User talk:Angela/Archive1

Archive starting from when I joined around May 30 2003.

Hi Angela, why can't you get on to the main Wiki site? If it's a technological issue you should probably ask one of the developers about it. Or alternatively I can ask for you.

Anyway, I hope you've been enjoying yourself, Andrew (Ams80)

It just keeps timing out - I can't get in at all. It's the version I was trying to use. Angela.

Hello again, it might be a bit of a silly question but have you tried recently, like today? A new server was installed a little while ago before which Wikipedia was often slow. Since then there has been a lot less grumbling in general from people so I assume that things are better. I'm currently blessed with a very fast University internet connection so I don't experience access problems unless things are really slow. If things don't speed up for you then I'll ask on the main site if there is any reason for it. Andrew
Yes it was alright from yesterday. I did note the problem at Angela.

Hi Angela. Nice to see a little activity here :) I dont know what can be done for this project. Some one recently asked for a separate simplified Chinese site separate from the Traditional one -- and the thought occured to me that merging all "simple" wikis might be useful. I dunno. Thanks for your vote on RFA, BTW. :) - User:Stevertigo

Ill ask Brion then to update the software (like he isnt busy enough ;) -- maybe version3 is a bit much for here -- if version2 has enough of the necessary code -- updated links, etc. Maybe it would be better to use a less fancy wiki. I dont know why though, maybe just so that we dont get too attached to speaking simply. Get back to me -- and Ill ask brion a question or two. -S-

Ok on the software--as for the purpose of... siphoning is a double edged sword -- if its automatic its too careless, if its by hand, then its too slow. Were trying to figure out ways to let languages talk to each other via language links that do a little of both -- the first part is to set up better ways to link langas -- like add a link/get a reverse link (2for1) and why not do this for each tag you add (since a 1:1 ratio for each is established) and going further why not search these other pages for links you might not have and add them to the original page? All easier said than done -- people are most concerned with using something either too powerful or too clumsy. So links are important. As far as what to use Simple for -- if we can do "automated concordancing" -- i dunno. I was just thinking about this problem for the arabic translation of the "wiki press release" 'Wikipedia" can be phonetically transcribed=WA,EIN,KAF,EIN, etc. (probably wrong ;) but... the "press release" sounds like javascript for a mouse button function. Just to be safe, it might be better rephrased as "news media notification" etc...

So there are several issues -- purpose of interwiki connections/machine translation&implementations of/concordancing/simplification. Whew. Are you on the intnwiki-l mailing list BTW? :)-Angela 11:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-- Yeah, I see your point. Simple was still born, and the notion of making a Basic English wiki seemed to be going nowhere. What would the point be? Would it be worth anyones effort? I had to imagine that there was another reason for it to exist, and this question happened to coincide with my other notion (same brain after all ;) -- my other notion -- that interlingual translations could be assisted if there was a sandbox of sorts for all kinds of languages. Im working on some technical (quasi) solutions for the link problem with at least two of the developers seem interested in it. Sometimes artists can be of use! :)-S-

My name is Joshua. I can be found at the English WP under the name of Hoshie.

I am writing in interest to help out with this wiki. I know how hard english can be. Before I decide to help, I have two questions:

1) Almost all fields have jargon. How does Simple English handle this?

2) Is Simple English the same as Basic English?

Joshua (hoshie)

I answered on your talk page if I remember rightly. However, here is also answer from someone else; Angela

1. See jargon and the strategy outlined at Psychoneuroimmunology/Talk. The article on healing is a good example of how to avoid jargon and know when to refer the reader off to other articles in full English, or their own language (which is increasingly an option).
2. No. See Simple English. Anon

Copied from the EN Wiki talk page:


Thanks for the welcome you gave me @ the simple wiki. If you need help, feel free to contact me using the contacts on my EN user page.

Joshua (Hoshie)



From Money - "Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lying."

Same reasoning for including that as for including the rough language military jargon in jargon. Very often, the poor in the South are encountering strange or confusing language from people from the North, and assuming that their power comes from some magic or understanding or capacity to trust that violates normal understandings that the poor South people don't seem to "get"... this makes them quite vulnerable to being conned, gulled, defrauded, etc., at least, on matters they just don't know very well.

It's a fair bet that anyone who might be reading a Simple English Wikipedia entry on Money might well be someone faced with a situation where they are deciding whether to put their own money into some instrument which is "as good as money" or "sure to be worth money" etc., and subjected to sly reasoning confusing the various functions of money to make that appear true. The article should help people in that situation, and should say in no uncertain terms that there is risk in using any financial capital or financial instrument that is not, in itself, money. It should also say that anyone who says you can "make money" in a purely financial transaction without taking a risk is, put plainly, lying.

I think anything less plain than that can be twisted. It is true by definition that a risk of not getting money back is the whole and only difference between money and almost-money financial capital. So it's one of the few times you can say, flatly, "non-money that becomes money without risk is a lie".

To clarify this kind of thing, we might outline a page on Simple English Users and try to characterize their needs, their demographics, their vulnerabilities, and their time limits (for instance, how much time they might have to absorb something - one reason for a one-page-per-article limit).

