Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

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

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

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

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

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

Are you in the right place?

See WP:AN to speak to an administrator.
See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
See WP:OS for oversight.
See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant).
See WP:VIP to report vandalism.

Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge

change

Automatic archiving for WP:RFCU

Hello all, the requests at WP:RFCU usually get handled fairly quickly. I would therefore propose we set up the bot to also archive them automatically; proposed parameters: 10d old, min 2 threads left. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related previous discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Archiving. MathXplore (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how RfCU works, I would want to see the bot be tested in a RfCU replica before firmly saying yay or nay.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Evil offered a reasonable point at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Archiving 2. I feel like it is probably best for CUs to manually review each one prior to it going to the archived, as responses can often go unanswered - and I appreciate sometimes this is on purpose. --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, I'm 50:50 on this one. It'd be nice to have them auto archived due to workload issues but understand the issues of wanting to manually close them out. I'd lean towards a bot if it could be made to work. fr33k man 18:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think the bot handling the other page archiving could be made to work. It would archive discussions that haven't Bern touched in .. days, leaving at least ... Items on the page? Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it to the people with the checkuser right to decide, but I have a question. Is there an amount of time an unaddressed request can be left, after which either it is considered stale or the checkusers wouldn't do anything with it? I would let that be the number of days old to use for archiving. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-checkuser observation) @Auntof6: m:CheckUser_policy#CheckUser_status says information is only stored for a short period (currently 90 days), so I think this is the time limit. MathXplore (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the data availability: requests need to be made fairly quickly, information that is older than about three months is deleted. As you requests: I would guess s bot could (technically) handle archiving old requests.... Eptalon (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the thread.some requests get done very quickly and gets no additional input. Others, however, can seem to be stale for days or weeks and become active again. If say if a thread has been stale for 7 to 14 days then gets another sock added to the listing. However, as a reporting user could easily point to the prior listing from the archive I'm in favour of a bot. fr33k man 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I found C:User:SpBot/How to make SpBot archive your wiki that looks like it could help with this. A note on C:Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, which the bot archives, says that it archives 1) any section tagged as resolved and 2) any section whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. Of course, maybe our usual archiving bot can do the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, a bot could do it well. We could always have a trial run and see if it can be made to work well. fr33k man 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon, @Auntof6 @FusionSub and @Fr33kman; I have asked operator of SpBot to operate the bot here. I think this one will make RFP (rollback and patroller), DRV, PGA, PVGA and RFCU much efficient and organised. The templates have already been imported and the bot is currently pending approval.-- BRP^ever 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good fr33k man 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman it is in place and working... I have made some changes to our archive system to make it easier to manage, the links to old discussions in the archive won't break despite the changes. BRP^ever 04:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Every little bit of automation helps us to work more efficiently. fr33k man 08:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No archival any more?

Hello, it looks like there is no more bot archiving, anyone has details? Eptalon (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'll test 873Bot, is there any specific bots that are confirmed to not be archiving now? Fu2ion Sub (Talk) 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is set to archive threads that are older than 10 days, so I would expect some of these here to disappear.. Eptalon (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot873 does seem to still be archiving talk pages, since it archived my one this morning. Looks to be a Simple Talk specific issue. Is there any other pages archived by Bot873 that seem to be having this issue?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this one, and the admin notice board (which has a longer rétention time of 14 days) Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't know if it is a settings issuew, or something else change: The archival bot seems to run, but it no longer archives these pages (Simple Talk/Admin Noticeboard, possibly: Talk:Main page, but there's very little traffic there.

So we need to look into getting archival for these pages running again.

Comments? Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might (suddenly) be having problems with pages in the Wikipedia namespace (although not confident as nore data is needed past two pages).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:Contributions/Bot873, the only pages in Wikipedia namespace that it edits are indeed ST, AN and Change filter mistakes where there are fewer requests. It was archiving almost daily but seemingly stopped on 18 October. But as a first point-of-call, we should ask Operator873. He will probably be able to realise the problem quicker than we can not knowing what's going on behind the scenes! --Ferien (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that probably should've been done first lol.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating... Operator873 ^connect 00:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon @Ferien -- seems the issue was the archive process was hung in toolforge. I've nudged it. It should run at 0400UTC as normal. Operator873 ^connect 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went ahead and manually executed the run to verify it was working. It does. Problem solved. Operator873 ^connect 00:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: Not really, I again see contributions 14 days old, the limit is set to 10 days? Eptalon (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it got stuck again.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon The bot ran this morning. See the template at the top of the page for when the bot is set. Operator873 ^connect 01:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 That wouldn't explain the topics over 10 days old here, despite the config being set to archive topics over 10 days old.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the issue and am in the process of proofing the fix. Operator873 ^connect 22:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 The bot has not archived anything since 1 November. 131.109.227.10 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue

