Wikibooks:Simple talk

This is the place to ask questions about the Simple English Wikibooks.

Ask a new question

Stub

May I know the stub policy here? Pages with over 1.5k of text are marked as stubs while one liners aren't. Surely that is not the general rule? Pmlineditor^Talk 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Stubs might have what you're looking for, although it doesn't specifically say how long a page needs to be to not qualify as a stub. Tempodivalse 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, the page is not helpful. I'd say use the general 1.5k rule, so I'm being bold and adding it. Pmlineditor^Talk 07:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag

Can we please install the flood flag here? It'll help us in blocking proxies (a thing I can't do now) and doing tedious maintenance work without flooding RC. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support A useful tool, i think it should be installed on all wikis by default. For those of you who aren't familiar with the flood flag and its functions, see m:Flood flag. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Would be useful. Maximillion Pegasus 14:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Yep. This would be a useful tool. Tiptoety ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Project is near to inactive, there is no work on any books.. No need to start blocking proxies if there are no people editthing from it.. No need to hide stuff. Huib talk 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good plan. GrooveDog 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:21121 filed. GrooveDog (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag has been enabled on the wiki... Pmlineditor ∞ 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proxybot

Hiya gang! Recently, on IRC, a suggestion came up about dealing with open proxies on all Simple English WMF projects at the same time. The creation of a adminbot (proxyblocker) that'd block proxies for all sites at the same time. This came up because on simpleWQ today an open proxy vandal (the same one as simpleWP of late) begun an attack there. This proxy had already been blocked on simpleWP for some time. As such, it might be useful to get some discussion going about the need for such a tool, what it would look like, what it would do and what it would not do. Suggestions so far have ranged from a non-admin bot that dumps a list of proxies to block into AN on the projects (or another page) to a bot with the sysop flag that finds the proxies and deals with them. It was also wondered about if this should be a new bot (EhJJ expressed interest in writing it) or an existing bot (IE: en:User:Slakr's bot) Thoughts? fr33kman -s- 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Enwp has w:en:User:ProcseeBot, which however is not open source, so we can't take it. Someone could ask it's creator if they'll run it for simplebooks, if this vandal hit SimpleWP and WQ they'll probably be at us at some point. Admins are sufficient right now, Tiptoety will be promoted soon which is a good thing. Right now what we need is bookbuilding, see WB:RB for ways you can contribute. GrooveDog (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a more standardized way of dealing with open proxies. That said, I am weary of admin bots. I feel that the operator must be someone with a great deal of technical understanding, and who is easily reachable if something does wrong. I would only support a block, if the bot was well tested and cleared by the community first (plus have an active operator). Just my two cents. Tiptoety ^talk 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tiptoety. That aside, we need someone to fix the proxy blocks TDV made first, editing from registered accounts must be blocked and the blocks should be for 1 year. I can do this, but then, I'll need to flood RC. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that a bot that simply compiles a list of open proxies would be better than an adminbot - i'm generally not comfortable with automated processes being granted sysop status, unless the bot was well-tested first and had a very competent owner. Also, are my open proxy blocks incorrect? Wikibooks:Blocking#Proxies encourages OPs to be blocked indefinitely, so that's what i did. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, TDV, IPs aren't generally indefed. Someone told me about this on #wikimedia-stewards. I think we might reblock them using the sewq methods. Anyways, the guidelines of these projects are outdated. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 16:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will make sure not to indefblock OPs in the future, sorry about that. I initially wasn't sure how long to block OPs, and the blocking policy said to block indef, so that's what I decided to do. Perhaps Wikibooks:Blocking#Proxies should be updated/clarified to reflect current OP blocking standards. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of changing all my IP indef-blocks to one year, as that seems to be the preferred length. Sorry for screwing it up the first time. :-( I'm going to do a little at a time to avoid flooding the rc and #cvn-sw channel. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Open proxies should not be indef blocked (well, most). Often times, after a long period of time the IP gets reassigned and often is no longer a proxy. On a side note, I have a huge list of proxies I have blocked on other wikis that am I going to be getting here as well. Tiptoety ^talk 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, i just finished reblocking all of the indefblocked IPs to one year. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a proof-of-concept test period? Can't hurt to have a dry run period. fr33kman -s- 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that there has been some concern about what the bot would do and what usergroup it'd be a part of. I think that there is good reason to allow a bot to run as admin. Speed of blocks, consistency of blocks, easier to keep track of blocked proxies due to logs being easier to find. I think that all projects should take part in a trial period of dry-run actions. This would include the bot making a record of the actions it would have taken for incidents that really happen. This can then be checked by the right people and verified to be the case. At that point we can then decide on the future of the bot. Thanks! fr33kman -s- 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