I don't like the idea of making any assumptions about the readers of this site. A
Me neither. Thus the choice is between following our implicit assumptions and judgement, which is fine for vocabulary but maybe not so fine for choosing which topics to write about, and making out assumptions explicit to help share and neutralize them. It doesn't make any assumption to simply write a list of different situations or constraints that users might be under, as Simple English Users now does. We might even attach some demographic numbers to them, and later test those predictions against actual use with surveys. One thing we should NOT do is just assume that we're all so brilliant as to effortlessly combine our assumptions simply by writing and editing... but there is wiggle room on this, for sure. No need to do it now. But it may help those choosing a topic to write on, and realizing that we actually care about poor or disadvantaged people, might actually bring in the right people to do the writing, given this is a non-profit effort.
Ok, it probably is a good idea to make the assumptions explicit. A
The lying bit didn't seem very encyclopedic, but I see what your point was now. It's one of the occasions when reducing it to simple English actually makes it more confusing. If it had said something like "it would be fraudulent to suggest otherwise" then I probably wouldn't have objected, but perhaps the "people are lying" part is just a simple way of expressing it. Angela
When trying to educate simple people about simple deceptions, simple words are best. Really it's a question of keeping three modes of integrity separate: investigative, definitive, and authoritative. We investigate, define and decide using three different modes of reasoning, and mixing them up is just corruption. Since non-money does not become money through any risk-free process, and that is part of how money is defined, it's fair to say that attempts to misrepresent that, are outright lying, period. It's not a question of who says so, nor a question of running experiments. If it was, I wouldn't be making a "definitive" statement.  ;-)
Fair enough. I've put it back in the article. A
See Wikipedia:integrity for a not-bad outline of this, and Wikipedia:truth for some implications. Unless of course liars with no integrity have hacked those up beyond re-cognition. LOL. As they inevitably will.

Hi Angela, thanks for encouraging me to edit here. I noticed that for some reason while editing my account went to my IP number? Why is this happening? It has never happened on any other Wikipedia where I have my shingle out. Alex756

I replied at en:, I guessed you see a message there sooner than here. Angela.
I read it there and came here. I like the idea of Simple English. I hate jargon and am always fighting against it. I firmly believed that anything can be explained in simple language, often language is used as a means to prevent communication more than encourage it. I will try and get Simple to do the same thing again. I think it had to do with going from a new link (without any text on it) back to the HomePage. Is that possible? Alex756

Angela, you may wish to look into some rather outrageous out-of-process deletions on the EN Wikipedia. in particular - this is probably a sign that the project is now on its down phase, but also a sign that the Simple English may play a role in capturing those basic and essential articles on major world issues that many people come to Wikipedia to provide, and simplifying them for a non-English-native audience.

I am particularly revolted at attacks on several people's honest attempts to lay out the Bushmeat question - particularly as it relates to (another out-of-process deletion) - as it involves the extermination of helpless mute beings quite unable to defend themselves, or to engage in the technological escalation which is the stock in trade of those censoring these articles. It's quite ironic that they attack these articles, really, as it is just this technological escalation (rifles vs. gorilla hands etc.) that causes the ape genocide to begin with.

I trust you will advocate sane courses of action with respect, at least, to articles authored by multiple parties over a long period of time, that are on issues that are generally recognized as both real and important.

This is far more important than who can edit on an ongoing basis, or even who is systematically attacked for doing so - a Wikipedia with no article on the bushmeat issue is the soul of racism - our nearest hominid relatives being victims of this in a very brutal and stark way - what we have, in effect, with this kind of article targetted for deletion, is apologists for cannibalism. Appalling.

I don't know if it was the articles they were they were attacking as such, or just you. Either way, such deletions were indeed "out of process", but reversible. Angela
Ah, but according to Martin's theory of the "hard ban", these deletions are not only authorized for ad hominem reasons, but reversals of them are supposed to be inhibited. This policy is obviously wrong, indeed it is stupid from the point of view of a "serious encyclopedia", which Wikipedia is not. Hopefully someone will notice this and realize that you can have EITHER an encyclopedia OR a "community", but not both. Their standards for exclusion will be quite different, and a community is what results when an encyclopedia is falling apart.
If any of this takes precedence over the plight of helpless hominids, of course, it speaks to the status of those doing such deletions, in or out of process, as moral garbage. They simply do not deserve the protections accorded to "persons" and certainly not that accorded "colleagues". What happens to them, including project-killing lawsuits from Mel Gibson, etc., is just what they deserve. I sincerely hope it will be possible to recommend to Mr. Gibson or whoever ends up owning the infrastructure that this project runs on, that those who are editorially active on the Simple English Wikipedia are in fact of high integrity - and follow their own rules, which rules make sense.

Good work refactoring all that talk!

Could you write some basic stuff on Simple English grammar and what might go into a Simple English audit? I know it's too early to figure out the latter, but, some heuristics like trying to speak the article out loud and asking yourself "is this how I would explain this to a grade school kid?" might help. We don't have to be rigorous yet, just have a basic set of techniques to help contributors get a good feel for constrained writing, and for what grammatical constructs are difficult in English?

Eventually, we may even be able to /talk to each other in Simple English. Sigh. Not yet.

IEPP/Talk and IELTS lay out some new stuff we have to cover: the tests that many/most Simple English Users have to test to take education in English.

Having had enough input into scoping, I'd be more pleased if someone else fleshed those out, differentiated widespread and reputable tests from commercial preparation courses, etc... the Bell and Davis versions should also be covered.

