Template talk:User simple-0

Complex
To the extent this is supposed to be amusing it should at least be accurate. 'Complex intricacies' is a glaring tautology. --orizon 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So change it. This is a wiki. ▫ Urbane Legend talk 10:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplified
Made the wording simple. Not sure if it was a [bad] joke before but it's okay now. SunCreator (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to user box
User:FaktneviM has made a change to this userbox on the basis that the "ironic meaning of the userbox is plainly disgusting". last revision before FaktneviM´s changes Since this box is placed on several user pages, it seems reasonable that discussion on the change should take place to form consensus that the change is appropriate and that an RFC or 3O is appropriate. Please reference the discussion at User talk:FaktneviM for history. I'll create a 3O request and go from there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah! --FaktneviM (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We could remind that previous 2 talk by Wiki-users (1st and 2nd) was written because of clear unaware of irony as well. That means this template is misleading. If this ironic meaning will be preserved, it should be renamed to (for example with this name)...... Previous talk with FaktneviM and Mufka was held at FaktneviM´s talk. .... Opinions? ... Suggestions? .... --FaktneviM (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, in your most recent revert, you state that the editor didn't have consensus for the change. You never had consensus for your change. I think you'll find that as people notice your change, more will come and revert it. If you continue to simply revert the changes, you'll run into problems least of all is WP:3RR. If the page gets reverted again by a passing editor, I'd suggest that you not revert it, but ask the editor to join the discussion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

--- xx-0 You might be expected to understand a language (e.g. if you often contribute to articles about it, or you live in an xx-speaking country), but don't actually understand it at all, or not well enough to qualify for xx-1. You do not need to use xx-0 for every language you do not know.


 * This quote simply means, that even "level 0 of any language is able" to contribute with quite good understandings. That user perhaps understands, but he can´t to respond in that language (e.g. "writing", "speaking"). Such a user probably understands in general words of sentence meaning. ... = that leads us to conclusion that joking is inappropriate with level 0.


 * Sincerely I have no concern in this template. My only concern in all Simple English templates were based on . Nothing more. Nothing less. I suppose myself to be on level simple-N or closely to simple-5... (See my user page!)


 * Despite this, (= I use easier grammar and little word-stock), I perfectly understand all comments from others to me. ... If anyone will revert this template again, I will, (I promise it), not involving myself into this anymore.


 * --FaktneviM (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See the section below The point of this template. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not blind. Moreover, I cited a quote from that section. :))
 * --FaktneviM (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, this should be grammatically correct
Even Simple English follows grammar rules. However, the "consensus" version of this included "does not able" as opposed to "is not able," which is grammatically incorrect. Also, it doesn't make sense to say "Please use another language" as "simple English" is not a different language from English; it's just a different way of phrasing it. I can see why FakhtneviM has issues with the snobbish way this userbox is phrased, but given his/her history with making ungrammatical edits to userboxes and then arguing blowing up at people when they correct him/her, I think someone else should be responsible for creating the final version. It's one thing to be bad at a language's grammar, it's another to refuse to improve, and FM's history in this regard has had others consider blocking this user from editing Wikipedia, as the userpage illustrates. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Can you just read all edits about this specific situation since start to finish, please? Who give you the right talking these lies about me. You know nothing about real complexity of this problem. You are just another "lazy user" or much worse version - another member of group called "Lofty Englishmen". If you will be still lying and misinterpret my words, you will be added to my blacklist of wiki-users. (some lofties and problems-makers, etc..... (No one is member of this group so far. You could be just first.) --FaktneviM (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of this template
After reviewing Babel/Levels, it is clear that the point of this template is that the editor isn't experienced in Simple English. That could be interpreted to mean that the editor doesn't understand English at all but if that were the case, the editor wouldn't be here and wouldn't be using the template at all. It's reasonable that since this is the English Wikipedia, that the intent of this template is to convey that the user of the template isn't able or willing to help in converting complex English into Simple English. That shouldn't be occurring here anyway. With that in mind, the template should be reverted to this version. It seems to make the point perfectly and with a little levity. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I support that version. WikiDao    &#9775;  21:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support generally: I've always taken the template to be humorous. I had used it on my user page for a while because I often use complicated or unfamiliar words in my writing, not so much on Wikipedia but just as a writer in general. I do not detest Simple English, I merely prefer a more sophisticated usage of English. I also would find it tedious to convert mainstream English into Simple English, preferring to leave that task to others more familiar with the latter. The fact that the template was changed to this troubles me and is the complete opposite of the comedic spirit the prior version (linked above by Mufka) possessed. I support reverting the template to that earlier version. However, because of the humorous nature of it, I believe it should be moved out of template namespace and instead to a user subpage, likely one of User:UBX. Additionally, the template probably should not include users in any categories. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Split Clearly what is needed is two templates, one to indicate that a person is unable to understand simple English at all, and another to indicate that the person has no understanding of the differences between simple English and regular English but will likely be able to understand simple English. I do agree that both should be serious or moved into userspace. Monty  845  05:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the practical application of a box that says that someone doesn't understand simple English? Where could it be used?  If they're here, they must at least understand simple English.  Otherwise it'd be like me going to the Chinese Wikipedia and expecting to find a user box that tells everyone that I don't understand anything that I see there.  The likelihood of me finding that box is very slim.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of a template like that is exactly like template:user_en-0, "this user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty)". It is useful for people who edit here only on language-independent things (such as interwiki links) or things that only require a very minimal level of English. I use the equivalent template on several projects, including the Dutch Wikipedia where I've made a few edits related to interwikis and Commons images. The template serves to say that I do not understand Dutch so there is no point leaving me messages in that language. The documentation also suggests using level 0 templates if you often contribute to articles about a language you do not speak. All that said, I don't see the need for a separate template, and so I suggest redirecting to template:user en-0. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)