Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: American Eagle

As poorly as many editors think of it, http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page (yes, the wiki that "translates" quotes) has never been this active! With the additions of four administrators in the last three days, things are moving along quite nicely.

Yay for Simple English Wikiquote!

Posted by: carbuncle

I was hoping this was just a joke, but, no, there really is a Simple English Wikiquote, complete with typos on the main page.

At last everyone, even those with minimal English proficiency, can enjoy quotations from the world's greatest minds like http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paula_Abdul:

Which apparently means:

Wow...

Posted by: Somey

He went through all the trouble of registering here just to post that?

Astonishing.

Posted by: carbuncle

Hey, while you're here talking up Simple English Wikiquote, could you explain this http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=22346?

Here's the original Barack Obama quote:
"There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

The Simple English™ translation was:
Simple: There are patriots who were against the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the War in Iraq. The United States is one country and we all pledge allegiance to our country.

You changed it to:
Simple: There are patriots who are against the war in Iraq and there are patriots who support the War in Iraq. The United States is one country and we all pledge allegiance to our country.
with the edit summary "Undo: good faith, but the Iraqi war isn't official over".

Shouldn't the tenses agree in the original and "translated" versions? What does the war being over or not being over have to do with anything?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Posted by: the_undertow

Serious. I was almost too apathetic to even reply, but in this case, I felt Jon summed it up quite nicely.

Posted by: American Eagle

You all seriously make me laugh.

carbuncle: What are the typos on the Main Page? The Paula Abdul quote is not a very well translated quote... at all. About the Obama undo, I've just now given that some thought. I undid my edit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Somey: I did not just register only to post that. I want the account to use in general other than this topic. This seemed like a good starting topic, no?

the_undertow: O..k............

Posted by: MZMcBride

I've advocated for killing Wikiquote and for killing the entire Simple series. (Or moving them to another Foundation, at least.) Simple English Wikiquote simply drips with fail.

Posted by: Somey

Is that a trick question?

This site is supposed to be for review and critique, Mr. Eagle. Simply posting "Yay for [insert name of site/project/whatever here]" is usually referred to as "spamming," in most circles... The thing is, though, this almost never happens on WR, because most people realize that posting such a sentiment would only lead to a great deal of ridicule, sarcasm, and other forms of unnecessary grief such as the comment immediately above this one.

Also, be aware that we're "ageists" here - if you're under 13 and we find out, then I'm afraid we'll have to suspend your account. If you're under 16 and we find out, we probably should ban you, but we usually won't unless you publicly refer to yourself as being under 16 - and that includes references on WP user pages.

Just so you'll know!

Posted by: The Joy

Perhaps such an announcement would be best made at The Wikipedia Forum?

http://www.thewikipediaforum.com/

Posted by: Milton Roe

I workered how it would work on some famous stuff. I noticed that some of the greats have long patches of writing which are so simply worded that it hardly needs changing! But that last 10 or 20% that does, is the the zing and and ring and poignance and the poetry. Removing it blandifies it, like being forced to cook without the spice rack. But it makes it a lot clearer for people who have English as a second language, and need a limited vocabulary. In the end, the essentials remain.

An example I tried to construct myself:

==========================

Eighty-seven years ago, our great grandfathers made a new country here on this great land, starting with the idea of freedom, and the new idea that everybody starts out in life equal to everybody else.

Now we are in a huge war between different parts of our country, testing to see if this country, or any country started with freedom and that idea of equal people, will last very long. We are meeting on a big battle field of this war where many dead soldiers are buried. We have come to give speeches to make part of that field a regular graveyard for those who died here, so that their country could live. It is a good thing to do that.

But really, we cannot make this graveyard any more holy than it is. The brave men, living and dead, by fighting here for freedom, have already made it too holy for us to change it.* The world will not notice very much, or even remember for very long, what we say here; but the world can't forget what these brave men did here. It is for us, instead of making new graveyards, to promise to finish the work that these brave men have already gotten so far along with. We promise to finish their great task. From the efforts of these heros, we take greater interest in the work to which they gave the greatest of interests-- more interest than they had for their own lives. We should decide right now, for once and for all, that these men will not have died for nothing. We should promise that this country, with god watching, will have a new fresh start of freedom. Which means that this new idea of a country where the ordinary people, with everyone equal, make all the laws of the country for themselves--- won't disapear for good.




I think it's more understandable to the average 12 year-old now.

* n.b. You know, this is very Roman idea. Gladiators battling in front of the the tomb, at the funeral, gave the dead Roman the highest honor. Words were secondary.

Posted by: jayvdb

I enjoyed the "Wikiquote must die" discussion; where is the "please dont be simple" edition?

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

To try and salvage something out of this thread, AmericanEagle is an admin on Simple English Wikipedia who goes out of his way to protect ChristianMan16, an 18-year-old Christian fundamentalist who has been banned from EN and has begged the Simple community to help him get back on.