United Wikipedias Forum is interesting. It seems the only language they could possibly use to keep everyone talking is Simple English. If it goes anywhere, we would be well to have lots of articles here on dispute resolution, adversarial process, mediation, arbitration, peacemaking, transformative justice, consensus, consensus decision making, consensus democracy, dissent, and all that... a lot of non-English Wikipedia users will not really understand the culture of the English speakers they encounter and have issues with. Even just the idea that all English speakers do not really accept a single moral code will be odd to some.

Hi, Angela. I am new to the Simple English Wikipedia. It looks like you are one of the "important" people here, so I am writing to you.

I have contributed to several articles. I see a lot of problems with people using the Wikipedia as a soapbox, and with people not keeping their English simple. (The Wikipedia software says my name is )

I fully recognise your concerns and would appreciate any suggestions on how to handle the soapbox issue.
It would be helpful if you would click on "preferences" at the bottom of the screen and set yourself a Username. Then you would have a talk page that I could reply to you on. If you object to having a username (as some do) would you object to me making a talk page for you named RJ208153 or something similar?

"I fully recognise your concerns and would appreciate any suggestions on how to handle the soapbox issue." -- LOL. Okay, I see that other people have noticed this problem. I think that the only good answer is for many people to use the Simple English Wikipedia, then the problems will be seen and fixed rapidly. But of course, this is a "vicious circle" problem. If people come here and see many articles that aren't NPOV, they won't want to help with this Wikipedia. I think the Portuguese language Wikipedia had some bad problems with this for a while - many of the articles there were about some medical ideas that many people thought weren't really true.

Perhaps we need to encourage people already afmiliar with Wikipedia over help. That way they won't be put off because they already know what Wikipedia is about and they will be experienced with dealing with NPOV issues. If you know of anyone suitable perhaps you could suggest this to them. A

Thanks Angela, I don't want to make a Username. I've worked on other Wikipedias and I see that some Wikipedians fight a lot. I think that Usernames help to make some people think that winning arguments with their "enemies" is more important than writing good articles. If you want to make a page for me like you said, we can try that and see if it works. If it creates a lot of fighting I'll stop using it.

Fair point but a username does have advantages in communication and some sort of signature on a talk page makes it easier to follow. I am likely to add signatures when things start getting complicated as I do for "142" but the people I do this for are welcome to remove them if they strongly object. A

Angela, I have two questions. 1) Are you really the "boss" of the Simple English Wikipedia?

Lol. Of course not. It is a collaborative project where everyone should be treated on equal terms. There ought be no hierarchy whereby some users are viewed as having more status than any other contributor. Whether or not people ascribe such status to others is another matter and one that is probably inevitable. A

2) Who makes and fixes the software for this Wikipedia?

The same developers that work on the English Wikipedia. A

If I have questions about this who should I ask? I didn't see any information about this on this Wikipedia.

You can ask here at Simple Talk. What often happens on the non-English Wikipedias is people communicate on their own Wikipedia and then a representative takes those concerns or problems to the relevant place (directly to the developers, or to the mailing list or to Sourceforge. You can of course go directly through those channels if you prefer:

I am happy to act as a go-between if people would rather discuss issues here than on the lists or elsewhere. If there is any sort of emergency technical problem, like you can't access Wikipedia at all or a vandal-bot is running then it is probably best to contact me directly if you do not have contact with the developers as I have access to their e-mail addresses and phone numbers for use in such situations. Angela.

Angela, I'm beginning to have a lot of trouble with . I think this person wants to make the Simple English Wikipedia complicated and very hard for Simple English Users to use. I think that if I stay here I will spend a lot of time fighting with this person and being angry about this. I've already had these problems before in other Wikipedias and I don't want to have them again. If this is going to be a problem for me I won't stay here. Thank you for all your help. Please don't make a page for me yet, because I don't want anything extra helping me to argue. RJ

RJ208153, please don't leave. You've been here a very short while and already done a lot of good work. If 142 is stressing you out, focus on some different topics. Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect today. Maybe in ten years time it will move towards that but at this exact minute, it doesn't matter if an article is no more than a reflection of one contributor's opinion. There aren't many people here yet to try and help improve articles and get rid of POV and inaccuracies but the numbers will increase over time, as will the quality of the articles. You are obviously capable of writing in Simple English and for that reason this Wikipedia really needs your contributions. Please do not let a clash with one contributor put you off and certainly don't let him get you angry. Perhaps it would be best if you just made a list of the problematic pages (not necessarily online) and come back to them at some later stage. There are over 400 pages here now, so even if you only want to edit existing ones rather than writing new onesyou can find some where you are not facing contentious topics. Angela
Yes, please stay. I think there are two problems. 1. is that you have not really understood how different are the needs of all the different types of Simple English Users, and perhaps you do not agree that the most complex issues and most complex language must be tested, first, which is what I have been doing. We can avoid conflict if you work on the articles that must be in Simplest English, like starting points, and those that explain the Wikipedia user interface. And introduction articles on non-scientific and non-politics topics - like the ones you have done on topics in religion. 2. the Simple English Wikipedia is very different from other full language wikipedias, and there are different problems that need policies to sort them out that are different from the ones that seem to work elsewhere. Read Simple English Wikipedia policy and see if you can make some suggestions. This is new, and critical voices are welcome. 142

