Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 18

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Bot task running

I noticed that we have pages for each day of each month, like this: April 12. I then noticed that we should have all pages with the other order of the words (ie 12 April) to redirect to the correct page. Most of these redirects were created already, but some where missing. That's why I'm having HujiBot creating all those missing pages at the moment. It's almost finished by now. Just wanted to report it, and inform you that the bot is ready for similar tasks too. - Huji ^reply 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving

I wish to announce that I am leaving Wikipedia. I have just ended up with a job as a forum mod here, so that will take up a lot of time. In fact, do not be surprised if I do not return when my ban on en: wiki expires. I may still edit a small amount, but not often. Thanks for your support -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Thank god. It would be awful if you were to disappear completely. LIAM / LIAM ^{mailbox !} 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well good bye Spiderpig. Hope you have a nice time:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Spiderpig. Hope you enjoy your time on the forum. - Huji ^reply 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new post and feel free to come back and improve more of the articles here any time! Blockinblox - talk 14:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(Funeral Music). :(.

4th bureaucrat?

Compared other wikis to simplewiki, I think we now have enough admins (plus two checkusers) to have a fourth bureaucrat. While I'm not actually meaning to jump to conclusions so quickly, I've quickly thought up of a list admins to be the potential fourth bureaucrat:

Also I think that it could be better if the other bureaucrat's would voice what their opinions are. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need another one. Archer7, Blockinbox, and Vector are enough for the occasional promotion/bot/renames that need to be done. However, that doesn't mean I'll automatically oppose if someone runs.--Werdan7^{T @} 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Werdan7 said just what I wanted to say. I think it is more reasonable to postpone the election of a fourth bureaucrat to when we need it more than now. - Huji ^reply 06:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need another one either. Archer7 - talk 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, three bureaucrats is enough for now. Oysterguitarist 14:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Snake, I'm honoured you thought of me, but I'm hardly active enough to fulfil a bureaucrat's role productively. I also agree, we don't really need anymore at the moment. Majorly (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if I can vote, but if I can, I think the most fit person for the role is Creol. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote please!

We are a community that collects 25-30 votes for its checkuser candidates, and at the same time, we are a community where RfDs have only three votes in about one week?! Com'on everybody, share your thoughts about how to keep/delete articles. Thanks, - Huji ^reply 06:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Huji, I think that you shouldn't pressure other users on voting on RfD articles. The majority of the users who voted for checkusers were users from other wikis, or newbies. So they probably may abandon their userspaces and leave. Also I think that we are doing just fine enough to process on RfD discussions. Peace:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I also tried to look into it the way you said, but then I noticed that our RfDs had reguarly more than 5 or 6 votes in them before getting closed, recently, which is not the case with our current RfDs. Anyways, we cannot push others to do things, but we still can remind them about continuing their regular activities. Cheers, - Huji ^reply 07:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Selected articles again

I changed the code of the main page again. It now accepted "thirteen" subpages for "selected articles". The choice of "13" was to make sure the cycle will not break at the end of the year. I also added the three new subpages; I added the VGAs according to their date of promotion. I'm also gonna change Wikipedia:Very good articles/by date in a way, that makes maintanance of main page easier. - Huji ^reply 10:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

UnCyclopedia

Sucks big time. I never knew it was so un-funny. I cannot imagine being a beureacrat there. Sorry, I got a bit off topic....... LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Page Header draft

The forums been quiet today, so I decided to create a header for WP:RFCU. It's at User:Spiderpig0001/CHUSR Header Draft. What do you think? I've still got to get the imput box, but its from en: (The CHU policy is the same here). -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems good, but would you mind getting the rest of the templates that are used in it from en. Oysterguitarist 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

When I created WP:RFCU, I also considered about such a header there, to make it look more or less like En WP counterpart. However, I thought (and still think) it is a little too complex. You see, with the time of community we have, and the number of active editors who care about things like checkuser, I don't feel the need for such complexities. But don't feel depressed or something. That's just my personal view, and maybe in the end, consensus takes place about having such a nice header there. - Huji ^reply 14:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Huji makes a good point, it does make check user more complex and I don't think we should have that on a simple wikipeida. Oysterguitarist 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huji. It seems like unnecessary instruction creep.--Werdan7^{T @} 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I like it when the community develops it's own thing and doesn't copy it from another wikipedia. Oysterguitarist 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a purty header, but I agree with Oysterguitarist. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dvid Bowie + Spam Filter