Note ChristianMan's userpage:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CM16

And note the row caused by a userbox he created:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2009/User:ChristianMan16/MarriagePosistion

Kids being kids, etc.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Howsabout a Userbox for —


Ja Ja

Posted by: carbuncle

Exactly how does one go about having the WMF end a project as ridiculous as this one? Is there a precedent? Can someone please point me at any previous discussion on closing Simple English™ Wikiquote™?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Not ending "ridiculous projects" is pretty much an existential question for WMF.

Posted by: thekohser

I really like the http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales page on Simple Wikiquote:

QUOTE: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

SIMPLE: Imagine that every person on Earth can find out what anyone else knows. That is what Wikipedia is doing.



So, do you know what I know? Are you able to read my mind?

I must -- must -- participate in this venture!

Posted by: thekohser

Yes, indeed... this is the best Wikimedia Foundation site I have yet seen. It is http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=22906, for nearly the past three years.

Posted by: Somey

I remember at the last Annual Meeting of the Royal Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things, all it took was for the Staffordshire delegate to stand up and point out that "some of the members think, well... the whole thing's a bit silly."

Ahh, those were different times... Maybe this thread could represent the point at which the members suddenly realize they're "surrounded by film."

Also, let's not forget the true precursor of Simple English WikiQuote, namely Uncyclopedia's Unquotable:Quotes in Dumbass.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Yahoo has beat them to the punch. Just feed the quote into the translation engine on Bablefish and post whatever comes out on a wiki. You could even play "Telegraph." Run a English quote it through several successive languages then return it to English and try to guess the original quote.

Posted by: Lar

New projects are requestedhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects (the Proposals for new projects page)
Closing of existing projects are requested http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects (the Proposals for closing projects page)

Don't know about that... maybe check the Proposals for closing projects page archives?

Hope that helps.

Posted by: Somey

Even better:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikiquote

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I see Majorly supports the proposal. This is an example of the bad being the enemy of the even worse.

Posted by: Random832

That's not really a bad translation of "the sum of all human knowledge" - sometimes it's the original quote that's ridiculous (or, more likely, full of empty rhetoric and light on actual content) and the simple translation simply hilights this.

Posted by: Somey

Also interesting, IMO, is Orthorhombic (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wiktionary&diff=prev&oldid=1452800 (posted while logged out, apparently):

Some of these reasons are clearly specious, particularly the last, and also #5 and #6, which is sort of a straw-man argument which ignores the fact that English is considered a highly complex and inclusive language (more than most anyway), not to mention the lingua franca of the internet, if not the world. But others are spot-on, IMO, particularly #2 and #3.

Posted by: Random832

would be an excellent name for a band.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Yeah I get the feeling this user was deliberately using big obscure words to just see how many simplewiki aficionados might be alienated by them. In some ways that's not very nice, but in others it is rather entertaining (but not like Jahiegel's userbox, which is just stupid).

Posted by: Noroton

Hmmmmmmmmm..... well, der Kohser certainly http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=22906&oldid=22115:


Interesting translation.

Posted by: American Eagle

This translation was vandalism, and has been removed.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Translation:

In Wikipedia, Truth Is Vandalism.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Well some quotes originated purely from simple english, but I would really like to know how the Kohser would translate http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush (I mean, that was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the domain name).

No seriously this whole exercise looks like some bizarre King Jimbo Version vs. [whatever NIV could stand for in this context] slide-show. So unless somebody here can, like... read Aramaic...

Posted by: Apathetic

you can't even hold a candle to how much i don't care

Posted by: thekohser

That's a challenge, because it is more difficult to "translate" a short, incisive quote like Bush's, than it is to do so with a long, fabricated quarter-truth such as Jimbo is so talented at uttering.

I guess I'd do my best and say:

"Listen to me, I'm not going to raise your taxes, until I'm in office and faced with record deficits."

See? That didn't really get "simpler".


Jimbo, on the other hand, is a lot easier to simplify:

ORIGINAL: "Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so."

SIMPLE: "Keep working, volunteers. I need that jet."

+++++

ORIGINAL: "We are Wikipedians. This means that we should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies. We are not vindictive, childish, and we don't stoop to the level of our worst critics, no matter how much we may find them to be annoying."

SIMPLE: "Seth, you're an idiot."

+++++

ORIGINAL: "Quite frankly, several of the people who contributed to the article should be banned from coming near a keyboard until they have learned to engage in proper encyclopedia writing."

SIMPLE: "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant (sic) located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa."

+++++

ORIGINAL: "I have said this many times in the past and will say it many times in the future I am sure: some people need to find a different hobby, because whatever they are here for, it is not to help build an encyclopedia."

SIMPLE: "hang on a second
let's actually do this right now
because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry"

+++++

I have to stop there, because it's just too easy, and it might come off as most unseemly to continue.

Greg

Posted by: American Eagle

The point of simplifying quotes is to define what they mean. These versions (albeit jokes) change what Jimbo Wales meant.

We have a clear purpose, and despite errors, we are fighting for that.

Posted by: thekohser

Keep on fighting. When you've finally won, I have http://www.wannaspell.com where we're trying to fight for order and precision. Come join us!

By the way, how old are you, American Eagle? I'm guessing 22.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

You know, at this point, I'm reminded that dogged determination to disallow humour aimed at the group or its leader is one of the identifying features of a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17175&view=findpost&p=90398.