I *can* write in very complex English. But there isn't an Extra-Complex English Wikipedia yet.  :-) If we want the Simple English Wikipedia to be at a more complex level, I can do that. --

Also feel free to add NPOV dispute tags where you feel they are necessary, and be specific in talk about what you think is wrong. 142
Any statement you make about motives like "I think X wants to make [it] complicated... very hard for [users] to use" etc., are just going to be met with equally insulting statements. Please stop that. We are all working hard on this, and so far I have worked much harder and longer on it than you. Take some time to understand why certain proposals and decisions have been made, and you may find you agree there is no other choice, even if it's not what you want or expect. 142
Also, perhaps speculating on what others "want" and accusing them of sabotage, are good reasons you have had troubles on other Wikipedias. You are welcome to help here, but you can't avoid arguments if you tell people they are sabotaging, or doing things wrong on purpose. That is not Wikilove either. 142
142, please make some indication that you are not me when you are talking on my page so people do not assume I wrote it. Thank you. Angela.

Okay, Angela. I apologize to you. I apologize to I apologize to all the other Wikipedians. --

No apology necessary. May I call you RJ? "" is very long. :) Angela

Angel, this is just stupid. All these people just adding their names in the list, "yes, I support blocking people, but only with serious rules". And then they sign, and they go away. And they just make it possible for a technical solution to exist, requesting that rules are available, but making no effort whatsoever to create these rules. It feels like a knife under the neck : we have this feature there available. It is a great feature, you like it, you take it, and then manage yourself to get something decent with it. They are just sheeps. Just signing "yes, we want it, but someone please make some rules, so we can use it safely". And even if no one set the rules, the feature will be there anyway because they all like sheeps voted for it. Then, even if I disagree with it, I must try to set the rules for it, with the very little comments some leave here and there. Otherwise, we will just have a feature that everyone can use just in full anarchy. I am plain disgusted. It is a good feature for real vandals, but I know at next appearance of Papotages for example, he will be blocked with no process. Here, I know, I will write an article on sheep...

Yeah. precisely. Precisely what I mean. So, we are gonna accept banning, with everyone saying we accept banning *only* with *very serious* rules, and then we will receive it with no rules whatsoever. And likely, if I set rules (since no one does), I will be told I am the only one to agree with these, and nobody else does, and how dare I...

Hi, Angela. I want to make a User page and User account. But I don't understand how this works on SEWiki. Is there a Log In page? I don't see one. Can we sign in and use our User Name from different computers? Does the "sign with three tildes" convention work on SEWiki? We need to add answers to these questions to the appropriate pages (or make them easier to find). Thanks. --

Just click on the preferences link at the bottom of the screen (<--or this link might work too). As far as I know you can log in from other computers too. The Angela 11:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC) won't work here yet. You just have to type your name like [[Angela]].
I must finish writing the Preferences pages. It makes no sense right now!

Angela, is there somewhere a page where are listed ways to do things in phase I. I forgot a bit myself, and we have someone willing to start a minor language alone, who is quite struggling. I told him to make an account here to help him. List of points, such as "how to handle lonely pages (I think no way), to register (this I remember), to have images (embedded links I think), how to be admin etc... ant

he ! now he is accusing me of censorship

And left

Thanks for "The way sheep follow each other is so reliable ..." I didn't know that, that is utterly interesting. User FvdP.

Someone else wrote that.

Angela, making unsubstantiated complaints over at EN: about things going on here is dishonest. If there are "bizarre viewpoints" or unjustified policy meausures (all of which are marked as draft or experimental at least at the top level) they must be debated by people actually interested in SIMPLE:, not by clowns who wilfully break the GFDL and "kidnap" articles, etc...

Grow up. This project has special needs EN: doesn't have, and just because a view is unfamiliar to you, doesn't make it "bizarre". Spend some time around people with these beliefs, you will eventually start to see the English Point Of View as bizarre.

If you have a complaint about what's going on here, keep it here.

Calling for this kind of sabotage over here is particularly irresponsible:

[deletion log contents removed]

Policy statement: there is no such thing as a "hardbanned user" at Simple. Even if there was, the need to "punish" them would not compensate for disservice done the Simple English Users who benefit from their relating what they know.

A Random Troll

Thanks for the welcome! I came here because I noticed a major need for more participants! Looking at your Talk site, I'm assuming you've been here a while, eh? I have just one question: Would you consider the use of E-Prime important in defining and describing complex subjects like Calc?

Thanks, Jesse November 2, 2003--2:15 Central Time (I'll put date/time to help organize this a little.)

Hello Angela, I am using the bot here to made it put modifications set by hand. That save me the trouble of opening an other browser window :p As english is not my main langage I am not going to make it run through all articles :p Hashar 23:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I was just worried you were suddenly going to start doing this to hundreds of articles. Could you add them at the bottom of page if you do any more. Thanks. Angela 00:13, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
ok ;) Hashar

Your Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace text is horrible! I clicked on it to change ths "Recent changes" title to the simpler "Newest changes", and it turns out the links are there to "regular" En Wikipedia! LOL! (I reverted, of course). --Menchi 11:05, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just simplify a dozen namespace texts. They may be too simplistic. Feel free to improve. --Menchi 09:05, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comments. We've met. -Branddobbe 21:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

what do you mean? Who's rubbish??