When I edit David Bowie, am message comes up about a spam protection filter. I posted the message here, saved the page and the same message appeared. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING ? LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://davidbowie.startingiseasy.com . Posting that address anywhere will trigger the spam filters to prevent saving the page. nowiki tags will stop it from being a link, and stop it from triggering the filter. -- Creol(talk) 00:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

African Capital Cities

It is strange how short these articles are. For example, it says "CAPE TOWN, (1 of 3) SOUTH AFRICA" but when we click on it we are thrown a SW classic City-One Liner. Cairo, Egypt, is similar, yet a town in Egypt, Giza, has a full page ?!?!?! So frustrating. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 14:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time creating or completing some of those, but didn't cover the rest. I think, you can do it yourself; some facts can be easily imported from the relevant article(s) on English Wikipedia, and some information can be added using available online resources. - Huji ^reply 14:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging two pages

Please comment about the merger of Floppy disk and Floppy drive, on Talk:Floppy disk. - Huji ^reply 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been already merged. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To be more accurate, it was merged shortly after I left this message here, and some people showed their support of the idea on Talk:Floppy disk. I think my message did its job! ;) - Huji ^reply 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help with simplification

I have expanded the article Endorphin a lot these days. I tried my best to add different important aspects about the subject, and cite appropriate sources, while also keeping the tone in "simple" English. Nonetheless, the article needs to be reviewed by others as well. Please read it, correct the typos I might have missed, and change the wording to make it easier to understand. Thanks, - Huji ^reply 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well based on my AWB tool there seems to be no typos, great work Huji :))) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think, with a little work from another editor, this article can be one of our future VGAs. I'd be thankful if you give it a try - Huji ^reply 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Good Articles

Dear all! We have two votings running on Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles, and they are very near to their expiration date. You may want to have a look and help there too. Cheers, - Huji ^reply 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

I have noticed while editing some articles that there is a comment labeling where the interwiki starts, and on some articles it does not. I was wondering, if this should be removed or if that should be put in an article that does not have it. Oysterguitarist 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think none of them is "necessary". It is good to have the comment there, specially to let newcomers know where to put the link (assuming that they scroll down enough to find the comment), but it is not necessary, so I see no point in going through all pages and adding the comment. - Huji ^reply 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputaion ++ me

So, the other day I told someone about some book, and I said "on wikipedia I read..." they cut me off and said "wikipedia isn't true anyone can write what they want". I tried to explain the wikipedia hierarchy with out sounding nerdy. It is really hard, and this person still didn't believe me.

I think there should be some page which helps users explain how wikipedia editing system works. or something. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT, WP:CON, and WP:DR. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But Liam, I also think that "Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source". Indeed, I think I read that statement some time ago in English Wikipedia (don't know where), and some time after that, I requested it to be added again (not sure if it was agreed upon in the end).

Wikipedia is a very good resource but it is not 100% mistake proof. It is not accepted as an academically approved source of information, but it can be used to find such sources of course.

So if I where you, I would say "In Wikipedia, I read a statement saying bloh bloh, and they gave a relibale reference for it too." - Huji ^reply 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That should work. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Liam, a few months ago on this show we have to watch in school, there was a story on WP's realibility. Still, I wished The Chaser would do a stunt on WP (:D) -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Finalising Criteria for Adminship

Hello community. We have now worked on the Criteria for Adminship for over three months. There are still some issues needing discussion. Since we are actively using the criteria, I would prefer to get the issues settled, so that we can at least promote the page to the status of a guideline. Therefore, please contribute, on the talk page of the proposed guideline. Thanks. --Eptalon 08:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New animal categorisation?