An error is in effect at COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. When one clicks the "Languages" button, it says, "This page is not available in other languages"; however, the page is actually available in standard English: En:COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked it in Wikidata. Did that fix the problem? -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't show up automatically. You have to make the connection in Wikidata. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tested, and it works. Arabic, Serbian (Српски srpski), Indonesian, and Normal English 31.45.34.136 (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic archival of several pages

Hi all, now that we have SpBot doing the archival, I am here to suggest the parameters for archival. Based on the feedback here, I will proceed with setting up the archival system. The pages and settings I have in mind will be listed below:

To be archived into yearly archives for the section marked as resolved.
To be archived into Monthly archives for the section marked as resolved, or those which have had no comments in 90 days period.
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

If you have any other pages in mind please let me know. Please also let me know any changes that you think is more suitable. I will try to set up things in a way that would make searching the archives a bit easier. Thanks :)--BRP^ever 13:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for Deletion review I will be removing recently closed deletion section and setting bots so that it only archives the resolved discussion after 3 days from the closure date. Any new comments made by replacing {{Section resolved}} will reopen the discussion, so we shouldn't have any problems.--BRP^ever 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page text

I notice that there are Template:Protected page text and Template:Protected page text/full, which are unused.

The actual page that displays is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. The enwiki version of the MediaWiki page transcludes the Template, but the simplewiki version does not.

If the Templates are not used, maybe they should be deleted. They seem to be copied directly from the enwiki version, which uses links which don't exist here, and more complex wording. However, I think the "submit an edit request" button is a good feature in the Templates, although it could be adjusted to "submit a change request" or "request a change to this page". Do people want to customize the Templates and incorporate them into the MediaWiki page, or delete the Templates? Depextual (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these templates show up as used the way most templates would. I think they're invoked behind the scenes when someone tries to edit a page that they don't have permission to edit. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that the MediaWiki page is what's invoked when someone tries to do that. Depextual (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm that the mediawiki: page is whats invoked on semi-protected pages if non-confirmed editors try and edit them. Fu2ion5ub (Talk) 12:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western civilization

There is a page western civilization that have many wrong things! First of all you write about western civilization and you dont mention anything about Greece! Greece is the birthplace of western civilization! Secondly you have a map that shows Greece as not a western country and have some other random eastern countries! How can you talk about western civilization and you dont write anything about Greece? All the official sites have Greece as western country! Please fix the page because almost the whole page is wrong!Write some information about Greece and remove the map! Alikakii (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alikakii: Hello. If you think the article contains wrong things, you can correct it yourself - we encourage everyone to edit it themselves. You can find relevant sources and improve the content based on them. Everyone here is a volunteer, and we do not edit at user request. If someone finds the time and wants to edit this page, they will certainly do it, but it would be faster if you did it yourself :). Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response! An editor from wikipedia already helped me and corrected the article! And sorry for being a little rude before in my text but the article hadnt some important information! Anyway all good! Thanks again and have a nice day too! Alikakii (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Site-wide blackout

I no longer think this is a good idea, and it has not received any support yet, so I am withdrawing the proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki is currently having a discussion about blacking out the site, as they did in 2012. As all of the issues there would also affect this site, I am proposing that we black out simplewiki at the same time. Thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see the need for that. Let's start with the fact that Simple Wikipedia is often used as a learning source, users (often students) visit this wiki to learn English. Why should we take away this opportunity from them, even for a moment? Simple wiki has a much smaller active community of permanent editors than enwiki - a decision made by part of the community may harm a large number of readers. For this reason, I oppose this idea. However, we can use an alternative, e.g. create a Sitenotice about it or include a mention on the home page. BZPN (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Simplewiki doesn't have as much reach as enwiki, so a protest here wouldn't have noticeable effects anyway. BZPN (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please link to whichever Wikipedia-article that tells about what happened (in 2012) during blackout of English-wikipedia.--How long is the blackout (at En-wiki) supposed to last.--User:BZPN has agood argument, and at the very least - perhaps Simple-wiki should have a relevant link on its front page (or home page): Perhaps somehing like: "In 2012 and this year,En-wiki blackout-ed to show support for ...".--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:305:C4A0:DDE9:2E03:2836:3142 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Maps