I didn't create that page but uploading copyrighted stuff without permission is pretty rubbish. Angela 11:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:All pages by title should be updated to:

[[1000 Words]] to Light year
[[Like]] to War
[[Water]] to €

Thanks, --Mero 08:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Wikipedia:All pages by title is an automatically generated page. Angela 11:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You're right. I'm thinking of en, where an admin needs to update Wikipedia:All pages by title. Sorry. --Mero 09:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there somewhere to list pages that need simplifying? SimonMayer 21:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Special:Allpages? (Just joking). There is a Wikipedia:Cleanup page, but not much has been added to it yet. There are also random things dumped on my user page that need help! I'll add a note to the village pump reminding people to add to the Wikipedia:Cleanup page if they find something that needs simplifying as at the moment the page contains very little. Angela 18:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I figured that as no-one else would have a reason to edit my page it would be a good idea to protect, but I've just realised this probably protected my talk page aswell. I also suppose it's unfriendly to stop people editing, so I'll leave it unprotected.
SimonMayer 16:24, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it is unfair, so I won't do it. I just wish that there was some system that all users could protect their own page. Oh well, no big deal.
SimonMayer 00:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Angela - thanks for the welcome. That's two Wikipedias you've welcomed me to, now. Warofdreams 00:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Same for me. It seems to me that Angela welcomed me also to some other Wikipedia. Thanks Angela! I'll try to participate in the simplicity tier project, as a non-native English -hum- speaker. Best --Milaiklainim 10:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...I used to be a TEFL teacher so this project is interesting to me, and I hope I can be of some use. Let me know if there is anything in particular that I should help out with, at the moment I am randomly browsing and putting things right/helping to eradicate vandalism/tests... Calexico 08:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Angela, would you be able to take a look at the attempt I just had at writing Egypt? I'd like to do a bit around here, but want to make sure I'm on the right track. Any ideas, also, as to how I might improve it? It's surprisingly difficult to do in simplified English! Ambivalenthysteria 06:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Does Simple English Wikipedia have a page to report/list Edit Wars as opposed to actual Vandalism?

No, not yet. Have there been any? Angela 19:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be something of the sort happening in England (England is a country/England is not a country -- see the Talk), and I wanted to note it if we had an Edit Wars page.

Perhaps you could create one at Wikipedia:Current disputes, or a simpler name if you can think of one. Angela 12:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something Bizarre

I know this is probably humourous and you might laugh at me, but it's something I want fixed. Whenever I attempt to look up something at the English Wikipedia, I get another site instead. This doesn't happen anywhere else online, but it's been happening for months to the point where I believe somebody sabotaged my IP address from being able to visit there. I know there are a few users at the English Wikipedia who detest me, but that is just going too far and I demand something to be done about it. I am not contributing anything and haven't even thought of doing so for the longest time now. Please find out what the hell is going on. I don't like how it appears to be a fellow Wikipedia user that has found some way to disrupt my connection to that website. These are the sites that I am pissed off at seeing any time I look up a topic on Google and click on the English Wikipedia. Blocking them hasn't enabled me to see Wikipedia, just prevented me from seeing these sites:

<links removed>

-Kenneth Alan from the English Wikipedia

I don't think it is possible anyone at Wikipedia has caused this. Perhaps you have a virus. Have you tried using a different browser? Are you sure those links in Google are Wikipedia links and not some site that looks like Wikipedia in the search results? Angela 08:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Angela, I am upset because it is only the English Wikipedia and quite a few people detested me there and wanted to ban me for good but it wasn't happening. I only have one browser and yes, I checked that it's a Wikipedia site that morphs into another. The other languages work, the Wiktionary works, etc., but not the one that several people were mad about me being at. I will try to weed out a virus now. - Kenneth Alan

Ah, yes, now it is fixed. I grew brave enough to use a spyware killer. I just hope it doesn't bite me in the arse in the future. Thanks for your time Angela. - Kenneth Alan

Too bad, I have experienced the bullshit again. Despite having a spy/ad/malware killer, it doesn't want to permanently go away. - Kenneth Alan

I think I understand. Mats Haldin from the Swedish Wikipedia has been doing this to me. He calls me "Troll" all the time. He hates me soooo much and when I asked for help on the Swedish Wikipedia, he helped affect a blocking of me despite nice responses from others when I wanted to fix the sabotage. I fixed it with another removal program and I hope it goes away for good. - Kenneth Alan

It is not possible for a user on Wikipedia to force you to go to different sites. If you are still being redirected to pages like pillsexpert, this must be a problem with your computer, not with anyone blocking you. Being blocked from Wikipedia just gives you a message like the one at MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Have you tried accessing it with a different browser? Try using Firefox instead and see if that helps. Angela 00:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not that it's a problem to edit, the problem lies in being able to get past a redirect. I'm trying to install Firefox right now. You still don't think there's something wrong with the English site? That is the ONLY site I ever go to that redirects to my misfortune. Thanks btw. - Kenneth Alan

There haven't been any other complaints about this, so I suspect you have just got spyware on your computer causing this. Are you sure you are typing in the correct URL? Perhaps you are going to something similar. Do links like this take you to the right place? If it continues, you might want to tell people on the mailing list since there really isn't anything I can do. Angela 19:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I complained because I believe I have been victimised by a handful of vengeful Wikipedians or at least just one. Since I got a second spyware remover and second browser, the problem has stopped. Although at this time that could be also because those I have alleged openly as attributable to my problem probably took quick notice to stop before they get caught. I haven't tried your version of links before, just the basic, general http address in the address bar or clicking onto links from google or wikipedia clones to try and access the main website. Thanks anyways. - Kenneth Alan

