No.

Thank God for that.

They have access to the global checkuser list though, which contains private information about enwp editors. I am unsure if they can still see the checkuser logs on other projects, which is basically a permanent record of all checked users' IPs.

Wasn't that all changed around the time of PoetCatoBaxGuy?

More importantly, do they get to use Φoton TORpedoes in alternate universes, or just this one?

I mean, assuming they keep their BarnStorm points up to level, of course.

Ja³

I joined this forum during the Essjay controversy. It was interesting to read, and discuss, and I became more of a regular here later in the year. As of late, all this place seems to be is petty bitching from a bunch of angry and cynical individuals, with nothing better to do with their time. I can't believe people care that much about Simple.wp. Yes, it is a bit of a joke sometimes, but most of the editors are good decent people who care about the project. This place is becoming a joke. It seems every other thread is an attack on me or something/someone I like, mostly baseless mud slinging for the sake of it. I spent the last month refraining from posting; as each day goes by, this place gets worse and worse. I'm not the only one who thinks this, and has stopped regularly posting.

And FYI, CheckUser requests are often closed early, and mine was closed totally within policy.

The problem with Simple is that nobody understands what a Simple English Encyclopedia is intended to be, least of all the simpletons who think that it must be easy to write a Simple English encyclopeida without understanding how to write plain English, let alone simple English.

The leadership of that project might gain some respect if they spent a bit of time defining the parameters of the task rather than herding the gerbils over the cliffs.

It is a difficult task and requires good communication skills which your average teenager is unlikely to have. Unfortunately, it seems to be seen as a toy encyclopedia rather than a means to being the flagship version targeted at say Jimbo's dusty child. I bet if you asked half the editors what they were up to, they would not have the wit to know it was supposed to be an encyclopedia for those with limited language skills, but not necessarily limited intelligence.

Forget about Wikipedia governance games, and if you really are committed to the project rather than Wikipedia - Teh Game, spend a few weeks getting some writing guides into shape, and work out how to put together a writing tutorial or online seminars. Oh, and find someone who does know about Simple English and implement flagged revisions, even if that means there are only 5 articles worthy of flagging.

↑ What he said. Explaining things in simple terms is usually harder than in technical terms (go read the manual for any piece of electronic equipment, with the honorable exception of Apple, to see for yourself), otherwise we'd write the whole of Wikipedia in simple English. I'm not saying you (Alex) are necessarily one of them, but too many people see Simple Wikipedia as "Training Wheels Wikipedia" and use it as a dumping ground for Wikipedia's cranks and nutjobs ('Your "this band is so cool" article isn't what we're looking for, have you tried Simple?' or 'Your writing style is terrible, go try Simple').

For example, as I write this your main page includes "A baseball uniform is a special kind of uniform that baseball players wear. They mostly do this to show that their job is related to playing the sport, baseball." This isn't "simple English", this is "patronising English"; the "real" Wikipedia article starts off with "A baseball uniform is a type of uniform worn by baseball players", which is simpler than Simple's version.

... ... whooooooooosshh!!!!!! !!!!!! ... ...
(Note to self : Try not to be so "dry". Confuses the shite out of them). Heh!
(Note to Lara : !)


What I say is - Simple Checkuser buttons for Simple English Checkusers. Essentially that means a nice round graphical button with the words "Press Here" written (prominently) on it. Maybe a few sound effects too, including a rude farting sound every time they miss, which will be often. I mean, look who it is!


No. No no no. That just won't do. Too complicated; too wordy. "Uniform for playing baseball". That's all that's needed for Simple. And no hyperlinks either. They just make you have to read stuff.

Stick it to them that simply, and maybe they'll GET it.

Unless they're stupid. Which I fear is the problem. Reference to Bill Cosby's famous monolog: Children Are Stupid. A problem fortunately often fixable, with time.


PS: later edit. I've told the story before about a lot of maintenance manuals for heavy equipment like bulldozers, written in Basic English for non-speakers on Pacific Islands during WWII. And they were written with appropriate non patronising really straightforward style. Years later, a lot of people were shocked to find many mechanics of normal intelligence, and who were native English speakers, using those manuals! In preference to all the others available to them. How a technical writing prof of mine loved to tell that tale!

No you haven't. But it's a great story.

I always thought this was a Jefferson quote

And this one I thought was Knuth...

...shows what I know.

Your first link didn't work with so long a string, so I did the google myself and came up with Pascal:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=177502

The second quote about programs is just as pithy. I'll append a link to a hilarious YouTube presentation about the history of IT services....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNcbrr0GhM

This isn't quite on-topic, but I thought you and Somey would appreciate it, if you haven't seen it already.

Hadn't but added it to faves, thanks. I have some customers like that.

I love this website! Always good for a laugh. Always good for reading a well formed debate. Although I must say I am impressed you can read Simple.Wikipedia from all the way up there on your high horses. Whats the weather like up there?

People in chocolate teapots shouldn't look gift horses on the hot tin roof... Try sorting out worse problems at en.wiki before criticising our project.

Well gosh, Mr 173 edits to articles and 136 edits to your own user pages, that's us told.