Hello again! So there are 2 pages western world and western culture. There are maps that dont include Greece in the western world and with western culture generally as no western country! Instead of Greece these maps show as western countries some other random eastern countries! So you are writing all these information in these 2 pages that the western culture and generally the western world comes from Greece and then you show maps that dont include Greece in the western world world and with western culture??? Are you serious?? Please change these maps with other correct maps that shows Greece as western country! All the official sites have maps that show Greece as western country and only here in wikipedia you have it wrong! Do something! Alikakii (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are highly subjective, so it's clear you find different maps that do (not) include certain countries Eptalon (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is subjective?? That Greece created the western world???🤣🤣🤣 Its just a fact! If you read history books you will learn it! Its not difficult!!! Alikakii (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating empty talkpages

Hi, quick question Is creating empty talkpages allowed ?, Various IPs have created talkpages with just the talkpage notice (example) but I didn't know if there was any policy that says this is disallowed or even if its worth my time requesting deletion anymore?

Some admins do QD them as "QD G6: Non-controversial or regular cleanup: Mass deletion of pages added by x" but just didn't know if we had a policy somewhere, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends a bit on what "empty means". Completely empty pages (zero content) should never exist.

If it's more that there's just a tag at the top, it might depend on the tag thats being applied. I don't think just {{talk header}} is in any way helpful (maybe on their own talk page, I guess), but a single tag for a translation or something would be suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Not policy but my opinion) Creating these empty talk pages may not be very helpful but they don't really disrupt the wiki unless it's done as a bulk page creation of nothing but {{talk header}}, which in cases like that is when the "Mass deletion of pages made by x" deletions occur. If an editor creates one page like that, the impact is so minor it probably isn't going to be noticed and enforcing any rules against it would be pointless when that time could be spent elsewhere on parts of the wiki with a higher demand.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Ditto FusionSub here. I usually mass-delete if there is a random bulk creation of empty talkpages. If it's just one or two pages, it's not worth going through the process. Some believe that talkheader and pageview stats etc help in encouraging people to contribute a comment.-- BRP^ever 16:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful replies @Lee Vilenski @FusionSub and @BRPever it's greatly appreciated,

Sorry I should've been clearer I did mean creating talkpages with just {{talk header}} only (translations etc would certainly never be deleted by me),

I've had empty talkpage QDs declined in the past and so just recently I began wondering whether I should be just leaving them be, Kind of assumed they were more hassle to admins than what they were worth but I'll continue QD'ing them, Thanks again I really do appreciate you's taking the time to reply here, Have a great day/evening, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should mention I do agree with the above that even if these pages are created, there so many more important administrative tasks than deleting them. Mass creation is likely just w:editcountitis Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree Lee, admins have far more important things to be doing than deleting empty talkpages which by all accounts aren't causing any problems, Your reply is the precise reason why I came here to seek clarification :), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A policy that says "No et cetera", might be okay.--However, how about having a catalogue of 'Greeting cards' et cetera; Take the example, that yesterday evening there seemed to have appeared a 'new talk page, with no real content' for the article about 'Fluor-Antimony acid'.--I would like to inform that person, something like: "Hi! Thank you for (trying to) help this Wikipedia, to articles that keep getting better. However, at least one wikipedia-user feels that it was not necessary to start the talk page about ... . The talk-page has no real content (or no actual discussion). Please consider stop doing that. Or please ask an established user, if that edit is (regarded) as useful. Thank you."

Comment: When i see that a new talk page has been started, then it is a waste of my time, to open that talk page, to see that there is no new content.--So maybe i will stop checking talk pages 'out of the blue'.