Posted by: American Eagle

Err... I'm not the "leader". We are a growing community.

Posted by: thekohser

I'm revising my age guess down to 17.

Posted by: American Eagle

I have not kept my age a secret: I am indeed a teenager.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

And a Christian fundamentalist who probably thinks it's their duty to combat the "liberal agenda" across WMF projects?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I'm revising mine to 13.

Posted by: American Eagle

Actually, if you look at my Wikimedia history, I'm one of the most neutral Christians across the foundation. I keep a NPOV, and if I don't, please tell me when and how.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

And you don't watch CM16's back on Simple English Wikipedia just because you believe in the fairy stories of the same Jewish hang-man?

Posted by: American Eagle

I'm older, but whatever.


No, I opposed his ban because he is a good user in the encyclopedic namespace (which is what truly matters). I've stayed out of the continuing discussion, though.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

To highlight the point raised about namespace being all that matters, one of the problems with Simple English Wikipedia is the awful understanding of the English language by many of the users.

And the proportion of users who claim some sort of mental illness or other is almost amusingly high.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

"http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=1383379." O rly?

Posted by: American Eagle

Heh. This was agreed upon (not that it isn't disputed, but that most historical works agree) by the community of Simple English Wikipedia. Read "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for Easter".

My edit summary wasn't fully explained. Yes, it is debated, but not by the mainstream world. Some people still believe the earth is flat.

Posted by: Somey

I'm not sure "NPOV" is even relevant in your case - looking over your contribs on Simple English WikiQuote, the ratio of talk/maintenance edits to quote-additions/new articles appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100:1.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, though. But if you look at http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Walberg&diff=prev&oldid=10550, for example, one might easily think this is little more than an excuse for spamming a few links to one of your favorite politicians onto yet another WMF project site.

Personally, I'd have no objection to your tendency to work the system on behalf of Christians and http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&diff=prev&oldid=10555... then again, when you look at something like http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Gothard&diff=prev&oldid=10604, you have to wonder: Why no quote-simplifications? (There's one in there, but it's hardly a simplification, is it?)

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Mate, it's disputed by between 75% to 90% of the world, depending on how you measure.

Posted by: Somey

It can be scientifically proven that the Earth isn't flat, though.

Posted by: American Eagle

I don't mean Jesus dying on the cross and saving the world from sin (the Christian belief). I only mean him being a real person. But whatever.


Yes, I know. That's called faith, which I don't expect you to understand. You win that.

This discussion has become pointless. You all can hate Simple English Wikiquote, and me. I'm not really worried about that

Posted by: Somey

I'm not so sure anymore, personally...

I mean, another example is http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fireproof, a Christian-evangelical production which appears to be one of Mr. Eagle's favorite movies. (He also started a page for Kirk Cameron, who starred in it, and Alex Kendrick, who also made Flywheel and Facing the Giants, for which Mr. Eagle also started WikiQuote pages.

In fact, looking at his http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:American_Eagle/Articles, I'd say just about every name on that list that I hadn't already heard of before is that of an evangelical minister or politician. Except for http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey, of course... not sure what he's doing in there, but there's only one quote, and technically, Satanism is a religion.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

So do I. The "evidence" for Jesus's existence, outside of biblical sources, is a likely forged addition to Tacitus's Annals 15, the almost-certainly-forged Testimonium Flavianum, and a highly dubious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James. Although since you appear to think that (personal opinion)+(dubious source)=(truth), you should fit right in at Wikipedia.

I don't think anyone here hates Simple English Wikiquote. In fact, I don't think anyone here except you gives a flying fuck about Simple English Wikiquote.

Posted by: Somey

Personally, I do believe Jesus Christ was a real person. But that's based on a preponderance of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence leading to a high probability, not on science, or even on official records from the period (which are sketchy at best). I'm not going to pretend that His existence can be proven scientifically, certainly not in the way the shape of the Earth can be proven.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

His http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=American_Eagle&lang=simple&wiki=wikipedia makes for interesting reading, too.


You forgot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ChristianCinema.com&action=history.

Posted by: American Eagle

Those are just topics I like to write on. I don't write "Fireproof is the best movie ever." I keep a NPOV, even if those are topics I like (you aren't required to edit only specific pages).

Posted by: MZMcBride

The last legitimate attempt to kill Simple was here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia

Of course the key issue is that we allow people who primarily contribute to the Simple projects to vote. Which is nicely democratic, but ends up killing each and every proposal to end these mistakes. And it's anathema to advertise the discussions on any project other than the projects being discussed, so nobody ever knows about these obscure votes at Meta.

Some sort of weighted voting system combined with a better advertising system would likely work much better.

For reference, this is the most recent discussion that I'm aware of regarding disbanding all Wikiquotes: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/On_disbanding_Wikiquote

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

O RLY? Do you know how many manuscript copies of that passage (Annals 15.44) exist? (One (1). I don't need Google to confirm that, nor to remember the name of the book. Senior thesis.) If you did know, how can you assert that it is "likely forged"?



Those references, on the other hand, are questionable at best; the first was more probably http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=emended (hah!), the second less so.