Hello. The RFD for invertebrates sparked the interesting idea to reorganise Category:Plants and Category:Animals so that it is closer to what biologists think. This would also mean that at some point in time we have room for Tricoplax adhaerens, Lancelets, or other such niceties. I guess it will be a lot of work. It is ideally done by someone (or a group) with a flair for taxonomy. Anyone wanting to do it? --Eptalon 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not good in taxonomy, but I can handle it I guess. I prefer to be assigned to do things in this case, rather than finding them out myself. - Huji ^reply 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be doable quite easily, by introducing Parazoa (basically Porifera, Sponges; animals without differentiated tissues), Eumetzoa (Animals with differentiated tissues). In the Eumetzoa there is the Radiata (radially symmetric, basically Cnidarians, like Jellyfish), the Bilateria (bilaterally symmetric), etc. There is a list of these (Phyla) at en:Animal. From this, we probably need the Deuterostomia, With the Echinodermata (Echinoderms, Sea stars, Sea urchins), and the Chordata, chordates (most other animals); Ecdysozoa, with the artropods, and roundworms); the Platyzoa (for the Flatworms, Platyhelminthes);Lophotrochozoa (annelids, molluscs, several other kinds of worms). I have not looked at the plants-issue there (atm there is little porblem with the plant taxonomy, afaik). I think we should start out by doing small stubs; extending the stubs can then be left to people who are in the field of biology. What do you think? --Eptalon 10:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I am no biologist; hence I don't know what I am talking about. --Eptalon 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm short in time now, so I just leave a comment: Maybe we should find a taxonomy chart somewhere online, and base our decisions on it. - Huji ^reply 10:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we use anything from Wikispecies for this? Archer7 - talk 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We can, and probably should. I was looking at the Phylum thing at en:Animal. When we do it, we should make sure, that we have all the puzzle-pieces we need for our current zoo of animals. Yet we should be open-minded enough to allow for extension. I can see an article about en:Lancelet real soon (as this seems to be a model-organism for all Chordates. So the thing is about completing the hierarchy, by adding the few (12-15 probably) missing links. --Eptalon 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the 32 phylums for animals, en:wp uses only 20 for categories. I don't think we would need more than them (and at this point, we may not need that many). We currently have articles on 10 of those 20 phylums and categories for 6 of them. Another 3 are categorized under seperate names which are likely also useable. (see complete listing with red and blue links here. Several of the existing categories would need to be re-linked to get them in the proper order (Chordata is under vertebrates when it should be the other way around).

Part of the process will also need to be making certain that all animals are properly listed from the start, ie. everything has a taxobox. This will make the actual categorizing much simpler. Taxoboxes can pretty much be copy/pasted from en:wp with only a quick check for missing images and removing subspecies in most cases. This part of the project (and I do believe at this point, this may qualify as a wiki-project at least for a while) can be done by pretty much any and all editors as it is just rote copy/pasting and doesnt require understanding the set up of the cat tree. The cat tree doesn't realy even have to be in place for this step to be worked on. -- Creol(talk) 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This also "solves" the Invertebrate category problem somewhat. All Vertebrates are Chordates. As far as I can see now, none of "our" Invertebrates are. As far as i can see only Tunicates (which we don't have) and the famous Lancelets (which we also don't have) would be Invertebrate Chordates. This means: All animals with a spinal column are chordates; however, those without one are not necessarily non-Chordates. In other words: Classification as Invertebrate is nice-to-have, but we should not rely on it to classify animals. --Eptalon 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, added a Stub on the Lancelet, introduced Category:Chordates (but without subcat for the Lancelet, which is classified as Chordate). If I feel like it, I might do a short thing on the Tunicates, so the Chordates are complete. --Eptalon 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon told me this yesterday so I thought everbody else should know, to comment out the species and genera on the taxobox's. Oysterguitarist 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind that was that in our case, those would be red links. If anyone feels like creating an article about a special animal or plant species, they can still re-add that there; or they can mention that in the text of the article. As I said, there are about 30 kinds of Lancelets. I do however think that at the current stage of our project, there is little use in having separate articles about the different kinds of them. --Eptalon 18:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Our progress

We have more than 20000 articles now; with some effort we can reach 25000, and as you know, Wikipedias with more than 25000 articles get listed on English Wikipedia main page. So, to everyone: Keep up the good work! - Huji ^reply 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Hello fellow editiors. I have decided to start a two month trial of a Article Improvement Drive. (see Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive) I have started this as I have been trying to get a article improved, but we have no official way to do so. I've decided to make the first article 1980s, as I think EN has a great article on this decade, compared to us. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not really seen much activity on either 1980s or the AID page itself. I've nominated MySpace as next weeks article, but i'll re-nominate 1980s, as it has not got much improvement. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOO UNFAIR! HE GETS TO CREATE SOME THING, AND MINE IS THE SAME IDEA, BUT NO! I AM YELLING ! LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to what was "your idea", and please don't type in all caps it's annoying. Oysterguitarist 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

20,000th article??

I was thinking of jumping in during the run-up to the 20,000th and submitting an article of mine when we had 19,999 articles but I guess I forgot about it.

What was the 20,000th article? --70.179.182.129 08:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The 20,000th article was Mandurah railway line, Perth by RaNdOm26. Oysterguitarist 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie or film?

