User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 →

User:92.6.134.65[change source]

Thanks for blocking this IP address, that saved me a lot of work reverting vandalism. Whilst I'm at it, I'm currently using Twinkle to rollback vandalism, is this OK given that I don't yet have the formal rollback permission? Do you reckon it's worth applying please? Also what should I do to become a sysop? Thanks. Internet Hero 123 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See under "Community", requests for permissions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted a page[change source]

Hi @Macdonald-ross You've deleted this page Cemal Polat - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia even tho on talk page I have explained the notability of this page WP:ANYBIO WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. I have shared 7 secondary news references of television and notable news websites but all were ignored, may I know why you were in so hurry to delete the page? Please restore so I can make it more better. 39.34.178.114 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was advertising. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't advertising I was trying to add more links and references and you directly shiftithe blame to me that I am advertising.
ou're deleting everyone's pages without any reason. Wasn't that page passing WP:GNG? WP:AUTHOR? WP:BIO If It wasn't I am sending you 300 pages now here, just delete so it will make me understand about that "You are not biased". As of now, You're so biased, you selecting pages which you don't like and get it deleting. If it was advertising and G10 G11 than where is the warning? As per Wikipedia policy you should have warn me rather than deleting the page. I will defo gonna raise the issue with the administrators and all your biased decision of deletion page.Y

i
39.34.176.115 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Richie Mensah Page[change source]

Hello Sir Macdonald-ross.... Can I please know why you deleted the page I created?? Because it's an existing page on English Wikipedia and some others.... Thanks Yaw tuba (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did not show his notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude @Macdonald-ross did you even know what notability means? Hello @Ferien I never heard about Richie Mensah but after the OP says the page is available on English Wikipedia I googled it. As per this Richie Mensah - Wikipedia The person has won many awards and per WP:GNG WP:NMUSICIAN winning 2-3 music award means the notability is meet but as per Macdonald Ross the person doesn't show the notability lol I mean is he even serious? I don't know what's the criteria of Wikipedia to make the user editor/patroller/rollback/reviewer but I will suggest you raise this issue with the Wikipedia as MacDonald doesn't even know the meaning of notability. He has deleted lots of pages who have met the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. He also deleted some pages who have met the notability guidelines as per English Wikipedia but got deleted here by him and the logic he is giving is "Not met the notability" lol if it doesn't how it is approved by Wikipedia english team? 39.34.177.176 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are pinging me to this situation, but I will answer. The reason it was deleted was because the article did not show notability, as Macdonald-ross already said above. That is not equivalent to not being notable. To say MacDonald doesn't even know the meaning of notability isn't true or even relevant here. Let's focus on the issue at hand. Is Richie Mensah notable? Looking to me, probably yes. Per w:WP:MUSICBIO, he meets Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award., having won Producer of the Year and Sound Engineer of the Year at the 2021 Ghana Music Awards (I've verified this myself) and, according to the enwiki article, Producer of the Year in both the 2009 and 2010 Ghana Music Awards and nominated for various other major awards.
But, the article was deleted because it did not claim notability. Reading the article now, there is a claim: Richie has won many awards for singing and making music, and he's becoming very famous in the music world of Ghana. The article probably was not eligible for A4 deletion, as this makes the subject important, however Macdonald-ross is completely right that notability is not shown here – there are no references proving this claim at all. --Ferien (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pages aren't nonsense[change source]

they're funny,

Love, Georgie 2600:100D:B088:7749:D88E:D37F:823A:4783 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric bony fish genera[change source]

Hi there, I noticed you added an RfD for this page onto RfD, but a discussion was never started. I removed it from the page, as it's a red link, but you're welcome to add it back with a new discussion page. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the page is no use to our readers. It's like "List of dinosaurs" which I'm sure many boys write when they are ten or eleven. Then a teacher gently says "how will people know what the words mean?" And a penny drops. Of course on big wiki there are professional ichthyologists, but we have schoolchildren mostly. That's why I wanted it deleted. I should have put it up for RfD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Followers for sale, one-million followers (or multiples thereof)[change source]