Anyway, a message to a user, might be simpler than above, and could likely be shorter.--Thoughts? 2001:2020:351:E9CE:C421:D47A:1AEB:2C19 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my rollback permissions

How can I request to remove my rollback permissions? I have been inactive from changing Simple Wikipedia and I'm concerned that I may make controversial rollbacks due to my inactivity (policy can change and I may rollback following old and criticized policy). – Ang erxi ety^! 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angerxiety, Hello. You can request that on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Regards, BZPN (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research opportunity

Hi all. The University of Washington is conducting research into the Simple English Wikipedia about the Heath care related articles contained on our project. They should have already sent emails out to those of us who have been identified as having edited these articles in the past. I have checked and the research is genuine and a great honour for our project. I'd like to encourage those of you approached to take part in the research to actively cooperate with the researchers as it will be good for simplewiki and WMF who will be receiving a donation to compensate us for our time. Thank you fr33k man 10:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems interesting and useful for the project.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was among those who were mailed, and I did the survey. Some of the questions are tricky. Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated content.

There have a lot of content written by AI. Do we want to allow this? Problems I see relate to copyright issues as well as problems with complexity and context. I, for one, feel we should have a policy prohibiting it use. Thoughts fr33k man 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

What copyright issues do you see?
How do we tell that something was written by AI?
Have other Wikipedias prohibited using AI and, if so, what were their reasons?
Is there any concern that AI-created articles would be mass-created to the point where it would add too much to the work of patrollers?

As for complexity, all articles should comply with our requirements for simple language, no matter how they are created. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can often tell if a page is AI generated by its content. As for copyright, the AIs are proprietary software and a thing they generate would be copyrighted by the company running the AI. I don't know if others have barred its usage. I just think we should be written by humans. Otherwise we could just as ChatGPT to create the encyclopedia and that would be a mess with many errors in context. It's more common so I think it needs discussing. fr33k man 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further I believe there are online tools to tell if content is AI or not. fr33k man 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I got ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia page about blackholes User talk:Fr33kman/black holes so you can see the tell-tale signs of AI generated content. fr33k man 01:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: Wouldn't a person still have to do the actual page creation? That person would be responsible for what they post, so they would need to check the generated page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the creator would be responsible for the content. I'm just trying to get a concensus on the subject in this new area of concern. fr33k man 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright info related to AI work is described in length in Commons:AI-generated media. It looks like it's allowed but there are several things that the user needs to be aware of. @Fr33kman Your concern is covered there. I think what we can do is modify A3 to copied and pasted from another Wikipedia or likely AI generated content without simplifying complex text. Unverified or unsourced content or any inaccurate content can simply be removed/deleted. There is always RFD for complex issues that needs in-depth discussion. BRP^ever 02:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying A3 would go along way to addressing my concerns. Thanks for the copyright info. fr33k man 03:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should write a guideline page for AI generated content so everyone has the information needed to stay within the rules of both simplewiki and copyright. fr33k man 04:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a proposed guideline page at WP:AI. Please read and comment on the talk page. Thanks fr33k man 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AI-generated content is not a good thing. It may be inaccurate and it may be biased. People can put up such content without checking any source or knowing whether it's correct or not, or knowing anything about the subject. Depextual (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be problematic. Each use will still need to conform to the manual of stylr, RS, N, and V. It is already being used so we need to come up with a good guideline for its usage. Please review WP :AI and comment on its talk page. Thanks fr33k man 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the English Wikipedia version is at en:Wikipedia:Large language models. This should say something like "Thus, all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles." Depextual (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. The ultimate responsibility is with the editor. I'll add to the proposal. Thxx fr33k man 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is very important to mark articles where such models have been used to generate content. Telling whether content is generated can be difficult, so it is the creator's responsibility to add s note to the talk page of the article. Eptalon (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we'll have to create a template to denote the article as AI generated content. fr33k man 17:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the persons who use A.I. , to make articles, will keep on truckin', until things come to a hard stop (i.e. a block - being blocked from editing wikipedia).
Another thing, try to keep (relevant) templates, short. And without little (or no) mention of complex ideas such as automation/automated; computer programs.
Yet another thing: By saying that one suspects that "This article has been made, in part, by A.I.", then