+import for me

I've been doing some work on Cookbook, and plan to do a bit more. My main intention is to import Cookbook pages from en.books, then simplify them here. This preserves the page history (since I'm taking them from en.) and allows me to populate a few pages more quickly. If I get a consensus here (which I do need) I'll request permission on m:SRP. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - active and trustworthy user. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Trusted and active. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Trusted, hopefully he won't break the wiki :P We need more good editors doing such work. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support more users the better and it isn't a tool that is very break the wikish sooo Why Not? Jamesofur (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I see no reason not to. Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've requested the flag be granted for GrooveDog at Meta. All active users have supported, i think consensus has been reached. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  GrooveDog is now an importer. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying GrooveDog :P

I requested +import on Pmlineditor's talk page, but Griffin directed me here instead. I can see that GrooveDog had the same idea as me :) (or me as him, not sure which). I am working on a rugby union book right now, but would like the import perm so that I can bring en.wikibook pages here, and simplify them. I would most likely start off with basketball, then move on to other sports. I am also MacMed on enwiki. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yeppers. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I definitely said yeppers first in my summary. ;) <_> GrooveDog (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  Requested. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see the need for a extra importer - Huib talk 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why? To be honest, your opposes are starting to look very POINTy. I mean MacMed is actually wanting to work on creating some content and could do this easily if he had +importer. My understanding was that you were unhappy with the lack of content editing here, so I am a bit lost as to why you would oppose this. Tiptoety ^talk 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would give more input to my Oppose, I see a user that has a account on this wiki for just 12 day's, in this 12 days he was 6 day's active and did some good contributions, but he has only done 36 edits, I take every right very serieus and this is way to low to get importer right, a editcount like 100 edits and I would support.

I would support every action to get content here, but importing content from other wikipedia, wikibooks or other kind of wiki's isn't creating content its just moving it arround.

I do not think that my votes are a w:en:WP:POINT, I can build them up with comments one by one I would strongly regret that people would see my actions as making a point.Huib talk 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra user rights are supposed to be "no big deal". MacMed can be trusted with the bits, based on his experience at other wikis, and he seems to be interested in expanding this project, so what harm is there in giving him tools that will help this project? I don't see why we have to set an arbitrary limit of edits needed to receive extra tools. Just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think I'm free to have my personal limit of edits needed for extra tools, otherwhise we shouldn't need to discus it. And I'm sure that he does great work on other projects but this is simple.wikibooks and you need to show here that he is trusted I don't really know him and only see the 36 edits. Huib talk 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe try reading w:en:Wikipedia:Editcountitis. Do you really feel that if he makes, oh say, another 50 more edits he is going to be able to use the importer tool any differently? Tiptoety ^talk 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know am I free to oppose when I think its needed, now you're asking me to defend my oppose, I think where done since I did cast my reasons for it. Huib talk 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"creating content its just moving it arround. " Actually as a quick note, I import (to keep page history per the GFDL/CC-BY-SA) then simplify the article as best I can. I don't think it's a bad idea to get some content then other projects, even if it is just "a translation" once it gets here. I do agree that we need to work on a few more books to get something *close* to complete, but we'll see. Btw, Support, MacMed can do well with this tool. GrooveDog (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Huib: So should we just shut down and do nothing? Import for MacMed will help the project grow. I don't think that setting an arbitrary limit for import is correct. That's your opinion though... Pmlineditor ∞ 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Tiptoety ^talk 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Granted. --Mav (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi everyone. On my first import I forgot to uncheck "include templates" and my lovely import function imported all templates on w:en:User:GrooveDog. Apologies in advance for flooding recent changes, GrooveDog (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Epic fail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no great harm was done. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very lulzy, but nevertheless, no harm done ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Is anyone else noticing that interwiki links have disappeared? For example the space in between the following brackets should contain a link to my enWiki userpage (). For me however, the link just isn't there. Is it just me? Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking with the "en:" prefix creates an interwiki link in the sidebar (you should see the link to your userpage at the bottom of that list). The correct way to link to your userpage would be w:en:MacMed (note the w: prefix indicating the Wikipedia project, and then the en: indicating the language). Tempodivalse [talk] 19:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, if you wish to link to a page within the Wikibooks project you can simply add a colon prefix to your interwiki link to link to it on-page. See en:Main Page. GrooveDog (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

quick note it should be w:en:user:MacMed :) but yes thats confusing at first until you get the hang of it.Jamesofur (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Book title pages