Me, I lean towards the conclusion that he was a real person; I'm agnostic on the question of whether the extant texts are accurate depictions of his life and death. Then again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Narrans. . .

Posted by: Noroton

It's not just that he existed -- for which there is plenty of proof, better than for many other figures of antiquity whom historians assume existed, based on the evidence we have in those cases. It's also a fact that this one person evidently had such an enormous impact on those around him, and an impact that expanded so far in space and time (and still is). It's hard to come up with a better explanation than that the Gospel was about the teachings of one person, with others writing about him. The alternatives -- some kind of hoax, mistake, communal delusion? -- make it difficult to account for the strength of the moral vision in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It's possible to come up with those kinds of explanations, but they don't seem to cohere nearly as well as the simplest explanation: This was one extraordinary man, even God. The historical evidence gets me very close to believing he is God. What pushes me over the top is simply reading and contemplating the Gospels and the New Testament. Maybe it's faith or maybe it's just a different kind of evidence from historical or scientific, but I find it easier -- that is, more sensible, more reasonable -- to believe than to not believe.

The four books of the Gospel themselves are historical evidence, and simply because they advocate his Godhood doesn't mean that, even if you reject the idea of his Godhood, they stop being evidence of various things (such as his existence), just like other historical documents.

As far as existence of the person goes, we probably have better evidence for Jesus than for Muhammad and Bhudda and St. Paul and Confucius, the only other people I can think of that even come close to Jesus in terms of historical influence. I suppose some scholars must have advocated the position that each of these never actually existed either, but you don't tend to hear about that much, and it runs into the same problems: the easier, simpler, more direct explanation is that they existed. Occam's razor, and all that.

Posted by: thekohser

User talk
184 - American_Eagle (wiki-addicted teenager giving me trouble on Simple)
111 - RyanCross
105 - ChristianMan16
85 - Razorflame (wiki-addicted student giving me LOTS of trouble on Yahoo!)
49 - Gwib
33 - Chenzw
30 - Eptalon
24 - The_Rambling_Man (giving me trouble on Simple)
22 - Andrew_from_NC/Archive_1
20 - Fairfield

So, it would seem that they run in packs in order to harass me. I figured as much.

Posted by: American Eagle

Not exactly.

Posted by: Somey

Mr. Eagle registered here over a week ago, actually - we added him manually, because he said he couldn't register with a non-freemail address. In retrospect I probably should have been more concerned about the fact that in the e-mail, he wrote "I'm a Wikipedia administrator," as opposed to "I'm a Simple-English Wikipedia administrator." But that's never been a reason for denying registrations in the past...

Anyway, the timing makes it unlikely that he wanted to register here in order to hassle Mr. Kohs. I'm still a little astonished that he would start this thread, but I guess weirder things have happened here!

Posted by: American Eagle

Woah. I seriously have no interest in hassling "Mr. Kohs". I knew nothing of him whatsoever until someone told me today he was banned on English Wikipedia.

And about not being able to register with a non-free email address, I didn't lie. I truly couldn't under the circumstances I told you (I believe it was you) of. I did not belive this discussion would escalate to simply a place to bash me, my age, my POV or my hassling of "Mr. Kohs."

Posted by: dogbiscuit

If you dredged back through previous discussions you'd find that in discussions about Simple English Wikipedia, the complaint has been that it was a good idea, destroyed by the complete lack of understanding of what a Simple English Wikipedia should be, together with it being damaged by ignorant Wikipedians dumping their problem children upon it (along the lines of "Stop playing with our real encyclopedia, go and play with that toy simple one over there and come back when you've grown up").

So, Simple English Wikipedia had the potential to be the really useful product for the Dusty Child in Africa™ but the players at WMF have not grasped that.

However, Simple English Wikiquote simply misses the point of quotations. Quotations are verbatim reporting of interesting sayings that depend on their specific use of words. Explain the quotes in Simple English, don't reword them.

Take today's quote of the day:

The last sentence did not need to be reworded, and arguably makes it a slightly harder level of comprehension as you need to understand that the "to listen" also goes with "we learned".

The first sentence change acquires a subtle change in that Hawking used a turn of phrase that didn't have the derogatory flavour - that "just" has a subtle effect to me.

Worst, there is the creationist subtlety of changing "unleashed" to "gave us". That is a big change, from saying it was something that we had, but couldn't leverage until we learned to communicate to saying that some outside agency messed with mankind - and gives the final sentence an ambiguity that was not there in the first case: is the final sentence a result of the giving, a subsequent event, or is it the "something"? (To be fair, the original quotation would have been better with a colon after imagination, but it is clear that it was communication that was the "something").

So, in trying to make something simpler, the lack of English comprehension has actually made something more opaque. It should not reword, it should explain and should not pass itself off as a quote.

How would I do it:



So, the principle of being a resource that turns educated words into a resource for the less able (whether that is language or intellect) is laudable. The problem is that you need to be very clever to pull it off - you need to understand the subtleties of why these quotations are notable in the first place. For what it is worth, WikiQuote often gives such a commentary: Though I'd take issue with the impossible, note WikiQuote does not paraphrase, it attempts to explain. (It also hints that this is not a great quotation for all mankind, but it was an advertising slogan for BT - the British equivalent of AT&T).