" if one can buy followers [on this or that social media] on a huge scale how is that an indication of notability in our sense? Only if followers pick him by themselves is it an indication of his notability. (...) 08:03, 22 August 2023".--Most of the time (if not always), this Wikipedia-project should probably stay away from that can-of-worms (or "millions-of-followers" on social media), in my opinion.--If my view is helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:313:F598:3DF5:B1C5:A8F9:9CCA (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock-puppetry[change source]

Two users namely User:TimPerkin9 and User:Hysteriad both added false pronouns to the article Randy Stair i find this highly suspicious also it looks too me both are new users, Can you confirm this?? 208.101.153.157 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@208.101.153.157 I don't know who hysteriad is. When I saw the article, it used both masculine and feminine pronouns. I looked it up and it seemed that Stair came to identify as a woman. I used she/her pronouns to make the article consistent. TimPerkin9 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TimPerkin9
First of all, They are false pronouns
Second of all, You never provided sources 208.101.153.157 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain on the soap page[change source]

Can you explain on the soap page how hand soap gets rid of bacteria? 2601:644:907E:A450:5DA0:D9D5:4A63:731 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The suds physically lift the bacteria off of the hands. I'll add it ... fr33kman 18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done fr33kman 18:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Fr33kman. Would you say that "germs" is a simple word, or should it have a link? Or should it be "microbes" or "bacteria" instead? Germ is a disambiguation page, which wouldn't help that much. 2601:644:907E:A450:5DA0:D9D5:4A63:731 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or link to Wiktionary: wikt:germ 2601:644:907E:A450:5DA0:D9D5:4A63:731 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link to wikt: :-) fr33kman 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Please do not link this to Wiktionary. The definition there has two different meanings, so it would not be helpful. Plus, the fact that the word has multiple meanings shows that it is not a simple word. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it, but just because a word has more than one meaning doesn't make it 'not simple'. Very, very few English words have a single dictionary definition. fr33kman 23:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may not make it "not simple", but it makes it harder to understand and therefore something to avoid if possible. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in a dispute[change source]

Hello. You're the only admin I've seen active recently at ANI. Could you please take a look at this discussion [1]? It's already three people seemingly agreeing with my report yet nothing happens. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Media does not use the words he or she about Judith X (or whatever the name)"[change source]

Re: "My feeling is that we should stick as close as we can to traditional English style. We should not make concessions, ... . But when minority life-styles think we should change the way we use our language ... 18:39, 18 August 2023".--Hi Macdonald-ross, I intend to try to make a stub about someone who media does not use "he"/"she" pronouns for.--At the end of the article, then I expect to write,
"Media does not use the words he or she about Judith X (or whatever the name)".
So, now I just have to find an (En-wiki article) about a famous transgender photo model or author or singer (that is a self-admitted "non-she" and "non-he"), and I will be off to the races.--Thoughts?--(Sorry for not taking this topic to Simple Talk, but first the old thread needs to be archived, in my view. That discussion was worthwhile, until the thread seemed to be 'verbosely hijacked', this last week. 46.15.119.89 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to write a page about someone using a neo-pronoun, I would act as follows: use their birth pronoun and explain they preferred to be called X (whatever). After explaining this, I would use their pronoun. As a qualified biologist, I think mankind does have sexes which are established at the union of egg and sperm. There is no way to change that known to science, and I suspect that will remain so for a long time. Secondly, I think we should be very careful to be both simple and accurate in view of our audience. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Children are being taught by advocates that they can change their birth sex. No, they can't, but unfortunately they can ruin their bodies. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: You described how you maybe (hypothetically) write such an article.--Well, then my plan is to find at least two such names that need articles (stubs): Then I can write one of them the way you described, and then I can write the other one "my" way.--Your idea might actually be the "template or whatever" (my quote), of an article, that will not make readers huff-and-puff.--Thanks for your input! 2001:2020:32D:B0D3:88E6:7DE8:D1A1:AC2D (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll certainly look at whatever you write, if you flag me when it's done. I think if a writer actually knows the real gender of a person, that should somehow be said in the article. We are only obliged to say true things as far as we know them. It's often possible to do that, but also state the person's preferences. As a biologist I can say there is no question that a person is one gender or the other (the real exceptions are some birth defects, to which we are not referring), but a certain amount of leeway can make the article much more acceptable. Well, I daresay we shall see... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khidrsalam[change source]