Between this incoherent post and your opposition to flagged revisions for BLPs, it's obvious that you're an intellectual child (and probably an actual one too).

So your argument (well informed) against criticising Simple is that en.wiki is more of a basket case? QED*


*Look it up.

It will get worse -- someone tried to push Wikipedia's dumbest admin, Either Way (formerly Metros), for Simple adminship!

The "A young brain is good for the Wiki" on the top of his talkpage prior to his retirement, unretirement, retirement again and string of further contributions despite being "retired" is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it?

(editing to add) So now he's running for Bureaucrat. Kennedy, your talkpage is kind of – er – special. I leave it up to you to decide in what sense of the word.

Ugh. This project is such a joke. The failed request for checkuser is a special read as well. A complete inability to grasp a reasonable oppose based on lack of administrative experience. Then check out this gem, and be sure to look at the comments below oppose #3, and note that the user retired mid-request. That one, of course, followed this pointless reconf, initiated for the dramahz, which backfired.

No no no, K-boy. No. That's two horse-references in as many sentences. You just didn't think this through properly, did you?


Erm ......... hello? Earth calling Kennedy! Come in, please!

Agreed. K has exceed the permitted equine-metaphor-per-byte limit, and thus has too much horsepower. In order not to put this cart before his horse, he needs to stop bridling, take the bit, and changes horses in the middle of his stream to get back in the saddle. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:OVERHORSE.

Please stop flogging this dead horse. I don't mean to nag, but it makes you look an ass. (I hope that's clear. I don't want to shout myself hoarse.)

On the subject at hand, the worst aspect is the Simple English Wikipedia contains barely no Simple or Basic English. Even their Good Articles and Very Good Articles do not.

To create such a project, the average ability of the editors has to be above to ability of the average ability of EN editors. That is not the case.

Neigh, Trotsky, it is you doing the hemming and hawing. You're thinking to stirrup trouble and pommel us with some sort of slipshod rumpish humor. But in-steed, it would behoove you to halter, and avoid a deriding joust with His Royal Harness of the Wither-ing Canter, Milton Roe.

Thats fair. I did retire a few times, but I admit that I don't find editing en.wiki enjoyable for reasons on this thread. A bunch of people so convinced of their own authority that they come across as arrogant. I am trying to help Wikipedia, yet all you do is criticise when I put a retired notice on my page. Well done. Your debating skills are excellent. Can't argue my points, so you criticise me instead. Are you a politician by any chance?

Also, no, I am not a child, neither physically or mentally. And what are you implying by "special"? Thats not even funny.

I do look forward to your response, as I am sure you will find more incriminating diffs or links, instead of answering my points. Good luck!

Look, we know you're trying to help Wikipedia. Everybody does. That's not the problem though - the problem is that sewp and most of its editors are incompetent. It might be due to immaturity, poor social skills, or just pure idiocy, but your entire "project" is plagued by useless humps. The only way to solve the problem is to either get rid of the drama llamas or shut the godforsaken place down.

I know of a couple of editors who would fit that description, but, because I am not active at en.wiki I dont know the history of everyone.

The trouble is, we got rid of a few people, but there are others who want to give the person one more chance. FastReverter/StaticHawk/ShockingFalcon or whatever the hell you want to call him was banned, but we had to give him one more chance. (Although he is doing okay just now.) Another is Jonas D Rand, who was banned, so far successfully.

Tharnton345 is blocked too, although only for 1 year. Again, people wanted to give someone who does no good, another chance.

There is another two I'd like to get rid of, but I doubt its possible. One is even an admin.

The thing is, most of our editors are fine. There are no issues on en.wiki. Most are in good standing at en.wiki. There is only a couple who give us a stigma as "Wikipedia playground".

I hate to use another cliche but: Don't judge a book by its cover. You (plural) only see the bad points. You only see a small amount of what goes on. Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

You seem to assume that's a Good Thing - which is a mighty big assumption.


Why stage a fake retirement?

Every one I've seen is about shutting down dialog. It's holding your breath till you get your own way (until you don't). Its a tantrum, its the height of immaturity, and it speaks volumes about motivation and character.

You might excuse it from the kiddies - but then, the adult "wikipedians" do Fake Retirement all the time.

Examples?

Also a note to everyone in this thread; "its" is a possessive. "it's" stands for "it is". Please try to get it right.

I know at this point it does not seem like that. There is a lot of drama getting in the way. It will become better though. I'm sure it will. I hope it will.

Its/It's point noted.

Try this, I learnt it at school:

His, hers, yours and its
Have no apostrophes or other bits.

If only I had a rule to get by commas under control.

Yaah Mule! Yaah! YAAH!!!

All the world's a stage.


The assumption that one can "get past the drama" is a potentially fatal misconception.

It's like going to the circus and thinking, "Once you get past the circus acts, the discussion seminars are OK."

Ask yourself how it comes to be that there is so much disruptive and distracting political dramaturgy on a project that is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise to craft an encyclopedia.

If you study the system architecture of Wikimedia projects, you discover that they are optimally designed to be drama engines (and poorly designed to be scholarly enterprises).