It's best to assume good faith rather than blame any other user for this since people can't force spyware on you through Wikipedia. I'm glad the new browser has solved the problem. Angela 04:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had been seeing a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia, which is why I took the hard-arse approach to determine the events. Despite a recent irrational blocking and seeming unblocking on the Swedish version, of me, I do appreciate your advice. Thank you, luv. - Kenneth Alan


Thankyou for making me a bureaucrat.
SimonMayer 22:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Main page protection

I agree, there is no urgency to protect it today. I think it is right choice long-term, but it's ok for now. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boardvote pages

Wikipedia:New messages in 1.3/Board vote

Is there any reason to still have these pages around? I don't see them on en:, so they look like leftovers. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They'll be needed for next June. I don't think they do any harm staying there for now, do they? Angela 02:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, no harm. Like I said, I saw that they were here and not on en:, so I wondered if they were deprecated. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The messages were never on en. I assume they're somewhere else, like in the language file, and only Wikipedias using the non-default needed MediaWiki pages for this. Angela 17:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi Angela. Could you delete Image:Quadell.jpg for me? I've moved it to the Commons. Thanks! Quadell 14:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela 16:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalizer: Gracker!

Hey, it's Wolfj. You probably don't know who I am, though. I am reporting MAJOR vandalism by some jerk named Gracker. He has been vandalizing pages made by Turcottem and I. Since you are an admin, I just thought you could take some action. (Note: Please don't use my name.)Wolfj 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Change of attribution

How do I arrange for my edits as User: to be re-attributed to me as User:Phil Boswell? I have been using the former because the system has been very slow for logged-in users. --Phil|Talk 12:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can ask at en:Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit, but there is a very long back-log and no guarantee that this will ever be done. Unfortuntely, this is something that only a developer can do. Angela 03:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Angela can you help

I did read your pseudo at different places here. You seem to be a kind of VIP. Can you help me in following matter:


I did work this evening 2 hours in this part of wikipedia and after that my pages did disappair after an imperative request of a troll with the pseudo netoholic, the author of the totaly useless and for this reason nonsens list of 850 words of basic english, a list being extremly easy to find in english (in other languages, it is different! the access of the different translations = significations of the 850 english basic english word is very hard to get in france and difficult enough in germany! and i suppose that it will not be better in other countries...) on the web and in diverse book too, to brake my work! For me it is not a hasard but i suppose that netoholic did erase my work.

In my eyes is natoholic probably an troll. On many points on his discussions page it is the question of annoyance! Natoholic seems to be a magnet for unpeace! I am really unplaised that he didn't give me the possibility to save my long work. Find you really that it is a good and fair kind of social intercourse on a web enterprise where fairnis has to be an principal matter of success? In presence of such a despise a lot of people can be tempted to act against wikipedia. vandalism is a matter who interess Natoholic, i see on his page! of course: Natoholic give the other no chance to choice a different way: Natoholic will an causes war on wikipedia! and after that are the other the bad boys...

Is wikipedia a entreprise of "little kings" or "little gods"?"

The above was written by User: I imagine this is the same user as User: They created two pages, which I redirected back to Basic English - An audio-visual way into English through pictures and The General Basic English Dictionary. He was creating pages for a number of different Basic English books, so I suggested a better method of handling things on that IPs talk page, basically by just adding simple citations. Obviously, I didn't delete anything. It is still debatable whether I am a troll or not, though. :) -- Netoholic @ 00:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
please see and different other pages I will write in Wikipedia in the next days on the thema "vandalism": If wikipedia is happy to have a lot of "little kings" you will never be free to have difficulties... wikipedia can be a good thing. but wikipedia can also be a satanic thing under the cover of surface democraty!
Please don't call people trolls without reason. Blanking another user's talk page is considered vandalism. I suggest you log in so you can discuss this sensibly with Netoholic as he has requested you do. Angela 21:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't call people trolls without reason

Hi Angela! "Please don't call people trolls without reason". But if I have reasons? What is the competence of Netoholic to decide if a page is a matter for this site or not? If Netoholic starts a war with a new comer who don't uses bad words or write tendencious topics, he is a troll and causes the begin of a destructive process... I have good reason why I did place my informations on this site and I find it is a good reason of the existence for this site. Only to make the same as on the main English Wikipedia site, would be a separate site for simple English nonsens. "Simple English" is also a nonsens. It is infatuate pidjin English or poor full English? Can you define Simple English? The only one rational approach for that is to reserve such site for a real standard type of limited English and 2 standards exist really: Basic English and VAO English! It is the flagrant evidence of lack of competence.