We have some pages titled as "Bloh (film)" and some as "Bloh (movie)". I think only one style should be used. On English Wikipedia, (film) is usually used. I'd like to know if you agree for us to do the same. - Huji ^reply 14:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think movie is simpler. I know that in certain Spanish-speaking areas, at least, movie is more commonly used than pelicula (the "official" word for movies). Also, "film" can refer to multiple things: a movie, a role of film for a camera, a film of soap scum, to record a movie, 35mm film for video cameras, etc. As far as I know, "movie" only has one meaning.

I don't have much against using (film) in the title of the article, but I think we should always use the word movie in the actual articles. If we're looking for continuity, I would probably vote for (movie) over (film) for article titles. · Tygrrr^·talk· 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this can be a very difficult topic to settle. We are targeting people who are learning English, amongst others. Some of them learn British English, others learn American English. Still others, in Belize, or Gambia or India, things may still be different. I would therefore say, be consistent with the usage within one article, but do not enforce consistency in different article. Another policy would be to always have a link from one to the other. Whether the real article is then at film or at movie matters no more. --Eptalon 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am at the point that I instinctively copyedit film to movie without even thinking about it. (I am the same way with television series.. I just type it automatically, and never using the word show. - what is a show shows is one way to show its ambiguity) I think we shifted categories to use the word movie due to the ambiguity issue Tygrrr brought up. Odd part is many of the articles are actually named with the word film. Movie name (film) is standard for naming it, but movie is standard for describing it. Then we have movie theatre, movie studio and movie screen but also film criticism, film director, film producer, and film rating system. Personally I favor movie over film in articles, but am fine with (film) article names. -- Creol(talk) 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: WP:MOS lists title (film) as the proper style. The subject probably should be discussed there (if anyone actually watches the page that is..) -- Creol(talk) 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Is "Bloh" a real word? Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I merely used it instead of "blah" or "lorem" which are more usual text placeholders.

Having read all the comments, I think we should keep doing things as said in the MOS, ie using (film) in the title. In the body of the article, we can use either movie or film, but only of one them. - Huji ^reply 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Can an administrator/bureaucrat semi-protect my userpage please? Thanks. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 00:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure :)--Werdan7^{T @} 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Munich

The Interwicki links from the "Munich" article all seem to point to the correct language but the page is the Japan Flag Template. The article's links seem OK, it is the sidebar that seems to be showing the wrong links. Only this page seems affected. --`Barliner´******`talk´ 09:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Nothing wrong with Munich. TXiKiBoT made a mistake at {{JPN}}. ...Aurora... 10:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple people writing simple people?

I'm a bit unclear about this. Is this Wikipedia for "simple" people to write "simple" sentences, or for "intelligent" people to translate their knowledge into "simple" sentences. I do have an account, but I'm at school bored out of my head doing an essay on the history of theatre. Becuase everyone in the school shares the same IP, I can't edit the normal Wiki due to thick headed vandals. Hmmph. One last thing, It'd be cool if some people (me included) wrote the Kurt Cobain and Nirvana articles (songs and other band members included) to the length and quality that they are on the English Wikipdedia, just a lot "simpler". I think it's great that there are so many fans of Nirvana to the point where every aspect of Nirvana has its own comprehensize article. (NICK) --212.219.117.116 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This version of Wikipedia isn't meant to be any more or less intelligent than any other Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia aims to present information in shorter and more simply-constructed sentences. This makes it easier to read for both people who don't speak English as a native language, and for people who are still working on their reading comprehension in general... perhaps students, perhaps younger people.

About your editing Wikipedia, I think that if you create an account, you should be able to edit Wikipedia normally despite the schoolblock. I'm not certain about that, though. If you have internet access at home, you can of course create an account there. If necessary, you can probably e-mail an admin (using the "E-mail this user" function) to ask about creating an account. I hope this helps. --Kyoko 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to boredom in lessons, and my block from English Wikipedia, I'll be doing an awful lot of editing. The ban on English Wikipedia expires on November the 8th, and it's only a matter of time after that before some dunce goes and vandalizes. Hmmph. So, I'll make an account at home, so work that I do can be accredited to me. I look forward to contributing. (NICK) --212.219.117.116 07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had difficulties in creating an account or using it at school, you can send me an email with the information you see on the block screen. Just post a message on my talk page, and I will give you an email address. :) - Huji ^reply 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am no brainer, the writer of this question. I have an account. Yay. Does this work for all wikipedias, or just simple english.--No Brainer 17:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your account on Simple is only good for here. But you can create an account on any other Wikipedias the same way you did here. · Tygrrr^·talk· 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Toki Pona