What is the correct format for title (top level) pages of books? Some books seem to have a "Welcome to....the Wikibooks (subject) Project!" followed by an image then "Go to contents page". Personally I think it would be better to just have a table of contents on the main page, along with an introduction and a picture or two. If we can find a suitable way I'll draft a soft rule for it. GrooveDog (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hello there all. I am requesting on meta that this project be closed due to lack of activity and because I believe that the energy spent here would be better spent making the English Wikibooks a better wiki. I just wanted to inform you about this, although it looks as if a discussion is already underway at this page. Cheers, Razorflame (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh? Its already there. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed. Razorflame (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

'kay. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting some help with the wikibook Illegal Drugs.

Would anyone care and help me with this? 72.73.65.144 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks 72.73.65.144 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite an expert on the subject but I may find some time soon to lend a hand. GrooveDog (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever u can do GrooveDog would be wonderful thank you. 71.254.101.18 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for merger

It has been proposed that the 4 Simple wikis be merged into one project; see this for details. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

how to print the below program

Q.Algorithm ,flowchart and c program to print the below output

   1
   01
   101
   0101

Desysoping of User:Michael

• Michael ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

Michael has been inactive for a very long time and hasn't made a single edit since December 15, 2008. As per other wikimedia projects, an inactive administrator would be desysoped if he/she has made zero edits in one year. Unfortunately this project has no local bureaucrats and there are no active users. If no one objects after seven days, I will request desysoping at meta. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. Tiptoety ^talk 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Support desysopping of Michael, however, I don't deny that this wiki has practically no chance of surviving the request for closure. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've got no reason to oppose, but would that just not waist a steward's time? It's looking quite certain that this project will be shut down, why not just leave the bit alone, and if he happens to return before they shut the place down, then that would be a bonus for the projects chances at staying up. If he doesn't come back, then it won't really matter when the project is gone.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as i disagree with de-admining based solely on inactivity. Also, this project is dead and will probably be closed soon, I agree with Gordonrox that it's probably a waste of time to go through this. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Gordon says it best again. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Adminship is not permanent. If they no longer use or have a need for the tools, it should be removed. In the unlikely chance that they come back, their bits can be restored. Also in response to Gordon's comment, it is not a waste of steward's time. One of their duties for being a steward is to handle RFP requests. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  Meh. This project will, barring a miracle, be killed off soon, as such I honestly don't see much point in going through all this. Sure, this is what stewards are for, but why give them an extra workload when it's not even necessary? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  This request has been withdrawn. Also bugzilla:22103 has been filed. Thanks, —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 18:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure or not?

According to Meta, this project lost the vote on its destruction. I feel I was too late to add my opinion but I added my Oppose vote anyway. Will books from this project be copied to English Wikibooks if this project really is deleted?--Xania (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, nothing is decided yet. —MC8 (b · t) 23:44, Thursday January 14 2010 (UTC)

Ask at Meta, I have no idea. —MC8 (b · t) 23:44, Thursday January 14 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here there is a discussion about this on English Wikibooks. Maybe the discussion isn't necessary if the project isn't closed as I feel that the vote was unfair but that's just me.--Xania (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Thanks, —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil, Snake311. —MC8 (b · t) 08:55, Friday January 15 2010 (UTC)

@MC8, I was being civil. AGF please. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How is Xania's comment "trolling"? I actually tend to agree with xe's comment on the meta closure voting page, none of the other Simple projects were informed about the closure of SEWB, perhaps if they were the discussion would have turned out differently - or the support margin would have at least been less. Maybe we could transfer the content of this project to en.wb, to stop any previous contributions here from having been a total waste of time, but the community there doesn't seem overly enthusiastic about it. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If the local community at en wikibooks don't want content to be transferred, then it shouldn't be. 204.108.96.24 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

English Wikibooks is happy to take the load. —MC8 (b · t) 21:24, Friday January 15 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Slipknot1 is not someone I would consider representative of the Wikibooks community and jumped over from Simple Wikipedia to participate in the discussion at English Wikibooks. -- Adrignola (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How was I trolling? I support Simple English projects and I'm a bit disappointed that I hadn't contributed on SE WB until it was too late.--Xania (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide input on how content should be merged, if at all at en:Wikibooks talk:Simple English merger as well. -- Adrignola (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

• Scholarships
• Scholarships FAQ

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation