that account to the administrators' noticeboard. Regards, --Ferien (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be deletable?

A page I found, Ultima werewolf, appears to be a self-publication, where someone created a story and then uploaded it to Wikipedia as a page. It has a notability tag, a deletion tag, and a quick deletion tag, and I'm just wondering: can this be deleted? I'd say yes but the deletion policy might say otherwise, there's nothing in there that covers this scenario. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's me again (from home, the other one is my School IP), and despite the page being deleted I would like to know what would be the correct course of action if a self-publication situation ever appears again. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get help on improving articles like peer review in enwiki?

Above, for SpaceX Starship. I want to have more people commenting on the article, since having just me writing it can be tricky sometimes. It is especially useful for proofreading as well, as [2] said. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the venue, hope someone will be able to help, by posting here is right, but do note that we have a small community of editors, so the comments might not be that much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=7849609"