Hi Angela! I did find my pages again (through the "history"; probably I am now expert in using of history on wikipedia pages...). The troll WAS Netoholic: we can see it in the history. Your site is a real factory for trolls. I am sorry for you! I can understand that this work is important for you. I did see your old pages from Mai 2003 etc. I did see the old pages of Netoholic. But it is not a reason to handle in such a maniere against persons who are working in a different way as you. You have your opinion. And other people have also her opinion... If you want only see your opinion or if Netoholic want to see only his opinion, it would be better for you to publish only on a closed site like the basic english site etc... in an other case, you get war because your own comportment is unfreedly! I did see, that you have a big activity concerning "vandalism", "trolls" etc. but your own comportment (you, all the old "owner" of this site) is probably the most important reason of this reaction of other people. I will post this message on the discussion page of Netoholic and go away. You are poor people, and deform Basic English in such way that Basic English can't be any a serious alternative for other people. Your enterprise is really a very bad enterprise...

It seems that consensus is to get a logo designed like option "E" on Wikipedia:Simple talk#Logo. In understand there is a desire to make Simple distinct, and I agree, but let's kill two birds with one stone and get the right design made up. -- Netoholic @ 08:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Angela 22:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Basic English Wordlist

I had a discussion with Netoholic about including spelling variants in the wordlist, but s/he simply refuses to do so, although there are very good reasons to include variants. This wikipedia allows both British and American spellings and the list should reflect that. I would appreciate it, if you could have a look: 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Basic English alphabetical wordlist. Angela


Hello, Angela. I'd just like to say that you have made many a helpful edit to the site. You are incredibly good at your job as an admin. I just thought I'd tell you that! The J-Man 19:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) (My real username is "Wolfj.")

I'm not sure I agree. I've hardly had time to be a decent admin here lately. Angela

Just to let you know, Angela, i am not reporting vandalism from sock puppets, but it kinda has to do with it. Gracker wants to leave the site, but he dosen't want his name to just be used as a "toy" for other people to use it. Gracker is granting me permission to use his user name. now hear me out, i will follow three simple rules:

                    1.i will not vandalize
                    2.i will not use Jonesc as long as i am Gracker
                    3.i will write articles that actually have a meaning to them(unlike amphibian visual cortex)

I only ask one more thing from you, clear Gracker's file so people still won't think i am a vandalist, that is, if you let me become Gracker.You cxan block me and Gracker if you let me be Gracker and i use Jonesc-Jonesc

I can't clear people's contributions lists if that's what you mean. Perhaps it would be best to get a new user name and start afresh? Angela 19:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, my name is Moonshine, and I am new to this website, pass the word around!!! MOonshine... out. JewishLuvah 19:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Has been protected since Dec., is this permanant now?

No, I don't think it should be. Angela 11:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've re-protected it per Talk:Main Page. -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I just came here from regular wikipedia, and recognized your name. Since it seems that you are one by this page, and I've been wondering anyway, does this wikipedia have sysops, stewards, and all that? Howabout1 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. See Special:Listadmins for the list of admins and Wikipedia:Administrators for info on which of those are active. SimonMayer is the wiki's bureaucrat since I resigned. Stewards don't operate on individual wikis, but across them all. See m:stewards for a list of them. Angela 17:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Angela

Sorry, I just wouldn't feel welcome after all of the nasty comments left on my Talk page and on the mailing list. RickK 04:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

New image deletion page

I have created a page for image deletion requests just like the English Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. So, please note that there may be deletion requests of images and media there in future. • Thorpe • 21:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Angela, I'm going to ask if you can help me with Netoholic's behavior. Recently he deleted Image:Simple English Wikipedia.PNG enough though the request for deletion was clearly against that (see the log). You can see on his talk page that this is not an isolated incident and that he's already driven away User:MarcoVD. Between him and NickGorton's sock puppet allegations (I've completely given up on trying to reason with about Talk:Homosexuality and left that article for him to do whatever he wants), we need to establish some sort of controls here. I might be the next to leave, frankly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Simple is in a bad predicament. First of all, we have throngs of editors who are largely refugees from EN: - either because they feel lost in the mix there, or have a particular POV approach which meets resistance there. They re-create articles and WP processes here without considering this project as anything but Yet Another english Wikipedia. Thorpe, who created that screenshot, is one of these types.

This wiki can be one of the best if we concentrate on providing and maintaining a strictly-defined "core" of article subjects which can be translated or perhaps some day printed. en: Wikipedia 1.0 will never be a reality. Simple could achieve it with some stronger self-regulation. If that means some editors leave, then they have their native language wiki to go to. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, if you Netoholic continue to revert my edits like at Template:Stub without any explanation other than it doesn't fit your personal view contary to everyone else's views, I'll be the next to leave. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
You should go. Net's right. If you aren't with us, you're against us. Go and leave us alone to work on this wiki. The last thing this wiki needs is useless editors like you.
Maybe you were too busy not signing your edit here to notice that Ricky has been very busy improving simple, adding categories, editing articles, and making things much better. BallSack 02:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Please note that it was not me that added that unsigned comment. Anyone wanting to improve this wiki is welcome to do as long as they abide by the relevant policies. Angela 15:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone tell why I should stay

Someone tell me why I should stay and continue to improve Simple like I have been doing, when one administrator (netoholic) can go against all of discussion and delete everything and say "You are not wanted here" ? So tell me why I should keep contributing to wiki when administrator has that kind of attitude. I am very sad now. 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he said you're not welcome, just that stub types aren't. Angela 23:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


I was hoping you might be around. It was painful to watch--I'd forgotten how much easier it is do deal with vandalism with Admin tools--there's no way I could keep up manually without being able to block. Hopefully I can get the Admin tools here some day. Freshstart 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back