So without a clear understanding of the goal of Simple WikiQuote, and a clear set of guidelines to achieve this, it is just a waste of time, and for that reason the project should be disbanded.

Posted by: Viridae

I have been getting emails in german as part of a mass spam of travel stories/updates from a german friend of mine - all the rest of the people she emails speak the language, I just run it through google translate to get the gist - and it is only the gist. You don't have to run it through multiple languages to get hilarious nonsense from that thing.

Posted by: thekohser

Well, ever since the Eagle and his teen pack started harassing me -- over a couple of links on my User page to WHERE TO FIND ME -- I have to admit, the quality of Simple.Wikiquote is http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=23081.

Posted by: carbuncle

Please enjoy the Simple English™ Wikiquote™ http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_Day/April_30,_2009 for 30 April, as chosen by American Eagle:

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Perhaps the project just be renamed "WikiSimpleSoundbitesForSimplePeople" or WikiFoxNewsQuotes?

Fail.

Posted by: Alex

He is?



I don't think many doubt Jesus was real. There's more evidence for his existence than there is for Julius Caesar. I think it's the idea that he was the son of god that is doubted.

Posted by: Alex

Personally, I wouldn't touch Wikiquote, neither the English or Simple English version. I don't really do article work on Simple, but leave it up to those who do. I think it would be good if Simple English Wikipedia's purpose was redefined so it fitted within the criteria for Wikipedia Schools. Simple quality versions of articles such as *cough* Christianity, Henry VIII, and all the vital articles should be the priority. None of those sex position articles, or random asteroids or Romanian rivers. Though of course, articles on sex would probably be necessary for use in high school.

Simple English Wikipedia, I believe, has a strong future that should not be vetoed by a vote on meta wiki. I cannot see any future for Simple English Wikiquote.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

I agree. I cannot see the point of a Simple English Wikiquote at all.

But with Simple English, I can sort of see a future for the project. Not as Simple English but, as you say, for schools.

This would need a complete restructuring of the community, though, and the removal of the likes of Eptalon, who thinks he owns the project (see any of his various statements where he tries to force his view on others).

Posted by: Alex

Eptalon is one of a few who actually do any work though, and the work is generally ok. Without him, it would probably just be The Rambling Man. Of course, I'd be happy to try and write some quality articles if I knew why I was writing them. But at the moment, Simple English Wikipedia is so ill-defined I'd rather focus my efforts elsewhere (English Wikipedia).

Posted by: michael

Eptalon actually tries to provide guidence to the project, which would otherwise be a rudderless boat going nowhere. I think he and The Rambling Man are the only things keeping the project together. Otherwise, it'd just be chaotic, since SEW has no really well-run and well-functioning WikiProjects.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

Good to see Majorly has started a discussion on it:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Our_purpose

A good example of Eptalon's input.

Posted by: thekohser

I'll tell you what's wrong with Simple Wikipedia.

They have contributors giving them great, simple new articles about things like http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfowl...

But then they descend upon those new contributors with pack http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&oldid=1507497.

It is shameful.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The style of disscurse on that talk page is far too abstroose and asoteric — someone needs to transalt it into blood simple.

Ja Ja

Posted by: Obesity

You're a cruel man, Gregory.

Picking on the passengers of Wikimedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_bus....

Posted by: Alex

Hardly a pack attack. Each thread is about something different, with one person other than you in each. I think the first one is completely unjustified, but the second, well, you could have been a little more mature and not spoken to Razorflame at all, but you did. It wasn't really necessary to bring your Yahoo Answers conflict over. Anyhow, please continue working on articles, and avoiding arguments and conflict. Hopefully you won't get banned from Simple...

Posted by: thekohser

Thing is, I didn't have a "conflict" on Yahoo! Answers. I was attacked, unprovoked, by someone I've never interacted with before, who deliberately blocked my ability to respond to him via Yahoo! Answers, regarding our difference in opinion about Wikimedia projects. I thought that Wikimedia projects have a policy that editors shall not harass other editors about Wikimedia-related matters, even on non-Foundation sites. You know, the whole "stalking" thing.

Anyway, I'm trying to simplify this passage from the Simple article about http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono_Trigger:



Does anyone have any ideas about how to simplify this a little bit more? I think Lucca's time travel is going to be the most difficult aspect to reformat in terms understandable to both a child and/or someone learning English as a second language.

Greg

Posted by: Obesity

I would recommend eliminating all the text and supplanting it with Chrono Trigger-themed hentai like http://hentaifromhell.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Dark%20Chrono%20Trigger%20-%20Devil%20Slave%20Heroine.jpg (NSFW, obviously).

Stupid people always prefer pictures to words. Some smart people do too.

Posted by: thekohser

Looks like Razorflame lost another challenge on Yahoo! Answers. My snarky answer prevails http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090427215008AAOEwcK, while Razorflame's suffers in obscurity down in the dregs.