I have a problem with an user who's @Khidrsalam, who try to create the page of Rana Khattar again while the article was deleted this morning.

I wanted to know if it's possible to protect the article or to restrict the user ? Regards, Ory rtio (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what I've done. I'll do more if the editor continues... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and I wanted to know if it was possible for me to become a confirmed user Ory rtio (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because i need to ask something in the talk page of Rana Khattar but it's protected for only confirmed users can write something Ory rtio (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carry on making useful edits, and you will be recognised. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsune Miku[change source]

I think you should un-delete this page and protect it from editing. It seems to be notable. 2601:644:907E:A450:8D7B:D750:4FF7:273F (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning[change source]

Hello @Macdonald-ross hope you are good, can you give me your opinion about this person and i think he should have an article here can you help me to create it Faisalbinalisa (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also you can check this page for all sources with many thanks Faisalbinalisa (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Book for Boys[change source]

Your revert on Astronomy is puzzling. The particular chapter and pages in The Dangerous Book for Boys is a simple explanation of early historical astronomy and constellations. It does not deal with recent news about black holes, dwarf planets, Mars Rovers, etc. To try and solve my puzzlement, I looked for Simple Wikipedia’s guidance on Further Reading entries. I can’t find it. But in looking at the big Wikipedia en:MOS:FURTHER guidance, I think the Dangerous Book would "help interested readers learn more about the article subject.” E.g., the book is award-winning and written in Simple English itself. Accordingly, you should revert your deletion. As I continue to edit Simple WP I’ll add urls to the Dangerous Book items to help readers. Thanks. S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Srich32977: I also had concerns when I saw you adding links to that book. The specific concerns I had were 1) not knowing how authoritative and/or accurate the book is and 2) it looked like you were promoting the book. I decided not to take action at the time, but just be aware that others might also question this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the book is published by HarperCollins. Accordingly, it certainly comes from a reputable source, known for authoritativeness and accuracy. (Also, it received a 2007 Book of the Year award from the Galaxy British Book Awards.) Am I “promoting” it? This question impinges on my Good Faith. I have no interest in the book or HarperCollins or the authors. To me, as a long-time “advanced” WP editor, the book is a useful resource for Simple English readers. When they read or link to it they should find it interesting and useful in improving their English skills. I think including it improves Simple-Wikipedia's usefulness for its readers.S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bird[change source]

Perfect example of how WP:SI works!! Good job! fr33kman 20:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[change source]

I wasn't entarated about not copy from an complex encyclopedia Elextraterrestre4563 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Elextraterrestre4563 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you help me editing earthquakes2023 to publish it later Elextraterrestre4563 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:([change source]

Hey what's the big idea. You do know that simplicity doesn't mean stupid. A simple article can also be comprehensive. Plus I was making it into a very good article. Why would you do that.


Okay I know that it hasn't been simple if your definition of simple is treating people like they are dum


Do you know how much hard work you have just erased. I thought you were amazing but you are not. Did you take the time to read it and then read the real English Wikipedia. You don't just do that. That was lazy and I am not done with the page. Does simplicity mean that people are to dum to understand primordial black holes. Have you ever heard of just asking. I personally feel like simple Wikipedia was Wikipedia but simpler and more fun


Anyways I'm sorry for venting out my frustrations on you, hope we can be friends because I'm very lonely. Reply and give your reasoning and I shall give counter reasoning and we will settle this like men. Thanks for reading again :)


Scientrifica (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive_33&oldid=9419281"