Glad to see you're back on simple, Angela! Flcelloguy 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Page which needs to be simplified

Hello Angela. I need to refer a page to you which I think needs to be simplified in a big way. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei contains way too many foreign words to make it easy enough for users with limited command of the English language to be able to read. Could you please review the article and what your view on this article would be. It either needs to be simplified or deleted in my opinion. Thank you for your help. Tmalmjursson 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's tagged as unsimple, so I guess it's just a matter of waiting for someone to simplify it. I don't think there's a reason to delete it straight away. Angela

email confirmation

Please go to Special:Confirmemail and confirm your email address, so that people can contact you in case of vandalism, accidental blocks, etc. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Angela 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested

Dear Angela, I don't know how much you are still around Simple English Wikipedia, but I would like your comment on Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia#Policy issue because you were part of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and this discussion is directly related. Thanks! --Cromwellt|talk 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the Simple English Wiktionary should even exist. Angela 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment. Your input is valuable. I do not know if you looked at the page I referred to above or not, but it seems as if you might not have, so perhaps you will allow me to give you a short explanation of my personal reasons for thinking it should exist.
Basically, it should exist for the same reason that Simple English Wikipedia itself should exist: to be a simplified resource for people who do not know English well. When a person who for whatever reason does not know English well (our target audience) comes on Simple English Wikipedia, they often need definitions of many words. English Wiktionary uses definitions that are often (but not always) too complicated and require looking up other words to understand the definition. Simple English Wiktionary uses simpler definitions so that people with less English knowledge can understand them. This exactly corresponds to Simple English Wikipedia's simpler articles on encyclopedic topics. Definitions should not be here either, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and for the same reasons that definitions are on English Wiktionary, not English Wikipedia. Thus, Simple English Wiktionary fills a gap and is a valuable resource, IMO. --Cromwellt|talk 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Angela. Could you write here what you think about this version of Main Page, please? Greets, odder 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Can you give me a cloak? -- aflm Talk 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think en:User:Essjay is dealing with cloaks now. Angela 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A major matter to deal with here...

I would apppreciate it if you could block whoever is responsible for creating those sockpuppet accounts to disrupt the project and my work:

Now that same person's going to create more accounts, and it'll get much worse by dawn local time!

When I go to Wikipedia:Administrators, I will place my request so that my work can continue smoothly. In the meantime, please block the IP(s) of this user and warn them off. --Slgrandson 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Forgive the spamming of admin talk pages, but I wanted to inform all the active admins that there is now a Counter Vandalism Unit IRC channel devoted to Simple English Wikipedia. If anyone is interest: #vandalism-simple-wp. -- Psy guy 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Would you mind taking a look at my WikiReader proposal on Wikipedia:Simple talk? I think it could be a fantastic way to go for the Simple English encyclopedia. Archer7 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


I would appreciate your comments on Simple talk regarding User:Netoholic. Netoholic has claimed that my actions were inappropriate, and I would like to know what you think. Archer7 | talk 10:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I came to say hello to you. How do you do? I also work in English wikipedia as W:User:Bhadani. Thank you. --Bhadani 15:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trust in Wikipedia

this is Cathy from Hong Kong working on a research about trust on Wikipedia. I wonder if you would kindly contact me at [email protected]? I'd like to chat with you about Wikipedia of your language. Would you kindly drop me your email or IM (Skype, MSN, AIM or ICQ)? It wouldn't take more than ten minutes, but it would help enormously for us to understand the overall trust-based social landscape of Wikipedia. Thank you!

Thank you

Thank you so much for coming online at that moment to block him. You are a lifesaver! Billz (Talk) 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice work. I was hoping to help out, but you seem to have gotten everything for the time being. I couldn't even find anything you'd missed! You can de-op whenever you think appropriate though I don't mind using it either. - Taxman 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Thanks for coming in to save the day!! :D Cheers, Tangotango 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your help in dealing with my "fan". Cheers! zephyr2k 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


New elections for bureaucrats on simple.wikipedia are going to start. Would you like to give a hand to simple.wikipedia and candidating here? --M7 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My Request for adminship

Dear Angela, thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship. And double thanks for putting me back on the track. I hope it will pass (in 3 days time, it will). Thank you!-- Tdxiang 11:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New page to Beliefs/Religion section on front.

Hi Angela. Could you please add Bahá'í Faith to the religion/belief section. The page is now at a level of content that exceeds some of the beliefs listed there. If changes to it need to be made before hand, such as simplification of language, please let me know. I tried to keep it to BE1500, but I'm new at this. - Christian Edward Gruber 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be an admin... I'd like to complain about User:Netoholic about his irrational behaviour concerning a spelling dispute. See his talk page ("Basic English, again") for details. DenisL 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List of disambiguation pages

Hi Angela, we seem to be having a problem with our orphan pages list as it's filled with disambiguation pages. I was wondering if we could get a link to them all on a page. They could be sorted by category etc. What do you think? Jordanhatch - talk 07:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Section 1 of Simple English GFDL

Please change Section 1 to make it more simple. I still do not understand this.

"Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts".

I do not understand that. What is an "Invariant Section" what are "Front-Cover Texts" and "Back-Cover Texts". Why are we allowed or not allowed to have them? Please change this to help everybody understand. Taric25 10:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)