then why would 'anyone' want to touch (or edit) an article that is 'maybe tainted'?
Yet another thing: The good news is that many of the A.I. generated articles, are not Simple; We already have procedures to deal with articles that are not simple.
Also, if administrators, can keep on mentioning specific articles (in this thread, where those articles seem like A.I. generate), then that will be excellent: Maybe one out of a hundred articles, I will take particular interest in, and make small but important changes, and cast a "dubious"-tag, at the (earliest) place in the article where doubtful (or dubious) text, is written.
In regard to a policy against using A.I. for creating an article on Simple-wiki; My advice is, before evaluating the idea, then first lay out a
'pyramide of sanctions' for non-simple articles; On one of the steps that pyramide, there should possibly be something about "if your article seems like there are big problems related to A.I. generated text, then ...".
--If this post was helpful to some, then fine.-- (Not sure what month, that i will be back to this thread, because i will be busy fixing articles.) 2001:2020:351:CE55:7D79:5481:558D:DC8 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template needed

Could someone who knows how please create a template to be placed on the talk page of AI generated content that says something like: "The content, or portions of it, in this article page was generated by an AI. It may need extra work, simplify or copy-editing to meet standards for inclusion on Simple English Wikipedia." The template would be placed on the talk page of the article. Thanks fr33k man 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This page, or parts of it, has been created using automatic tools. While these tools get better, they still have limitations. For this reason, a human editor still needs to cross-check the page:

Some of these tools use statistics, and many other texts. They will create the content based on what is most likely. This means that the content they create does not nercessarily exist elsewhere, they may invent facts or links between facts. Very often such tools also do not tell where the content is from.
Content that looks like it is from an outside source, but that does not give this source, should be removed. Copyright also gives some rules how content can be re-used. Removing content from an unclear origin is the safest option.
Like other pages, this page should use simple language, that is easy to understand. The page also needs to use proper formatting and styles, which are consistent with the Manual of Style.
Every editor is responsible for the content they provide, no matter how it is created.
The talk page of this artice should be used for discussions on how to improve it."

I think it is moree future proof to talk about automated tools than use the term artificial intelligence. Eptalon (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on November 29th, 16:00 UTC

Hello everyone,

The next language community meeting is coming up next week, on November 29th, at 16:00 UTC (Zonestamp! For your timezone <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1732896000>). If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_and_Product_Localization/Community_meetings#29_November_2024>.

This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.

Looking forward to seeing you at the language community meeting! Cheers, Srishti 19:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello i want make page

i want make page 185.244.154.125 (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but you can find some guidelines/tips on Wikipedia:Simple start. BZPN (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im confused about date??

normaly it's like day month, year i read, but on here it got no comma why for? Reatom2 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reatom2 You can change how you see the date by setting it on your preferences. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 16:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteralee i done that it aint do nothing Reatom2 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a specific article? Some articles will be made with a different date style to the one you are familiar with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reatom2: See MOS:DATEFORMAT for the acceptable date formats you can use here. If the day is given first, there is no comma. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated tool (disambig)

'Automated tools'.--That should maybe be a disambig page. Thoughts?--Please also advise about En-wiki articles, that are topics that might be relevant for mention, on our (upcoming) disambig page.--(Soft) ping, to user:Eptalon. (It seems that user:Eptalon mentioned that phrase, on this talk page, c. today.--The point made, seemed quite interesting.) 2001:2020:359:C1D5:3505:28FE:DD6C:BB0 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Update of my previous post)
This link shows some of the stuff, that falls under,

'Automated tools' can be ...

Link,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Automated+tool&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
. 2001:2020:359:C1D5:3505:28FE:DD6C:BB0 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That title isn't really suitable for a dab page. Lots of things aren't likely to be confused with something like that.

Generally we don't add items to an existing disambiguation page unless it has an article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Actually, we do add redlinked things to dab pages. It allows disambiguating tools to work when there's no article for the intended subject. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Tag

Hi guys, can somebody put the sockpuppet tag in TaiUhBye's user page which is {{sockpuppeteer|confirmed}} and for Taitheguy87's user page, use: {{sockpuppet|TaiUhBye|confirmed}} . thetree284 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget to put {{checkuserblock-account}} or {{SockBlock}} in both of their talk pages. Thank you. thetree284 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetree284: Why aren't you doing it yourself? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetree284, it's Done. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was unable to put a sockpuppet tag in both of user pages and after that, Asteralee reverted my edits in their user pages. thetree284 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]