I'm working on an yet-to-be article named Toki Pona on my sandbox. Could someone please come and simplify what I already have now? Thank you. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplification

Can someone simplify this for me, please? Thanks. "Simple living (or voluntary simplicity) is a lifestyle in which individuals consciously choose to minimize the 'more-is-better' pursuit of wealth and consumption. Adherents choose simple living for a variety of reasons, including spirituality, health, increase in 'quality time' for family and friends, stress reduction, conservation, social justice or anti-consumerism, while others choose to live more simply for reasons of personal taste or personal economy." Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple Living is a lifestyle. Some People who choose it want to focus less on wealth. They also want so spend less. Other people choose this lifestyle because it allows them better access to spirituality or health. It might also allow them to spend more time with their family and friends. Sometimes, it helps to reduce the level of stress they are exposed to. Still others simply chose this lifestyle because they like it better, or because this choice is more economical. (Just a start, but probably worth improving) --Eptalon 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing wiki goals

As of October 2007, the simple english wikipedia has more than 20k articles which now makes us one of the intermediate level encyclopedias on all wikipedias. Perviously, the main goal for all editors here was to create and expand core articles, but most of the top-topic articles have been covered. Not to also mention that simplewiki has started its very good article process. So I was wondering if we could go further like the english and german wikis and create mid-level topic articles, though I've already created such examples, i.e., single-season articles, article for a simgle storm that all go under the category of tropical cyclone(s). --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Simple English Wikipedia has reached 20000 articles not by merely adding core articles. Many of the scientific issues are still not covered, and in my view, having articles about scientific subjects is more important than having articles about (say) business companies, or a manga, etc. So I think, if there is one thing we should do now, it is to manage our editors (to the extent we can) to focus on more encyclopedic subjects. How do you find this idea? - Huji ^reply 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about science, I think that most (more than like 70%) have been covered, by at least at a stub level. While I can't force editors to change plans, we should rather encourage them to go into writing mid-level topic articles and continue on writing VGAs. Also, I'm also thinking of creating an article assessment scale similar to en wiki's if we are going into more encyclopedia articles. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes

How do I get user boxes on my page? I'm not sure how many they are and what they say, I'm a native english speaker, but I'd like to find the full range of boxes. Do you create them yourself or is their a list made by people.— This unsigned comment was added by No Brainer (talk • changes) on 07:50, 26 October 2007.

We only have language userboxes here at simple. They can all be found in Category:User languages. Other userboxes would need to be created by the user. Self created userboxes should be kept in your own userspace. -- Creol(talk) 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Maxim

I know this person is a legit administrator, but I find the username innappropriate, as this is the name of a pornography magazine. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How? It is also the name of a machine gun. Jet Lover ^{An animal with an Uzi!} 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a number of skaters and dancers whose first name is Maxim. I don't see anything inappropriate in the name. --Kyoko 06:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just my first name. There's nothing inapporpriate about that. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim – a succinct statement or observation of a fundamental principle, general truth, or rule of conduct. Seems legit to me. —Animum (en) 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find anythig wrong with the name. Oysterguitarist 14:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some very notable people, like this chap here were also called Maxim. That chap wrote many books, by the way. --Eptalon 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I first heard the name Maxim when I learned about Maxim Gorky. I think it is a nice name. - Huji ^reply 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very embarrassed. You see, I did not realize it was also a first name. My sincerest apologies. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Sandbox vs live changes

I just got a login id and wrote 2 new brief articles (stubs) hajj and kaaba. Is the sandbox designed mostly for testing markup and effects? Is there a benefit to using it for testing content that one knows is marked up correctly. Granted it may not be altogether simple English, but others will let me know on live changes. I won't know find out if I put it in the sandbox, will I? Am I dense (I don't think so) or should the description/explanation of the use of the wikipedia:sandbox be expanded?— This unsigned comment was added by Grapeguy (talk • changes) on 18:21, 30 October 2007.

The sandbox is mostly for testing things like articles and wiki markup. Oysterguitarist 23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Science Project

I have to do a science project about Phase Change Diagrams. And I have to teach the class about it. I need a good sentence with the word in it, but not one that's too complicated. Does anyone know an easy way to remember the word, a good sentence using the word, or a real life example of the word? Your help would be much appreciated. :]65.7.157.86 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.