For starters, all the actors are wearing quick-change costumes. They strut on and off the stage as they engage in hilarious antagonistic encounters full of sound and fury (but signifying nothing).

Here, let me illustrate...


See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

Moultan

If you have ever worked in a university (and I am fairly confident that you have), then you should know they are drama engines of epic proportions. They also have seminars, where occasionally we generate new knowledge, like that electricity and magnetism are connected.

Wikipedia generates GNU knowledge, not new knowledge, but otherwise the principles are the same. The politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

For Simpleton Wikipedia and associations with Shakespeare, you have to look to Richard III.

"An honest tale speeds best, being plainly told", "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch", and "So wise so young, they say, do never live long".

Oh, and (of course!) "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!". That one's especially dedicated to the Kidney guy.

And your left and right first fingers, too. That is, if you don't have an e-cold.

All right then; give honest answers to these questions:

1. What do you see the purpose of sewiki as? Do you agree with its mission statement that "to be useful for children, those learning English, those wanting to know basic information about a topic (not in depth), those who are partially literate in English, and those who have learning disabilities, and serve as a basis for translating articles to other Wikipedias"
2. Do you think it meets these goals? If not, when do you think it will?
3. Name any three articles that in sewiki's own terms of being easier to understand are more informative then their equivalents on en-wiki, or the equivalents on Citizendium where they exist.
4. These three articles were the genuine (non cherry-picked) result of clicking Special:Random on sewiki three times; defend them: British Rail Class 306, 11554 Asios, England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)
5. You seem to say in your later posts here that the problems stem from a particular group of editors. If that's the case, why are they allowed to continue being disruptive; Lord knows en-wiki has problem editors, but generally people at least try to stop them. Why don't you?
6. Do you think a project specifically aimed at children should be especially thorough in vetting those in positions of responsibility? If no, why not; if yes, do you think your procedures are robust enough?

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

But did you see English literature?



That should be simple enough for anyone to understand, yes? Why do people pick on SEWP so much?

And morris dancing. Let's not forget morris dancing. Oh God. Still; it gives country-music line dancers something to laugh at. Heh!

Your talents are being wasted on the internet. In all seriousness, quit your day job.

I'm particularly taken by "After this [the 1707 Act of Union], the history of England becomes the history of Great Britain and United Kingdom." Manages to offend so many groups on so many levels. (Do you suppose he thinks that "after 1776, the history of Massachusetts becomes the history of the United States"?) Oh, and the fact that the sole reference in what's arguably one of the most important topics on an English-language project is to FIFA.

Oh, and just noticed "James left the country without a fight". I guess the Battle of the Boyne was just a figment of an overactive imagination.

1. I agree. I think it is (or should be) a project for children and those who have difficulty speaking English. (Non-Native English speakers etc)
2. No. Who knows? We have a short list of good and very good articles. Once that list gets longer, and there is less copy-paste jobs perhaps.
3. Gothic Architecture (en.wiki version), Scottish Premier League (en.wiki version), Cuban Missile Crisis (en.wiki version)
4. 1. Recently created stub (29 December) 2. Recently created stub (2 January) 3. The England article gives a very rough idea of the country. (although it delves into Medieval history...)
5. I have tried. People have tried. Its just that some editors have a group of friends that can stick up for them. The ones that don't aren't there anymore (Jonas/Tharnton).
6. Not especially. Not more so than en.wiki. My basis for that thought is that it is not solely aimed at kids. Neither is en.wiki. There are adults who would read simple (because they can't read to a high standard). If there was one, I would read a Simple German Wikipedia because my German is not very good, and it would definately help me learn it better.

He did, actually, leave without a fight (in December '88). In fact his "fleeing" was so hurried the silly bugger got caught after only a few miles, but was allowed to board a ship to France so as to not become a martyr. The Boyne was much later in July '90.

You guys obviously have nothing better to do than create drama over a project that is doing fairly well as of late. If you were actually doing what Wikipedia stands for (creating articles), even on the English Wikipedia, then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site. Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys. If you have nothing better to do than critize Wikipedia and all of its flaws, then you probably shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia because it would probably be better off without you.

I've mostly stayed out of this, because I don't think it's nice to kick Simple English Wikipedia around. But in response to this post, I think you should be aware that
i. a good portion of the people here have no *desire* to build Wikipedia; rather, they would like to see it cease to exist.
ii. of those of us who do support Wikipedia's continued existence, there are quite a few people here who have done a great deal to build Wikipedia. For example, to my knowledge four of the top twenty writers of featured articles at en-wiki are here. So too are three current members of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which I understand takes some significant amount of time as well.

That's the thing with ad hominems: not only are they not an intellectually sound debating technique, they can make you look really stupid if the attacks are unfounded.

What he said. Assuming those comments were aimed at me, I currently have more than 100,000 Wikipedia edits and my last piece of assessed content was a featured article promoted – er – six days ago. You, on the other hand, have eight times more edits to your own user page than to any article and your proudest contributions are to have written a dozen one-line (literally) stubs.

Post posts? Aye aye!


Wow. Those guys must be something. Being better than us guys, I mean.


You're not exactly the brightest spark in the firmanent, are you? Rhetorical question.