Posted by: American Eagle

thekohser, I have zero knowledge of you whatsoever. I have never, ever attacked you. But, you've given me a horrible first impression of you: you don't stop complaining, whining and acting like you're the poor victim everyone destroys, when it appears you've spent all your time attacking and demeaning everyone around you. It's no wonder the largest wiki in the world banned you.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

AE, this may be the stupidest post I've ever seen on WR and there's some pretty stiff competition there. I'm no fan of Greg's but I can still agree that Jimmy Wales treated him like a piece of shit.

Posted by: Somey

Are you trying to tell us you're not an integral part of the Massive International Anti-Kohser Communist Conspiracy?

Well, get with the program, dude! We have meetings every Wednesday at 4 PM, in the back of O'Malley's Coffee Shop on 13th and Locust Sts. Though I should warn you, first-timers have to pick up the check...

Also, I really did think until just now that the term "waterfowl" was merely another euphemism for pissing in the bathtub while somebody else is in it. Thanks for setting me straight, folks!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Try to think of it as performance fart.

Jon

Posted by: American Eagle

I also have no idea what Jimbo did to him. As I said, I know nothing of him, and I don't know why he keeps accusing me of attacking him.


No, I'm not, and I have no clue what that means.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Given that it's one of the best known incidents in Wikipedia's history (and that Greg is possibly the only person ever to win an apology from Jimmy Wales for abuse received at the hands of Wikipedia's kiddy-admin horde), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to do some basic research before throwing yourself into an argument. You can even read about it on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

Don't worry. You'll get your membership card, your detailed instructions and your secret decoder ring in the next day or two, delivered by bonded courier, along with several photos of http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/This_guy, which you should of course burn immediately after eating them.

Meanwhile, who's up for another thread-closure?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Spoilsport

Posted by: Somey

Well now, let's be fair about this. Mr. Eagle here didn't necessarily "throw himself in" to an argument with Mr. Kohs. Greg may be suspicious of the timing of Mr. Eagle's arrival, given that Razorflame (Mr. Eagle's fellow admin on SEWQ) has recently been opposing Greg on Yahoo!Answers for trying to spread the truth about Wikipedia. However, there's no reason to simply assume that such suspicions have merit, and that Razorflame deliberately steered Mr. Eagle to WR - particularly since his opening post in this thread didn't mention Greg, and Greg didn't start an account on SEWQ until after the thread was started.

Still, I have to wonder what someone who claims not to know what the phrase "Massive International Anti-Kohser Communist Conspiracy" means is doing trying to "simplify" famous quotations. How can someone not know what that means? It's completely self-explanatory!

Posted by: American Eagle

I know what the words means. I've just never heard that phrase before. I'm not a part of any cabal nor do I know anything about the guy. That is what I meant.

Posted by: American Eagle

I just now read through http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07028/756842-96.stm, and have a better understanding of Mr. Kohs. Nevertheless, I knew nothing of him and have never attacked him in any way. I don't know why he has treated me this way...

Posted by: thekohser

Look, American Eagle... no hard feelings. But, just remember, you bounced in here, full of Jimbo Juice, and you spammed us with this whole Simple English Wikiquote announcement, dripping with glee. We don't like glee here.

Then, you http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=22962 one of my first (and best) contributions.

Then, we discovered that you're in active communication with two of my adversaries on Yahoo! Answers, who are gaming that site's rulebook in an effort to censor free (and helpful!) speech.

Now, granted... this series of circumstances probably did not merit me saying you've "attacked" me... (indeed, I may have confused you with the twerps who really are savaging me on Simple English Wikipedia)... so, I'm going to say "I'm sorry."

And, I'm going to thank you for bringing to our attention here at Wikipedia Review the cringing good reads that we've all had, now that you're here.



What? I haven't been banned http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis#List_of_largest_other_wikis, have I?

Me http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E6%9D%8E%E6%99%93%E9%98%B3%5B%E6%A8%A1%E7%89%B9%5D Hudong.

Posted by: American Eagle

Yeah, I agree, I probably shouldn't have began this discussion in the first place.


I didn't revert everything. I only removed the "simple" version, as it didn't seem to be related (if it was, it should have probably been in an "about" template).


I don't know who or what these users are (except for seeing your message to Razorflame), and I am not related to it in any way.

Okay, thanks. I'll apologize as well, as I've been irritated and have been rude in this discussion. ("It's no wonder you were banned on English Wikipedia". I said that without knowing your story at all.) I am sorry, Mr. Kohs, and ask for your forgiveness.

Now, I second Somey's proposal to close this discussion.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

Incidentally, Simple English Wikipedia want a checkuser on Greg as they think he is Jonas Rand

Posted by: carbuncle

Please enjoy the jingoistic Simple English™ Wikiquote™ http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_Day/April_31,_2009 as chosen by American Eagle:

Freedom fries forever!!!

Posted by: Random832

Aside from the content itself, that's a crappy "translation" - it translates 'ill' to 'badly' but leaves alone the awkward (well, poetic, but awkward to someone who's not perfect with the language) "any ... to be ... who ..." construct.

Posted by: carbuncle

I think it's pretty clear that most of the people who frequent the Simple English™ projects have no ability to write in simple English.

My apologies to American Eagle, that quote was chosen by Apples and Oranges, who seems to have figured out there is no 31 April. They also chose http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_Day/May_2,_2009:


Do I sense an agenda here?

Posted by: LaraLove

You don't pick up on humor easily do you? Yet you translate the meaning of quotes. Fascinating. I guess when you stick solely to those relating to Christianity, there's no need for an internal humor detector, despite the fact that the whole thing is a joke.

Posted by: Cedric

Pffffttt! The idiots. Everybody knows that Greg is actually . . . http://www.mannyhomeslice.com/mannyhomeslice/chickenman/ He's everywhere! He's everywhere!

Posted by: thekohser

Is there a public link where I can see my privacy being violated as such?

EDIT: Nevermind, I http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=1509530#Thekohser_and_Jonas_D_Rand.

Posted by: Alex

Don't worry, no one will be performing that check...

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I'm more taken by "Gut instinct. Looks suspiciously like a sock" as a reason for checkusering, a couple below you.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

How 'bout the Jonas dude? This user is banned from changing Wikipedia because of this http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jonas_D._Rand&diff=cur&oldid=1506071. Simple indeed.

Eva D, I done think you hit a

trying to insert any kind of reasoning into this discussion

Posted by: The Joy

Banned from changing Wikipedia?

Gee, you don't have to be banned to be unable to change Wikipedia.

Goodness knows how long we Reviewers have tried!

I fear the answer to this question, but:

Is there going to be a Simple WikiNews now that we have a Simple WikiQuote? A Simple WikiSource?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Golly, this sure is loads'a wacky fun!........

Posted by: thekohser

From the CheckUser discussion:

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I've heard of "gutchecking" before — but it takes Wikipediots to make a bureaucracy of it.

Nevertheless, I think it would give our critical faculties a bit of beneficial exercise to stop and look at what's going on here.

When you really think about, the behavior of these Wikipediots Simpletons is actually quite rational here, after a faschion, of course — even if their overall conduct is not.

I probably ought to mention that I follow some schools of philosophy and humanistic psychology that draw a distinction between "behavior" and "conduct". Behavior is anything you do, while Conduct is deliberate, value-guided behavior.

That said, let's ask ourselves — What are the rationalizations, however implicit or tacit, that underlie this type of behavior?

If we try to articulate the Underlying Rationale, I think it would sound a bit like this:


Like I said, aside from certain peculiar features, this is actually about as close as Wikipediots get to behaving rationally. It is more or less what normal folks do whenever they spy a problem somewhere. They seek to identify the cause, the source of the problem.

Some of the more irrational add-ons are, of course:

• Wikipediots live in total denial that doing this stuff violates their loudly vaunted principles.
• Wikipediots indignantly deny to anyone else the justice of doing what they themselves do.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: thekohser

Couldn't agree more, Jon. 100% true.

Meanwhile, it looks like this "Kennedy" character has also http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=1510372&oldid=1510368 of removing favorable comments about me from my Talk page.

Posted by: Alex

Perhaps you should heed Djsasso's advice? You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit, and have what, 10? It's like you're after conflict... after creating an article, you leave an attention-seeking message to Razorflame (who hasn't been active for ages), and it's been downhill from there - entirely your own fault this is happening to you. If you just, um, wrote articles and attempted to get on with the community instead of trying to act like a wikimartyr, you wouldn't receive so-called "abuse" and "harrassment".

It's what Jonas Rand tried doing - he positioned himself as an unwanted in-house critic, and stayed under the false pretence he was actually useful, by editing an article once in a while. He went out of his way to find conflict, and irritate everyone he came across, until he became such an irritating twat, we had no choice but to ban him. Of course, this was abuse and wrong according to Jonas, but it was entirely his own fault, simply because he act(s/ed) like an asshole. You're heading down the same route, as far as I can see. Jonas is, I believe, 12 years old. You're in your thirties/forties (I forget which). See if you can do better than a little kid, which is what Jonas is.

Posted by: Somey

"Jonas" is actually 46 years old, give or take a couple of years.

Posted by: Moulton

If you know "Jonas" to be a 46-yr old female, why did you ban "Jonas" under COPPA? Shouldn't you have banned "Jonas" under some more appropriate pretext such as Identity Theft?

Posted by: groody

...but who is most active on simple, thus making simple the most reasonable place to leave the message. Abrasive, perhaps, but Razorflame is more of an irritating twat than Jonas Rand ever was.

Frankly, I think simple should be zapped. Clear the server space. Very few people know it's there, even less actually use it, and the vast majority of its articles are utter crap.

f.

Posted by: Somey

We didn't ban her under COPPA, we banned her for, well, pretty much everything. And to be frank, it's actually worse to pretend to be 12 years old than to actually be 12 years old, assuming you're going to make a point of announcing it, as far as participation in a forum like this is concerned...

Mind you, I can't definitively prove that "Jonas" isn't a highly precocious 12-year-old boy who has, in the past, impersonated a 46-year-old woman. But I've decided to fall back on Occam's Razor for that one.

Posted by: Alex

Indeed. There is no doubt Jonas is a child.

Posted by: LaraLove

I haven't been keeping up with the Jonas Rand thing, so I really don't know who he is or what he's done, however, I just wanted to point out that you just called a 12 year old a twat and said he's acting/acts like an asshole. I don't know whether to laugh or to scowl.

Posted by: thekohser

You still don't seem to understand who started the "trouble". One of "your" project's users threatened me (unprovoked) in an offsite forum that was specifically about Wikipedia projects. I thought that you all have a "no stalking" and "no threats" rule. Because the person threatening me had also shut off my ability to respond to him with the same communications tools he was using to harass me, it seemed very appropriate to contact him on his favored Wikipedia project, to let him know that I would pursue this at "my" favored Wikimedia project, if he persisted in threatening me.

Guess what? No more threats toward me.

It was only when the wiki-goons then started throwing their weight around did things start to get uglier.

You're mired in "trouble", Alex. Maybe if you woke up and thought about what it is that provokes normally kind, diplomatic adults to track down impetuous teenagers, you'd be able to see just where the trouble resides.

P.S. I think that "Simple" project you're working on is a big, mismanaged waste of time. If you re-directed your efforts to something more worthwhile toward your future career, or to humanity, you will feel better about yourself in the long run. You could then thank me, say, in 2015 for having given you that bit of advice. Liberate yourself from the "trouble" in which you are mired, Alex.

Posted by: thekohser

I have come to the conclusion that the Simple English Wikipedia community is almost http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thekohser#English_Wikipedia_-_copyright_requirements of my backstory. I am bemused.

Greg

Posted by: Somey

There is little (but not "no") doubt that a child named "Jonas Rand" existed at one point, and probably still does. The only non-wiki evidence we have for that is a PDF file announcing a boy by that name as a spelling bee winner, which is hardly proof of anything germane to Wikipedia. However, I'm at least willing to accept the PDF as legitimate.

I do have more information about this than the average Wikipedian, I'm afraid. So, I can say with about 97 percent certainty that the Wikipedia user "Jonas Rand" is not a child, and is in fact a grown woman. And until "Jonas" can come up with a plausible explanation for who "Linda Rand" is, then Occam's Razor clearly points to "Jonas Rand" being a woman in her mid-40's named Linda Rand.

I shall split this part of thread out into the Tarpit later today...

Posted by: Alex

If you think that way, why do you continue to edit? I suppose you won't make a fuss if you're banned then? I don't put any effort in on Simple anyhow - I patrol recent changes and delete/block the crap that comes up most of the time. It's not difficult, and do it to fill the time.

I just find it odd how you're creating articles there but you're saying it's a waste of time, and you're encouraging me to leave. Practise what you preach.

Posted by: thekohser

It's all about the moral high ground, Alex. You know that. Think beyond your current level and go to the next level.

Posted by: thekohser

This seemed like a http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APickdrama indefinite block. What did that guy do to deserve it?

Oh, also this guy http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMBarras%27d for his user name!

Posted by: sbrown

This was his only edit:

http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23047

Basically his "sin" was to introduce a (deliberate?) spelling error and a good joke:

" [[wikt:entreppreneur|entreppreneur]]. His ego is almost as big as that of [[Gregory Kohs]]."


User:MBarras'd. He couldnt possibly have been banned for this edit:

http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23796

But Greg should rejoice that this person or people are blocked so are freed from toiling for Jimbo for nothing. Nobody should seek an unblock unless they can profit from their editing.

Posted by: MZMcBride

It's harsh to indefinitely block someone from Simple Wikiquote? Isn't that like a promotion to go work on a real project?

Posted by: sbrown

Whats a real project inthis context? Czech wikipeida? Citizendum? Surely not English wikipeida.

Posted by: Nerd

Well, uh, let me think... maybe he vandalised? Oh ya.



No, I'd suggest English Wikipedia in this case. Never heard of "Czech wikipeida", "Citizendum" or "English wikipeida". Enlighten me, what are they?

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

By the way, Simple Wikiquote was closed: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%283%29_Wikiquote

Posted by: thekohser

And yet, it is http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges.

I think they just didn't want my vote on Meta to count.

Posted by: carbuncle

Most sensible thing I've seen in a long time, WMF-wise. I'm guessing some trolls will need to find a new home.

Will it actually go away, or will it just be closed to editing? I doubt there's anything worth keeping.

Posted by: thekohser

I suspect it will http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maximillion_Pegasus&diff=prev&oldid=33372 of that non-relationship between the Wikimedia projects and Wikia, Inc. we all know and love.





Anyway, its closure was http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikiquote_%283%29&diff=next&oldid=1743819 November 29, 2009, but six weeks later, it is still open to editing.

Posted by: MZMcBride

The relevant bug is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21676. You can add yourself to the CC list if you'd like to receive updates about it (and you have a Bugzilla account). The project will be closed, it's just a matter of getting a willing sysadmin to resolve the bug. Even when the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't so short-staffed, it could take months for these types of bugs to be resolved.

Posted by: thekohser

So, you're saying the addition of dozens of paid staff has not helped the Wikimedia Foundation perform any more responsively than they used to?

I agree!